[Julian658]

The point is the Soviets had a successful Space program so they had innovation. Yes it failed as a state, but I never said it successed as a state. It is what is known as a strawman.

Besides, SU was an authoritarian state. Pure Socialism could only work as a democracy as the people would need to regularly set the state agenda preventing it from failing.

SU was authoritarian because it is impossible to have socialism without an authoritarian government. You already admitted this in another thread when you stated individuals freedoms could be stripped for the good of the collective.

[Julian658]

The Soviets have never landed a man on the moon nor were they Communist. They also won all the firsts that mattered. But all I said was Socialism doesn't deter innovation and clearly it doesn't as Lenin and Stalin took Russia from a shithole to a superpower in a few Decades so he is wrong and I am right. The only thing you need to innovate is the means, education and desire to do so. If Capital was needed at all, we would have never got out of the hunter gatherer age.

Socialism may do ok at the onset and then it fizzles out. As of 2019 Cuba allows private property rights and businesses. China adopted capitalism and prospered. You are living in a deep echo chamber.

[ckaihatsu]

That is an utopia that can only be realized when capitalism has crated redundant wealth. That does not happen by singing John Lennon's Imagine.

Okay, I'm turning off my karaoke machine *right now* -- ! (grin)

It's actually *debatable* as to how early socialist- / communist-type social relations could have begun, historically. You're contending that there would have to be a *material surplus*. Interestingly Marxists call the pre-class / pre-surplus hunter-gatherer portion of human history to be that of 'primitive communism', meaning that there was no social stratification, so maybe, in reality, we've just been experiencing a 10,000-year *aberration* of material-surplus-skewing class society, from our 'natural' state, though I wouldn't argue in this way myself.

What else ya got?

[B0ycey]

SU was authoritarian because it is impossible to have socialism without an authoritarian government. You already admitted this in another thread when you stated individuals freedoms could be stripped for the good of the collective.

I have explained that any laws restricts freedom. It is the social contract that you claim is authoritarian not Socialism which is an economic not political model in any case. And I have explained that a democratically elected Socialism mandate cannot be by definition authoritarian as you are fulfiling the will of the people. It isn't my fault you cannot grasp simple logic and I cannot get though to you. Perhaps I need @Unthinking Majority you paraphrase it for me so you can understand.

[Tainari88]

Socialism works. You get workers to own the means of production and it survives hard economic times. Despite conventional capitalist models that hate democratic economic models that make workers equal partners and equal investors in their own labor enterprises.

Richard Wolff points out this corporation owned by a cooperative of workers in Spain as a model you can replicate all over the world and it is happening now. It won't collapse because the workers are not exploited and are an integral part of all decision making in a democratic format.

It will work. It just gives rid of top-heavy management and it makes the worker the power figure and it is about democracy in the workplace. That is what will work. Not pies in the sky. Or Mafia-style oligarchs from a collapsed Soviet model.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Mondrag ... dR8WlM-jTM


Here @noemon I like Wolff's model he is a Marxist economics professor and he studies models of socialist cooperatives that work.

@B0ycey mentioned it. Democratic models for workers at their workplace. No exclusive control over their labor or products. Total control in a democratic model. The reason the neoliberals don't want voting even though they have it dismantled with corporate money buying them off and making them anti-democratic corrupt sellouts is that democracy with money and profit is the end of their model. Especially if the model Wolff studies and analyzes is the norm or becomes the norm all over the world.

ANd it will Noemon.

[B0ycey]

Socialism may do ok at the onset and then it fizzles out. As of 2019 Cuba allows private property rights and businesses. China adopted capitalism and prospered. You are living in a deep echo chamber.

Well I ask for Social Democracy because I am smart remember.

I only expect Socialism to be adopted once Capitalism has had it umpteenth bailout,fails and Dia-Mat moves society forward. Until then I promote social reform. Perhaps I can expect your support from now on?

[noemon]

No.
Pass.

Thanks for conceding that your argument fails.

Oh, okay, so you see Western militarist imperialism as simply being a global king-of-the-hill dynamic. Got it. Might-makes-right, then, and all nations should immediately get nukes before they're nuked first. I can see now why Eastern bloc / Stalinist countries -- and now Iran, these days -- did what they did in light of this prevailing warmongering attitude.

You claimed that Soviet Socialism failed because of "western interference", I informed you that scapegoating foreigners yet again is utterly worthless as an argument and proves the failure of your system. If a system cannot survive real world pressure then what is the point of it? All other systems survived real world pressure and sustained interventions and were forged by them. If your system requires laboratory conditions, then the obvious question is obvious, how on earth is it expected to deal with the real world? And why would any administrator choose such a system that admits defeat by default?

Before Lenin, Russia was not a Superpower. It was a frozen wasteland.

Russia had been a superpower on par with the Great Powers for a long time before Lenin or Stalin.

As for the reasons it collapsed, the invisible hand does indeed create market forces that under pure Socialism would need to be artificially manipulated. Gorbachev tried to introduced Perestroika but it was too late. It didn't need to fail. It failed because the SU were focused on national interests rather than social interests and then Soviet States broke away because people could see what the West had compared to them. Had they focused on the interests of the people rather than the state it may well have worked.

Shoulda, woulda, coulda. It collapsed and the crux of your argument along with it.

But even if we accept that, that still doesn't explain why you think innovation didn't occur in the SU which was the original claim I questioned.

No comparison with western innovation who left it in the dust.

Here @noemon I like Wolff's model he is a Marxist economics professor and he studies models of socialist cooperatives that work.

I have several friends who have created cooperative companies, they all rely on individuals doing all the management work for free as a hobby. I help them out for free as well. This is not a sustainable model.

[B0ycey]

Russia on par with the British Empire, Dutch, French and Spanish in the 19th century. OK Noemon.

What Russia become in a few decades to what it was in 1917 can only be described as a miracle. In fact Marx thought Russia would be the last place to see a revolution because it was sooo economically and socially behind the rest of Europe.

[Tainari88]

@noemon it works Senor....Did you listen to Wolff. It is an old institution in the Roman Catholic church many operated as worker coops.

No one works for free but the reality is the cooperative works if you got it going. Study Mondragon. No one is working for free.

[noemon]

Russia on par with the British Empire, Dutch, French and Spanish in the 19th century. OK Noemon.

What Russia become in a few decades to what it was in 1917 can only be described as a miracle. In fact Marx thought Russia would be the last place to see a revolution because it was sooo economically and socially behind the rest of Europe.

Russia was a Great Power that dominated Europe since 1721. That is roughly 200 years before Lenin. In fact she is one of the few Great Powers who grew so strong more than just once and had the others ganging up on her more often than against any other.

There is nothing special about Soviet militarism and all that are stories commies tell themselves to feel better about themselves while ignoring actual history. All the Great Powers(perhaps except for the UK) underwent a [r]evolutionary stage into modernisation. Prussia(Germany) & Russia share very similar characteristics in terms of relative size, social conservatism, attitudes, & disparities(economic & ethnic).

[B0ycey]

Russia has a rich history. It was never a superpower. Its whole history is based on Serfdom.

[noemon]

Russia has a rich history. It was never a superpower. Its whole history is based on Serfdom

The idea of the 'superpower'(=lone greater power) has applied to Russia more often than any other European power.

Russia has been isolated as a 'superpower' and ganged up on by the others more often than any other European Great Power.

Russia has been dominating Europe since 1721. Your claim that Lenin or the Soviets were responsible for Russia's Power is nonsense in light of it's history.

Russia was already in the process of modernisation and serfdom had been abolished since 1861, in Prussia(Germany) it was abolished in 1806.

it works Senor....Did you listen to Wolff. It is an old institution in the Roman Catholic church many operated as worker coops.

In theory it does. It also works in the Great Monasteries of Mt Athos among the monks and it also works in reality as long as you have willing people doing work for free and covering other people's work for free. In practise as soon as 1 single individual feels left out or exploited, the whole chain collapses.

[B0ycey]

The idea of the 'superpower'(=lone greater power) has applied to Russia more often than any other European power.

Russia has been isolated as a 'superpower' and ganged up on by the others more often than any other European Great Power.

Russia has been dominating Europe since 1721. Your claim that Lenin or the Soviets were responsible for Russia's Power is nonsense in light of it's history.

Russia was already in the process of modernisation and serfdom had been abolished in 1861, in Prussia(Germany) it was abolished in 1806.

You know what, think Russia was a superpower if you like. It was a frozen wasteland that's was always defending itself against the actual Superpowers of yesteryear. It's influence in Europe was merely because the Tsars were the rulers and had bloodlines with the rest of the European nobility. Their history was serfdom whilst everyone else was building factories and the Russian revolution was a revolution against the Tsars and poverty. But being that Russia became something so much greater under the SU than in 1917 is all that I need to take to understand that Socialism didn't hold back innovation in the SU. Whether you believe that Russia was a superpower is irrelevant to my argument so whatever you believe I don't actually care.

[noemon]

You know what, think Russia was a superpower if you like. It was a frozen wasteland that's was always defending itself against the actual Superpowers of yesteryear. It's influence in Europe was merely because the Tsars were the rulers and had bloodlines with the rest of the European nobility. Their history was serfdom whilst everyone else was building factories and the Russian revolution was a revolution against the Tsars and poverty. But being that Russia became something so much greater under the SU than in 1917 is all that I need to take to understand that Socialism didn't hold back innovation in the SU. Whether you believe that Russia was a superpower is irrelevant to my argument so whatever you believe I don't actually care.

You sound bitter, sour and frankly you sound like a stereo-typical & entitled white guy(and that is putting it mildly). You clearly have very little knowledge of Russian history and also very little knowledge of the 18-19th centuries but most importantly you totally lack perspective of the time. You probably imagine a UK that was perhaps some kind of "Spaceship" compared to Russian "Serfs" while totally ignoring the Irish famine of 1845.

It's evidently hopeless.

Russia was a Great Power since 1721, that is what the historical record tells us whether commies(pretend or non) accept it or not.

Russia did not require the commies to be greater than others, as she already had been greater than the rest several times before. Her land, resources and homogenous population giving her the advantage again and again and again, not the "blood of its rulers" as you claimed. No communistan was required to achieve that.

Your claim that 'innovation' under communism even compares to 'innovation' under capitalism is evidently false. It does not compare and prestige projects prove that it does not.

[Politics_Observer]

Actually, I genuinely agree with noemon on this one. Russia was a major power before World War I and participated in Great Power games with the British Empire "back in the day." When the Russians lost the Cold War and the Soviet Union collapse it was a hard defeat for them to take because they have always been a major power with a proud history. Defeats and rivalries happen to every major power though and it's happened to the United States too. Nobody likes losing or suffering a defeat, but it happens to the best of us and nobody is immune to failure, losing or defeat.

[noemon]

Actually, I genuinely agree with noemon on this one. Russia was a major power before World War I and participated in Great Power games with the British Empire "back in the day." When the Russians lost the Cold War and the Soviet Union collapse it was a hard defeat for them to take because they have always been a major power with a proud history. Defeats and rivalries happen to every major power though and it's happened to the United States.

If you take the time to read the history of Europe from 1721 onwards, and the Treaties as well as the Congresses that followed you will notice 2 very obvious patterns.

1) Every time a power grew too strong, all the rest ganged up on it under the explicit intent to maintain the balance of power.
2) This happened to everybody but it happened to Russia a lot more times than it happened to any other.

[Politics_Observer]

@noemon

Russia has a massive army. If they decide to invade all the Baltics they can do it and occupy all of them in no time. So, when you are dealing with a major power like Russia, you are going to have to form alliances against it to check it's power. Same thing with China.

[noemon]

@noemon
Russia has a massive army. If they decide to invade all the Baltics they can do it and occupy all of them in no time. So, when you are dealing with a major power like Russia, you are going to have to form alliances against it to check it's power. Same thing with China.

The alliance system in Europe was developed to destroy France, its Politico-Cultural Revolution and to preserve the multi-ethnic character of the European Imperial Powers from French liberal 'hubris'.

Russia at the time tilted from the side of French Liberalism to Austrian-British Imperial conservatism and she was for many the Champion of the Liberal Order. It was Russian activity that established the foundations of European Liberalism after Napoleonic France was humbled and destroyed.

[Politics_Observer]

@noemon

Yeah, we got humbled in Vietnam. I mean, we didn't lose most of the major battles on the battlefield, but we still lost the war mainly because public support for the war waned and our political leaders were forced to withdraw our forces due to a lack of public support. Plus we weren't willing to invade North Vietnam because we were afraid it would draw in the Chinese like it did during the Korean War (Greeks fought in the Korean War, don't know if you knew that).

This precipitated the use of an all volunteer army, which in my opinion is more effective and professional. In addition our political leaders wouldn't face much political pressure at home to "bring the boys home" because nobody is getting drafted to go fight who didn't want to be there. In Afghanistan, the Soviets pretty much dominated the battlefield and almost won when they launched massive series of offensives in Afghanistan that Gorbachev authorized his generals to do at the time.

The Russians were more brutal in their occupation of Afghanistan than we were in our occupation, though it was still an occupation nevertheless. They pretty much took a scorched earth policy. Scorched earth for the Russians is when they face an invasion, they burn all the crop downs and destroy all food and anything of value so that an invading army can't use it on their territory.

In Afghanistan, they adopted a scorch earth policy in reverse in which they poisoned water supplies and destroyed all crops, killed all the livestock so there was nothing that guerillas who hide in mountain caves or blend in with the population can use for food or to live off of. It was brutal but very effective (they also had small bomb-lets that looked like toys that Afghan kids would pick up and blow up in their hands). The problem for the Soviets was the fact that much of the insurgents had safe haven in Pakistan and could flee to Pakistan to regroup and get resupplied by Pakistani intelligence who were double dealing us, the United States at the time in the 1980s and during our own occupation of Afghanistan.

[noemon]

Greeks fought in the Korean War, don't know if you knew that.

The entire village of Elafonisos, fought in the Korean Wars and almost all our families have medals from it.

The Hellenic Army also formed the bulk of the army that fought the Bolsheviks(30k strong), second only to the UK.

The entry of the Hellenic army in WW1 directly led to the Allied victory in the Macedonian Front, the immediate capitulation of Bulgaria and then Austria leading within weeks to the end of the war.