Could Russia return to Communism?

murphaph

I've been thinking recently about our current global situation. We are told we are entering the worst financial catastrophe in a century. If this is true and the workers of the world see their standard of living eroded to nothing, could we see a mass turning away from capitalism as a failed entity?

With this in mind I note that there have been recent riots in Moscow vis-a-vis 'the economy' and seeing as very many russians have living memory of communism when they had a guaranteed warm flat, job and 2 weeks holidays a year and now many of them are living in cold decrepit fleapits with hardly 2 pennies to rub together, could they conceivably opt for a return to 'simpler times'-hedge fund/derivates/futures/shorting/and generally stock market and bank free?

The ordinary russian people must feel quite angry that their great national resources have been sold out to a handful of oligarchs while they live in poverty and I can see the underpaid police and military siding with the underpaid workers in any mass movement (revolution!).

I believe that if Russia turns communist again it could set a precedent and perhaps the desperate scrambling we are seeing to get the economies of the world moving again so we can all return to buying trinkets and shiny things is proof that the powers that be are scared of something.

What's the alternative for the workers of the world? To be made redundant, then homeless, then die?

todolist

I hardly think a return to communism will happen in Russia.Does anyone still believe in an ideology that has lead to mass murder on an unparalleled scale in Russia,China,Cambodia.
Communism is an insane ideology that leads to disaster wherever it's been introduced.

edanto

While I think I know what you're getting at - it's hard to discuss it when using a word which has no useful meaning!!

Communism - obviously in the context of the authoritarian states (including the USSR), is a bad thing, whereas the essence of what you are suggesting (revolt against corporatism and taking wealth from the uber-rich) would seem to be equitable, just and therefore a good thing.

There is a chance that arguing over the meanings of common words like communism or rarer words like corporatism will completely derail this thread.

In case there's someone left on the planet that hasn't read Politics and the English Language by George Orwell, here's a quote about the connections between semantics and politics

Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable." The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides.

It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different.

Statements like Marshal Pétain was a true patriot, The Soviet press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution, are almost always made with intent to deceive. Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality.

I'm very grateful for todolist for jumping in above and giving me a little supporting material for this argument. He included China in a list of communist countries... but is China communist?

I mean of course they have a one party system and that party may or may not be called the Communist Party of China, but what is it about the Chinese way of government that makes it Communist todolist?

murphaph

@ todolist
Russia 2008:


Do you reckon that old lady thinks it was crazy in the bad old days when she didn't have to rummage in a bin for food? I'm not a leftie leaning student with anarchistic tendencies but something stinks with where we are today. Clearly there were major failings in the Soviet Union particularly under uncle Joe, but people get bumped off in multi-party democracies all the time.

Anyway, perhaps we shouldn't discuss the relative merits of capitalism-v-communism as it tends to go nowehere. Can we discuss the likelihood or otherwise of Russia tipping back towards Lenin et al?

todolist

China isn't a communist country now.It's a one party capitalist country.I meant under Mao it was communist and millions were murdered on an unparalleled industrial scale.

murphaph

todolist wrote: »

China isn't a communist country now.It's a one party capitalist country.I meant under Mao it was communist and millions were murdered on an unparalleled industrial scale.

The holocaust was murder on an industrial scale. China saw many people murdered. These things are agiven-nobody will debate whether or not lots of people 'disappeared' in communist and former communist states (like say, 'democratic' Brazil). China is perhaps the worst of both worlds! No real social infrastructure and no other party to vote for.

Mr.Micro

Both China and Russia have benefited enormously from the economic booms in the world for the last few years. China with GDP in range 10 to 15% and Russia huge wealth from oil, gas and raw materials. It is easy to think then that the communist type state that both are identified with is gone, but not so IMO. It is the economic prosperity that masks this at the minute. Both now are suffering a little with the downturn, Russia particularly with the huge drop in the oil price, and more problems and social unrest may ensue. Perhaps we will see then how tolerant the authorities are.


Only the other day there were riots in Vladivostock because of the downturn and handled roughly by the police. I did read somewhere that Russia has turned a bit more authoritarian in the last few years and that its press is totally bought, its parliament is a sham and people do not talk openly, a democracy in name only.

dresden8

murphaph wrote: »

@ todolist
Russia 2008:


Do you reckon that old lady thinks it was crazy in the bad old days when she didn't have to rummage in a bin for food? I'm not a leftie leaning student with anarchistic tendencies but something stinks with where we are today. Clearly there were major failings in the Soviet Union particularly under uncle Joe, but people get bumped off in multi-party democracies all the time.

Anyway, perhaps we shouldn't discuss the relative merits of capitalism-v-communism as it tends to go nowehere. Can we discuss the likelihood or otherwise of Russia tipping back towards Lenin et al?

I'm sure she'd be fucking delighted if Russia returned to communism. She wouldn't have to eat sh1t to survive.

That's what the free market economists won't dare admit. Russians are screwed. So are the westerners who bought into the market and thought they had a pension to live on.

The rich will be ok though.

Sucks to be taken for a sap.

edanto

murphaph wrote: »

Can we discuss the likelihood or otherwise of Russia tipping back towards Lenin et al?

I would like to, but I just don't know enough about Russia, the current political situation, the big influencers in society etc, so I'd have to just leave it at "I don't know".

todolist wrote:

I meant under Mao it was communist and millions were murdered on an unparalleled industrial scale.

I mean it's obvious that the reason he was a murderous bastard was because he was a communist. duh. He was probably a vegetarian like Hitler too. Hate those vegetarians and their ideologies. <sarcastic smilie>

I guess what I'm trying to say to you is that it's overly simplistic to say that a particular ideology in itself is 'failed' or 'bad' as it always comes down to the details.

It is easy to think then that the communist type state that both are identified with is gone, but not so IMO.

China is not communist. China is authoritarian capitalist. When combined, the ideologies of absolute control and market driven economics are absolutely ruthless. Here is some more reading.

I don't know what level of democracy that there is in Russia or how widespread use of the web is. If it is as unfettered as it in the US, it's possible that someone with the economic positions and grassroots support of Chavez/Obama could emerge as a leader, but that is nothing more than a guess - or more like a hope.

I'd love it if socialist governments would emerge everywhere to try and clean up the mess that unfettered capitalism has made of the world.

Mr.Micro

There was series on BBC2 there recently with Jonathan Dimbleby travelling across Russia. It was facinating IMO, such a vast country and the diversity of the peoples is enormous. One common thread though was, nearly all wanted to see Russia great again and that they were more interested in having jobs, money and all 3 were more important than democracy, as they believed that's a luxury down the line. Hugely nationalistic a common factor.

Frankie Lee

Russia was never great, before the Bolshevik revolution Russia was a third world country,

Only for a few years around the time revolution had it any true forms of socialism (e.g workers councils etc.). This was then quashed as Lenin and Trotsky consoidated their power.

What Russia had under Lenin & Trotsky was a form of State Capitalism which was described as communism. This was a brutal regime no doubt with a lot of corruption in the upper echelons of power however as the op points out the average living conditions of the poor were not as bad.

Sand

That woman wouldnt fare any better in a communist Russia. Theres people in North Korea living in a communist regime who dream of having bins to find food in. Shes a victim of a quasi-totalarian government that completely disregards individuals and their personal freedoms. They print their money based on oil, and simply have no interest in representing people like her.

murphaph

Of coure N. Korea has few natural resources and exports nothing, so there's little to eat. Russia is resource rich and exports a large percentage of the world's energy and raw materials. I suggest she did and would fare better in a Russia where all industry and resources were once again controlled by the state.

Cow Moolester

murphaph wrote: »

@ todolist
Russia 2008:


Do you reckon that old lady thinks it was crazy in the bad old days when she didn't have to rummage in a bin for food? I'm not a leftie leaning student with anarchistic tendencies but something stinks with where we are today. Clearly there were major failings in the Soviet Union particularly under uncle Joe, but people get bumped off in multi-party democracies all the time.

Anyway, perhaps we shouldn't discuss the relative merits of capitalism-v-communism as it tends to go nowehere. Can we discuss the likelihood or otherwise of Russia tipping back towards Lenin et al?

How do you know she benefited from communist Russia? That picture is so vague..I could do the exact same thing.


Yes..an old man begging for money. He would have fared much better back before Ireland joined the EU

Fallen Buckshot

Cow Moolester wrote: »

How do you know she benefited from communist Russia? That picture is so vague..I could do the exact same thing.


Yes..an old man begging for money. He would have fared much better back before Ireland joined the EU

holy ****e thats the king of all neckbeards

lmtduffy

I would say no,

The Russian government is all about capitalism and profit, and when convenient its about making russia great again.

The wealth is vastly concentrated in the hands of a minority, and any actions by the government will be to benefit these wealthy few and will be a bonus if it looks like its of the states benefit.

The government have no will to turn back to communism, and I dont believe the people do either, they're making very little noise with regards to the censored media, authoritarian government and centralising of most of the governments power to the presidency which putin is likely to take up again once the current guys term is up.

The people arent making noise about these things because they are the sacrifice they are willing to make to secure their own wealth, the Russian government is cutting corners in order to succeed and the majority of the citizens are cool with that to a point.

Mr.Micro

Maybe Russia will return as this poll is a stark warning...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7798497.stm

todolist

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Maybe Russia will return as this poll is a stark warning...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7798497.stm

Voting for a mass murderer and a psychopath.Oh dear,poor old Russia.

Amazotheamazing

If Communism was workable, Russia would still be communist. They didn't give up on it because it was too successful.

asdasd

I suggest she did and would fare better in a Russia where all industry and resources were once again controlled by the state.

Controlling the commanding heights of the economy in a resource heavy state is common, and possible, and maybe even desirable in capitalist states - not one of which has a State with zero% of GDP.

The labour party wanted the same for the UK. It wasnt communist. Mexico controls it's oil. So does Norway. It is not communist.

I think the State should control resources, although it may need the expertise of private companies to originally explore for resources.

Communism is something else, everybody earning the same. To do that you cannot have a market econmy at all, even a small one, as a succesful small businessman, or better trained worker competing for a job, or any small business - can be more succesful than other people selling their goods, or labour, in a free market. Lenin and Stalin realised this. Every singe Marxist on the planet agreed with them at the time, and demur now.

In the UK, for instance, 24 million people are employed in small businesses ( 15 people or less). That is far more than the State ( the biggest single employer) and many of these businesses will fail in the next year - but, due to the enrepeneurialism of the British population - many more will succeed ( and will cause the success) of the British economy once the recession, and credit crunch ends.

Not only is this system much more economically succesful, it is far more moral, far more interesting, far more human, a far better way to live than being employee number 108,912 in the local potash factory. It is also free while communist States had to imprison their citizens behind walls, in case they see the much better societies of the West.

Nothing stops capitalist societies from keeping the poor from the breadline - the poor in capitalist countries with social programs live lives expoentially better than all citizens in Cuba, North Korea, or the old Soviet Union.

And why, oh why, dont we ever see the apologists for communism emigrate to communist States? People leave ireland for everywhere else - Europe, South America, the US, Canada, Australa. All capitalist.

The West is crawling with pro-communists who just wont emigrate to communist states, no matter how we offer to pay their way. Would they please just shag off to the paradises they demand for everyone else, and leave us in peace?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

marco murphy

todolist wrote: »

I hardly think a return to communism will happen in Russia.Does anyone still believe in an ideology that has lead to mass murder on an unparalleled scale in Russia,China,Cambodia.
Communism is an insane ideology that leads to disaster wherever it's been introduced.

Capatalism is responsible for more deaths than all Communist regimes put together.

And why, oh why, dont we ever see the apologists for communism emigrate to communist States?

Give us a list of Communist states.
Also, why would a person wishing to see Communism in his or her homeland want to emigrate and dump that objective?

If Communism was workable, Russia would still be communist. They didn't give up on it because it was too successful.

They didn't ''give up on it''.

Why don't people go away and read about it instead of making silly assumptions?
According to the logic of most posters on this thread Communism = Industrial killing.

sceptre

Perestroika wrote: »

Capatalism is responsible for more deaths than all Communist regimes put together.

Of course it is. There are more capitalists than communists, always have been, and they've been around longer.

Sand

Of course it is. There are more capitalists than communists, always have been, and they've been around longer.

All credit to the communists though, theyre new kids on the historical block, but christ, when they get into power they really know how to run an old fashioned genocide.

According to the logic of most posters on this thread Communism = Industrial killing.

Thats how things tend to pan out. Pol Pot. Stalin. Lenin. The two Kims. Various Eastern European, African, Asian and Latin American regimes. We arent talking an all star list of humanitarians here.

Maybe you could counter with a list of communist regimes and leaders that we can all admire? Maybe the ones that are just criminally incompetent or blinded by idealogy as opposed to being purely malicious?

Also, why would a person wishing to see Communism in his or her homeland want to emigrate and dump that objective?

Why would anyone flee a horrific regime for a better life abroad? Countless people do it every day. The inescapable truth is a lot of people in liberal democratic capitalist society love the "idea" of communism, but are terrified of the reality of it. With good reason.

Russia isnt going to return to communism anyway. It will move further into totalarian nationalism but communism is merely a memory. Some Russians might like the "idea" of it, but what they think stopped being important a few years ago. I remember reading a discussion on Russian reaction to the election of Obama on another forum. Posters were linking to Russian newspaper articles where the whole process of democratic elections, accountability and so on were ridiculed and mocked by the Russian versions of The Sun or whatever. As one poster there put it "Jesus, they arent even pretending to be democratic anymore".

the_syco

murphaph wrote: »

The ordinary russian people must feel quite angry that their great national resources have been sold out to a handful of oligarchs while they live in poverty and I can see the underpaid police and military siding with the underpaid workers in any mass movement (revolution!).

Are you talking about the oil companies? IIRC, most of the big Russian oil companies were nationalised, it's owners sentenced to jail for stupid reasons, and the money spent on military hardware...

cendant

Guys, By your comments I gather none of you is Russian? You seem to be quite intelligent and knowledgable.

No, most people in Russia do not want communism back. They simply miss the good things that were in the Soviet Union (jobs, excellent free education, good health care system)

By the way, the minimum paid holiday was 24 days, not two weeks. My mum as a teacher got three months paid holiday in the summer (unfortunately, the money was not great and she was forced to work in children's summer reacreation camps)

Akrasia

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Only the other day there were riots in Vladivostock because of the downturn and handled roughly by the police. I did read somewhere that Russia has turned a bit more authoritarian in the last few years and that its press is totally bought, its parliament is a sham and people do not talk openly, a democracy in name only.

I read a journal somewhere a few years ago that compared the content and rhetoric in the corrupt totalitarian press of communist russa with the 'free and democratic' press in the united states. The paper showed an almost identical level of bias and propaganda from both sides.

Mr.Micro

Akrasia wrote: »

I read a journal somewhere a few years ago that compared the content and rhetoric in the corrupt totalitarian press of communist russa with the 'free and democratic' press in the united states. The paper showed an almost identical level of bias and propaganda from both sides.

I would not dispute that for a moment. The press will always pander to its masters and is usually owned as we all know by media moguls, usually ultra conservative, not the sorts who believe in equality but in control. It is no different in Russia I guess.

cendant

Exactly.

Although there is a difference: we have lived through the dark times and we see when we are lied to. People in Russia are not that stupid and trusting any more.

At the same time the Americans take everything their government tells them for granted. So naive.

From what my friends living in the USA told me and from other sources, I think the Americans did not defeat the communism, but the communism has defeated them.

The USA these days are like the Soviet Union in 60-70s. Of course, they are significantly richer, but they are making exactly the same mistakes (even worse).

Welcome to the USSR 2

cendant

BTW, why do you believe that we had communism in Russia?

It was never the case. We had a socialist, one-party society with ineffective economy and corrupt old bureaucrats who lead the country into the limbo.

My childhood was great: good food, great school years, lots of travel and experiences. The poverty and hardship arrived in 1980s when the as**** Gorbachev started to make changes without thinking.

edanto

cendant wrote: »

I think the Americans did not defeat the communism, but the communism has defeated them.

The USA these days are like the Soviet Union in 60-70s. Of course, they are significantly richer, but they are making exactly the same mistakes (even worse).

Welcome to the USSR 2

Interesting point. On considerations - I s'pose the US of A has some characteristics of a totalitarian regime a lá Soviet Union in 60-70s. Very tenuous links though, can you build them?

I find the whole thing a lot more interesting if you stay away from words like communism though and just watch the money.

Watch the money.

cendant

Or rather, smell the money

RiverWilde

Communism or Capitalism have nothing to do with the citizen and everything to do with power. The reason capitalism has worked thus far is that the citizen in general gets a better shot at life than the poor devil under communism. If someone came up with a system called Advanced Tiddlywinks and it allowed the oligarchs in western society to retain power they'd probably accept it.

Since world war II western democracies have seen a large increase in people with access to decent education - the days are largely gone where the local cleric or politican can stand up and tell the people what to do and think. This leaves those in power with a bit of a conundrum - in that, they have to deliver - unlike countries with overtly totalitarian systems, the govt. can't just roll out the tanks - China anyone? - and shoot anyone asking awkward questions.

Despite the flaws in the system of communism as implemented in Russia - the tenets of communism are sound. Why should 10% of the population of a society have 80% or 90% of the wealth?

At least in Europe there is a socialist underpinning to most governments - for the moment - you won't starve. I wouldn't like to be broke and living in the United States.

Riv

cendant

I am not very good at debating

It is hard to know what is wrong with the modern States (once the country of freedom), you can only feel it. A tangling sensation that something is terribly amiss. Call it the sixth sense of a seasoned pessimist. 2009-2010 will be tough for the poor guys there.

* the Republic is no more

the founders of the American republic warned their new folks that the USA must not to become a democracy. Read the Declaration - not a word about the democracy. Democracy can be easily abused - that happened to the Soviets.

"Soviet" is in fact "Совет" in Russian. It means a board of people who make democratic decisions together. It worked great in the beginning, but then it started to stagnate. People made decisions based on what their leaders told them to do. Then the leaders started to make decision and the rest only had to raise their hands - or else. The leaders became worse and worse.

Reminds me of the hard-core belief by the Americans that they make decisions in the country, not their riches. Ha-ha

* excessive law power - at the power of corrupt judges and greedy attorneys

Laws are so complicated and tangled that judges do not allow people to use the Constitution or the real legislation in defense. We had the same - Stalin's constitution was probably the most humane in that world, the laws were honest, but you could not use them in court.

* Total control over minds and thoughts of their citizens.

We had greater freedom. At least, the KGB tapped the dissidents' phones only, they did not use systems like Echelon. We could live without SSNs (absolute control of your money, your education, your travel, your purchases) - the people in the States are like SKUs in komplett.ie!


* ICS is a racketeering organisation


* Welfare system is a pyramid

Working people are in fact sponsoring the pensioners, their money is not used for their pensions. If they are lucky, their pensions will be paid by the working people in their future, but is that guaranteed?


* they have lost their rights in exchange for privileges


* political correctness has become a total misconception

One step from the ranks - and you are told off by the world. Or imprisoned. Or fired.

No freedom of speech, no freedom of religion in the modern States.


* Elections are a farсe

Not only do they resemble the zoo of the elections of the Communist Party's leader, they also show that there is only one party at power in the States - the party of the rich.


* Two parties - one ideology.

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

“The difference between Democrats and Republicans is: Democrats have accepted some ideas of Socialism cheerfully, while Republicans have accepted them reluctantly” (Norman Thomas)

I strongly agree


* the novel "1984" was not written with the Soviet Russia in mind

Oh no. It was a warning to a country that uses totalitarian rule of propaganda, censorship, secret police and rights restriction.

All the Oceania's principles are visible and applicable in the American political life these days and it seems Obama is not willing to change that.

cendant

So, what is common with the Soviet Union and the modern USA:

USSR: KGB
USA: CIA, FBI, DHS and IRS


USSR: squealing and delation (encouraged by the government but hated by most people, not on a grand scale)
USA: squealing and delation (cultured from childhood and total)

USSR: spying on citizens (limited) and repressions (mostly during Stalin's rule)
USA: total and unlimited spying on citizens by Big Brother and arrests of "potential" "terrorists"

USSR: all are equal, but a few are more equal than others
USA: egalitarianism

USSR: general line of the Communist party
USA: political correctness, any nonconformity is illegal

USSR: corrupt power
USA: corrupt power

USSR: secret police raids (only during Stalin's rule)
USA: ultimate rights for the federal agencies, drag-nets and confiscation, real laws are totally ignored, citizen's freedoms are spat on

USSR: censored press, all media is subordinate to the central power
USA: independent press is NOT, it is a weapon of mass propaganda and is under severe censorship

USSR: socialistic education
USA: education which is controlled by the government and which does not raise free and independent citizens


USSR: Communist slogans about "bright future" in the greatest country of the world
USA: non-stop glorification of the greatest country in the world, slogans


USSR: the end justifies the means
USA: the end justifies the means

Mr_Anon

As human society progresses, things become more and more equal. The gap between the higher and lower classes decreases. The feudal system was replaced with our class system, a communist society is the the final stage in this progression of human society towards equality. No class of person. No inequality.

In our society the working class spend their low wage on basic necessities for life where this expenditure goes towards the profit of the burgeoise (middle class people). The burgeoise generates wealth where the working class are stuck in the same struggle for survival when the middle class live in luxury at the expense of the working class.

Communism removes this inequality. Everyone plays their part towards society with nobody being rewarded more than others. A central government distributes the wealth equally throughout the people. the economy of the country grows from the work of the people with no wealth going into a private pocket.

This is communism in its greatest form but would be very hard to achieve as there will always be people who want more than others. They wont accept being equal.

The USSR collapsed because of pressure from the USA and other capitalist countries. Should Russia and the other republics of the USSR return to communism, trade with china and other countries which are sympathetic to the socialist revolution would aid the success of communism.

Globalisation increases the risk of recession in the capitalist countries as anyone who knows about chaos theory will be aware of. Countries will grow tired of recession and the capitalist system will fail as did the feudal system before it. The working class will grow tired eventually of the inequalities and the socialist revolutuion will begin again but on a much larger scale

Cow Moolester

Cow Moolester wrote: »

How do you know she benefited from communist Russia? That picture is so vague..I could do the exact same thing.


Yes..an old man begging for money. He would have fared much better back before Ireland joined the EU

Forced to eat Burger King...I'd rather be the woman eating out of the bin!



Zing!

asdasd

Communism removes this inequality. Everyone plays their part towards society with nobody being rewarded more than others. A central government distributes the wealth equally throughout the people. the economy of the country grows from the work of the people with no wealth going into a private pocket.

Fantastic. We are back to centralized planning!!!

asdasd

Why should 10% of the population of a society have 80% or 90% of the wealth?

why should Ronaldo earn more than you? Maybe he is better footballer.


These debates are nonsensical anyway. Communism does not work. People do not want to work for the other guy. We can tax the very rich in Western Democracies without making the guy working 50 hours a week, or the very skilled guy, or the guy who set up the Computer company whose computer I am using to write this missive earn as much as the loaf in the public sector.

We dont want to earn the same. We want to do better.

Even the freaking public service is full of demarcations. Lets try out communism in the PS. Pay the consultants - who are overpaid - the same as the cleaners. Lets see if we get worse consultants and better cleaners.

Liam Byrne

todolist wrote: »

Does anyone still believe in an ideology that has lead to mass murder on an unparalleled scale in Russia,China,Cambodia.

As distinct from an ideology that has led to mass murder in Iraq ?

Wouldn't be in favour of any form of Communism, but some form of socialism would make a nice change to the current worldwide rat-race..

djpbarry

Mr_Anon wrote: »

In our society the working class spend their low wage on basic necessities for life where this expenditure goes towards the profit of the burgeoise (middle class people). The burgeoise generates wealth where the working class are stuck in the same struggle for survival when the middle class live in luxury at the expense of the working class.

Bollocks.

You trying to tell me that someone who is brought up in an “underprivileged” environment is doomed to spending the rest of their life working menial jobs for peanuts?

I can’t stand this “working class – middle class” nonsense that people come out with – it’s so bloody patronising.

Mr_Anon wrote: »

This is communism in its greatest form but would be very hard to achieve as there will always be people who want more than others. They wont accept being equal.

Why should they? Why should I be forced to accept the same standard of living as the lazy bastard down the street who just about manages to drag his ass out of bed once a week to collect his social welfare allowance? I work harder than he does, therefore I feel I am entitled to a better standard of living.

Mr_Anon wrote: »

Globalisation increases the risk of recession in the capitalist countries as anyone who knows about chaos theory will be aware of.

So there would be a lower risk of recession in Ireland were we to remain outside the EU?

Iwasfrozen

@Mr_Anon I know you're new around here but word to the wise, Necroing threads is not the way to make friends around here.

Dannyboy83

Most interesting thread on the board for furkin ages.

Mr_Anon

djpbarry wrote: »

Bollocks.

Why should they? Why should I be forced to accept the same standard of living as the lazy bastard down the street who just about manages to drag his ass out of bed once a week to collect his social welfare allowance? I work harder than he does, therefore I feel I am entitled to a better standard of living.

So there would be a lower risk of recession in Ireland were we to remain outside the EU?

in communism there is no welfare allowance. If u do not work u dont get paid. simple as. That not fair?

Forming trade blocks like the EU is not what i meant. I meant the connecting of markets by computers makes them more reliable on each other, one fails the all crash.

@ asdasd
The man who makes a simple loaf of bread can last longer without the consultant than the consultant can without the breadman

BroomBurner

Mr_Anon wrote: »

in communism there is no welfare allowance. If u do not work u dont get paid. simple as. That not fair?

Forming trade blocks like the EU is not what i meant. I meant the connecting of markets by computers makes them more reliable on each other, one fails the all crash.

@ asdasd
The man who makes a simple loaf of bread can last longer without the consultant than the consultant can without the breadman

In communist countried, there is no unemployment. There are job-seekers, but no unemployment. That way, they have full employment to rally the troops with, to tell everyone how great they're doing.

I would be all for a more socialist leaning government, akin to the Scandinavian countries, but no way in any hell would I vote, democratically, for a communist government. It would be the last democractic vote I would ever be entitled to.

As for Russia, it is so easy to remember having a flat, etc. but also very easy to forget the gulags, the misery, the threat of "disappearing", or being killed, your neighbours informing on you, your life never allowed to follow it's own path, having to do exactly what's already laid out for you.

Yeah, it's easy to be nostalgic when you can forget the rest of it.

Mr_Anon

BroomBurner wrote: »

As for Russia, it is so easy to remember having a flat, etc. but also very easy to forget the gulags, the misery, the threat of "disappearing", or being killed, your neighbours informing on you, your life never allowed to follow it's own path, having to do exactly what's already laid out for you.

communism in Russia was far from perfect. gulags maybe not a good idea. A new form of communism would learn from history would it not? and move towards perfection.

A new form of communism would perhaps differ from communism so much it could not be called communism. Maybe another form of socialism. I just think total equality will come about one way or another, and total eqaulity was the aim of communism

"I am not a marxist" <Karl Marx

ionix5891

Mr_Anon wrote: »

communism in Russia was far from perfect. gulags maybe not a good idea. A new form of communism would learn from history would it not? and move towards perfection.

A new form of communism would perhaps differ from communism so much it could not be called communism. Maybe another form of socialism. I just think total equality will come about one way or another, and total eqaulity was the aim of communism

"I am not a marxist" <Karl Marx

none of the commenter's here have been to or spend any time Russia have they? cause I tell you one thing beside the very old pensioners who did have it much better in the "olde" days, most of the younger generations have embraced capitalism to the levels that would make us Irish seem "socialist"

if anything the country will slide into a dictatorship (some say its already there), actually it one place i wont be returning too, the latest surge in nazi nationalist/xenophobia makes the place very unsafe for foreigners

turgon

Mr_Anon wrote: »

gulags maybe not a good idea

Maybe not a good idea? Are you for real?

djpbarry

Mr_Anon wrote: »

in communism there is no welfare allowance. If u do not work u dont get paid. simple as. That not fair?

And no matter how hard you work, or no matter how good you are at your work, you still get paid the same as the worst worker. Is that fair? I don't think so.

Mr_Anon wrote: »

Forming trade blocks like the EU is not what i meant. I meant the connecting of markets by computers makes them more reliable on each other, one fails the all crash.

Really? So if the Irish economy crashes, the entire global economy goes with it? Interesting...

Mr_Anon

djpbarry wrote: »

Really? So if the Irish economy crashes, the entire global economy goes with it? Interesting...

Not what i meant. i meant that they will all be affected. And because ireland relies heavily on foreign investors, if the irish economy fails then those investors are affected and this has a domino effect back in their homes.

djpbarry

Mr_Anon wrote: »

Not what i meant. i meant that they will all be affected.

But you used the word "crash". That doesn't mean "affected" (sic), that means crash. You’re shifting the goalposts.

And you still haven't answered my question about your "working class".