Carrera said:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=S2FGA3Z-oYM
"communism has been tried and tested, and it has failed."
Not really true. First and foremost, the vacuum bomb you see being tested in Russia (a deliverable weapon due to its smaller size) is really just part of the legacy of the USSR years when all this technology was developed. Putin himself admitted modern Russia would be nothing today were it not for the USSR legacy.
Beg to differ. The competitive creation of bombs is hardly a benchmark to measure the success of a system of society/government.
Carrera said:
Lenin, for all his faults, transformed a backward, peasant/worker community into a superpower - one that by the admission of ****** was more powerful than Germany (in spite of the purges and blunders). The trouble was much of the USSR advancement was in the military/science field and there was a huge neglect of consumer economics.
Um...if you focus nearly all the resources of your country of 200+million on engineering, science, rockets, bombs, missiles and other armaments, you are going to do pretty well on the world superpower ratings. America has done OK on this score as well. But it doesn't reflect the worthiness of the system. Time took care of making that ultimate judgment.
Carerra said:
Having lived there, I can tell you standing in a queue for stringy sausages did tend to fall sour towards the end. This was the problem - education was better than in the west but living standards were too low.
I never lived there but consumer economics and living standards weren't just low IMO. They were pitiful. Not even worth comparing to the West. The country had to seal its borders to prevent citizen escape. The people were protected from the truth and spun lies. A high percentage of the country was wallowing in alcoholism.
Carerra said:
Also, Moscow gave away way too much resources to other countries with the idea of making communism global.
Um..I think that America was up there on that count with loans to developing countries, the World Bank, The UN etc. Furthermore it is a contradictory argument to say that the USSR's excessive investments in global communism contributed towards the failure of global communism.
Carerra said:
Therefore, do I believe we'd all be better off under Soviet Communism? The answer is negative. I think Communism in Russia needed to be reformed and updated since obviously the world was a different one to the times of Dickens when workers were being exploited and inequality was rife in Europe.
You just displayed the whole problem in a nutshell. The supreme "State" couldn't even work out that times had changed between Marx's Dickensonian era and the late part of the 20th century. What chance did they have of crystal balling the future and allocating resources in a so-called "planned" society and future if they couldn't even complete that rudimentary analysis. It seems a classic rationalization to those hooked on the idea of communism in the past that it all failed because of little factors X, Y , or Z. You know, like the people who think that the Iraq war would have gone smashingly if we had have just sent 20,000 more troops initially.
Carerra said:
Maybe we'd have been looking at some of the ideas used in Sweden and maybe, to a point, Cuba. What Gorbachev hoped for was a kind of softened up communism with a free press and a liberal prosperous society. He failed, of course.
Look IMHO it failed because it goes against human nature. Human nature seeks betterment, competition, achievement and respect. In the communist society, this was channelled into hierarchy within the Communist Party. The State became a collection of elites. Its ultimate power on anything and everything corrupted it. Its a nice thought that everyone loves each other, and everyone works for the common good etc etc. It might work in a small commune of 20 like-minded people. But no matter which way you cut it, communism failed because it is not synergynistic with nature. That's the bottom line. And any Society that promotes based on connections and loyalty etc. rather than merit, ends up getting corrupted by a bunch of idiots like the USSR did. Brezhnev's coterie were a bunch of numbskulls.
Carerra said:
However, the last point is this: Without a plan you cannot have success, especially in cycling. If you don't ride to a structured set of principles and targets, you cannot reach your potential. It's the same in society. Either we continue with wild west markets with recessions, falling currencies and high crime, or we organise society to be run in the best way for the collective good - not just the good of a minority elite.
Let's also remember Einstein backed socialism as opposed capitalism and not only Einstein but possibly Plato as well.
Unfortunately, a progressive and functioning society, the economy, and predicting the future are much too hard of a task for a roomful of elites to work out. It isn't a training schedule for a simple cycling race season. Just look at all the countries who pumped money into creating their own "Silicon Valleys" in the late 90's. The market place and an open society has proved to be the most effective adaptive system for progress. It just berates some academics that it works better than if they were "controlling" it.
I am not one of those that thinks everything is evil concerning communism/socialism, as was brainwashed into most of the west over the last 60 years. But whilst it is a nice thought that people could all live happily together sharing equally in the fruits of society, it just doesn't work. And China has realized that, and done an about-face on communism, though retaining the undemocratic "State" in power. Communism in China is a joke. Its really just totalitarianism, with whatever system works best underneath, as long as it doesn't threaten those in power.
I believe a democratic, open society, with capitalistic underpinnings, a low safety net for those needing welfare, and a rock-solid constitution and independent judiciary and media are the best of a bad bunch of systems. Time is seemingly on my side here. I do think that government has a role to play as umpire, making sure corporations play by the rules, and protecting against cartels and monopolies. Also taking care of massive collective capital works beyond the scope of corporations as well as defense, and other infrastructure.