The Communist State

[gmc]

Scrat;584346 wrote: Really? Strange notions?

"They let all of the sailors leave before they set off the charges"

Let's pick this apart.

Just what are you saying? They wouldn't have let all of the sailors leave? Add to this the fact that explosives were not used as they had been confiscated by the British authorities. The scuttled the ships by busting the seacocks with sledgehammers and removing the condenser inlet valves mainly, every other way to let seawater in that was available also.

Do you really think the British Navy was going to allow German battleships in Scapa Flow ARMED? Not with those Krupp guns.

They wouldn't have let all of the sailors leave?

Do you really think the Germans were not fully prepared to evacuate those ships? Keep in mind, they all had skeleton crews on them also.

YOU seem to have some strange notions of what actually went on. :yh_rotfl

I'm going to read some of what you put up as I have not seen some of it before.


Yeah I read about the German Navy in WWI and the social upheavel they experienced. They (the German officers) scuttled the German fleet in Scapa Flow? Good to know that the western governments will so readily slaughter their own people though. Really just one set of masters protecting their turf from another set who aspires to be on top. Really, what in the hell is the difference?


The way you put it rather implied the german officers slaughtered their own sailors. Or rather i took it that way My misinterpretation of what you meant, I think.

Rear-Admiral Ludwig von Reuter was given command of this force and used Friedrich der Grosse as his flag ship. Apart from the unpleasant task of surrendering a powerful undefeated fleet he also had major problems with his men, many of whom were mutinous with communist tendencies and he had to ensure that his fleet was disarmed.

[gmc]

This was in referrence to your statement about the troops and tanks in the streets. This type of oppression is something that really gets my goat. It should have been corrected but was forgotten.


It wasn't forgotten-and you will note they refrained from actually using the troops but I will refrain from going way off topic. You should have a look at American history of the same period as you went from a mainly agrarian economy to an industrial one.

But that is off topic:o

[BTS]

Scrat;570696 wrote:

At least Castro takes personal responsibility for his actions.


Show me SKEERaT this fact u state,,,,,,,,,,,,,

"Castro takes personal responsibility for his actions"



DO u know his (Castros) actions?

If NOt, I will show you a few (SMOOTH ones)........

Just ask... and I shall show !!!!!!!

[gmc]

This was in reference to your statement about the troops and tanks in the streets. This type of oppression is something that really gets my goat. It should have been corrected but was forgotten.


It's been a long time since any UK gov. has dared to even contemplate using armed troops to control a demonstration or curb protest by force.

But then extremists, both religious and political, only succeed when the path to political reform is blocked and the gulf between the haves and have nots is immense with no prospect of bridging it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

I remember watching this at the time and finding it hard to believe that unarmed demonstrators could be shot without widespread outrage that anyone could contemplate using armed troops in the first place in a free country where the right to protest is a given-or rather a taken. There were widespread riots throughout western Europe at the time as well-not just about vietnam, as it happens,but no troops on the street opening fire on demonstrators. - so far as I am aware.

I still think you have a romanticized notion about the communist state in russia and stalin in particular. Things would have been very different if Stalin hadn't set out to crush the nationalists movements in the ukraine and elsewhere. The way the russian communists went about things set of a train of events that still affect us today. Russian communists were not as isolated as you think and they certainly saw themselves as leaders in a world wide movement.

[uv_lightmyway]

I once fell in love with a communist. That didn't work...she would take my paycheck and distribute it equally among her friends, and then told me to get back to work because it was good for our morale.

[gmc]

uv_lightmyway;585854 wrote: I once fell in love with a communist. That didn't work...she would take my paycheck and distribute it equally among her friends, and then told me to get back to work because it was good for our morale.


Got a question for you-pinched a bit from another thread hope you don't mind but it does kind of go to the heart of what is govt for.

As for political party, I would not worry so much about that if you are unaffiliated. The important thing to do is to look at each candidate's positions and determine how you feel about them. There are pro-life democrats, there are Republicans who are for environmental conservation, ect. To pidgeon-hole yourself into a party is limiting. That's particularly why I am an indie. I value social/individual freedoms, and I like fiscal restraint, but I have a bit of a populist streak in me as well - I do believe strongly in helping out those less fortunate. I am against the war in Iraq, but I also do believe we need a strong national defense. I wish we still made things in America (coming from a struggling rust belt city in Western New York, I have seen what the decline in a strong manufacturing base has done to our citizens).




I live in one of the most heavily industrialised areas on the planet, coal, steel, manufacturing. But In the UK,but we have lost all our heavy industry because it could no longer compete, mass unemployment , social unrest etc but one of the functions of govt in the UK is to help regenerate the economy in those areas by encouraging inward investment etc. Parties that don't see that as part of their function tend not to get elected or remain elected. Thee EEC regional fund also poured in money. So people have dusted themselves off and gone on to new things and new industry has come in but govt played an important part in that process. Economy is booming again lots of diverse industry with large numbers of small businesses and a fascinating sideline in industrial archaeology. I'm surrounded by disused railways, quarries, coal and shale mine bings

Hand up rather than a hand out. It's not charity or helping the less fortunate but what people have a right to expect from govt.

Do you think it should be a function of government to help regenerate areas like western new york? Or do you think that smacks of communism? If govt does nothing for you why support it?

[uv_lightmyway]

Government does have a responsibility to create an environment that promotes economic growth, no doubt. If New York State corporate/business taxes are too high, then businesses will move out, and the economy will suffer. To create the right environment, the government has to keep its hands off the free market as much as possible - I guess there has to be a regulatory body that protects from the dangers of price gouging, collusion, corruption, ect. But the free market is an engine which cannot be suffocated and government intrusion on the free market throws a wrench in the works.

As for how it pertains to the workers, the government does not owe them a livelihood. It simply exists to allow that opportunity, to create the environment for that opportunity. As long as workers stay competitive to the market (ie. typerwriter technicians learn new trades as theirs becomes obsolete), they will be able find a job. This is the way it should be. My issue is with the manufacturing base in America:

We have either:

1. shipped many manufacturing jobs to foreign countries because the opportunity cost of production is too high. After all, why pay a marginal cost of $150 to manufacture a television when you can do it in Japan or Korea for $40.

2. technology has outmoded these jobs. Robots manufacture cars these days...not much you can do about that...it's part a growing economy.

The second one is unavoidable. But it has not affected job growth...as jobs are phased out, other ones open - the issue is the shift - we go from a manufacturing/industrial to a commercial/service economy (more desk jobs, fewer assembly line jobs). And unfortunately that means that, unlike in the 1960s and 1970s, where a guy could go right from high school and go work at the Ford plant in WNY and make a pretty decent living...well, that just doesn't exist anymore. That guy needs to educate himself and aquire skills to compete in the marketplace.

The second is an unavoidable offshoot of a growing economy - technology improvement increases opportunity for production (remember the supply/demand charts from economics class?). With technology, we can manufacture more, cheaper, faster. And it hasn't hit employments rates too terribly in the United States. The first one is trickier...these jobs leaving the country does in no way help our economy grow, I feel. but that is the trade-off when you open your economy globally.

[uv_lightmyway]

And that is the biggest problem with communism. There is no incentive to keep the economy in anything but a stasis - there is no incentive for growth. With no rewards for inovation or invention, why would someone even bother?

[gmc]

posted by scrat

I know Communism as Lenin and the Bolsheviks envisioned it is not workable. The human condition simply will not support it in the pure form. I don't believe the SU was ever Communist it that sense, highly socialized with a highly controled centralized economy.

Certain aspects of the SU worked very well, they rebuilt their country after WWII and put a man in space, not to mention the first satelite ever launched, really are you saying all of this is bad? The reconstruction after the war took 20 years but they did it.


i think essentially we agree but are tripping up over semantics perhaps. (you are a foreigner after all:D ) Lenin and stalin gave it a new peculiarly russian twist. There is nothing romantic about and perhaps it was essentially pragmatic in the russian context but it's a moot point whether the excesses of stalin hindered or helped the process. best left to russians to make up their own mind.

At it's heart communism is essentially middle class paternalism with the better informed communist helping his fellow workers to freedom so long as they interpreted that the same way as the communist did. In other words you would swop one set of masters for another which is a flaw that most politically aware peoples in democratic countries saw straight through to. Russia and China were not democracies revolution was the only option open.

Posted by scrat

I look at the west, I see corruption on epic scales. I see people living in poverty in unimaginable conditions, people in the Phillipines live in graveyards and garbage dumps. I see here in Seattle the inability of the "democratic" system to make a decision to **** their collective pants when they are on fire. At least in the SU if they needed a bridge they could build it.




Depends where you look. Things move on, it's not an all or nothing scenario you can take some bits from socialist ideas and marry them with other political ideas. Here it's a given that one of the functions of govt is to help people out of poverty. That's not communism it's just acceptance that people have the right to demand govt do things for them. Same with socialised medicine. we got that back in 1947 because the voters at the time weren't going to settle for anything less. Most still won't which is one reason why new labour is getting in to trouble. they're not doing what they were elected to do and people are getting fed up IMO.

Liberal democracy has always been about checks and balances-especially checks on the power of those who would rule. As soon as you accept you don't have the right to complain and criticise or to tell govt what you want them to do you are heading up sh*T creek without a paddle. Not perfect but anyone who says they can fix it or knows a better way you should worry about.

posted by uv_lightmyway

And that is the biggest problem with communism. There is no incentive to keep the economy in anything but a stasis - there is no incentive for growth. With no rewards for inovation or invention, why would someone even bother?


For the good of all mankind like any utopian ideal. The biggest problem with communism is it leads eventually to totalitarianism unless it's leaders are prepared to allow dissent.

As for how it pertains to the workers, the government does not owe them a livelihood. It simply exists to allow that opportunity, to create the environment for that opportunity.


So how should it do it?

I feel. but that is the trade-off when you open your economy globally.


Now there's a thing. neither the US or the EU truly allow free trade, both act to defend industries often at the expense of others.-take steel for instance. GW acted to protect the US steel industry from foreign competition but protecting jobs in steel mills made their customer industries uncompetitive cos they had to pay more for the steel they were using. Both protect agriculture to the detriment of consumers in both. Free market economy is much talked about but little practised. IMO. But you do need to control companies and apply sanctions if they get carried away with themselves.

[gmc]

posted by scrat

Like I said, Stalin is seen as a mass murderer and an arch villain, in my eyes he was an ***hole supreme and pretty cold and seemingly ruthlessly demanding in his expectations.

BUT, if you look at Iraq you see the same thing in Saddam. We deposed Saddam and look at what we have caused. Don't forget either, we supported Saddam also in the beginning.


Like Hitler he was a man of his times and background. If you simply dismiss both as aberrations to the norm then history will repeat itself.

As to Saddam-yes I know how the west supported him and the shah of Iran. What is disappointing is how so many conveniently forget uncomfortable facts or dismiss them as not being relevant and keep repeating the same mistakes while managing to persuade so many to do the same and that those who remember are somehow unpatriotic and should keep their mouths shut.