[Social_Critic]

The command economy is fundamentally flawed. But it passes through phases or periods. The periods are punctuated by the evolution of the religious zeal found in the elites driving the revolution. At first the elites are very focused on implementing change and moving towards the communist utopia. As time goes by, power begins to be concentrated at the top. The system is designed to allow the emergence of a very powerful group wielding enormous power, and this power corrupts it. So when the system is at its peack, it's already starting to see the first signs of its future death.

I think one of the main issues is the way the communist party recruits its cadres. In a system where the only party is the communist party, anybody with political ambition joins the party. But many do so to seek personal gain, not because they are communists. The lack of an escape hatch or alternative path to success is a real killer. So there we are, all of us with brains are dressed in red, and say the right slogans - which we think are non sense but we must say to keep moving forward. As time goes by, all of us in the political machine become cynical, we pay lip service to Marx's cockamamie ideas, and salute properly when we face Brezhnev's or Castro's photograph. But we know inside the whole thing is rotten, and it becomes a game to see how much one can steal or maneuver to put one's friends and children into the right spots, schools, and jobs. So, as Milovan Djilas put it so well, what the system does is replace one group of Oligarchs with a worse group of Oligarchs.

Regarding the timing, I told you before it was Poland-Chernobyl-Afghanistan- Oil industry profit collapse.

[Potemkin]

I think one of the main issues is the way the communist party recruits its cadres. In a system where the only party is the communist party, anybody with political ambition joins the party. But many do so to seek personal gain, not because they are communists. The lack of an escape hatch or alternative path to success is a real killer. So there we are, all of us with brains are dressed in red, and say the right slogans - which we think are non sense but we must say to keep moving forward. As time goes by, all of us in the political machine become cynical, we pay lip service to Marx's cockamamie ideas, and salute properly when we face Brezhnev's or Castro's photograph. But we know inside the whole thing is rotten, and it becomes a game to see how much one can steal or maneuver to put one's friends and children into the right spots, schools, and jobs. So, as Milovan Djilas put it so well, what the system does is replace one group of Oligarchs with a worse group of Oligarchs.

I think that's essentially right, and the OP itself pointed out this as one of the fundamental reasons for the ultimate collapse of the system - by the 1980s, even the ruling elite (or rather, especially the ruling elite) no longer believed in the ideology of the system they were running. At some point, they were going to turn to each other and ask, 'Why are we bothering with this shit?', and realise that they didn't have to bother with it any more. Ironically, however, the very cynicism of the ruling elite, and their consequent corruption and nepotism, exacerbated the tendencies of the system which had made them cynical towards it in the first place, in a kind of vicious circle. Stalin kept breaking that vicious circle by periodically purging the ruling elite, but after his death that option was taken off the table.

[Smilin' Dave]

Regarding the timing, I told you before it was Poland-Chernobyl-Afghanistan- Oil industry profit collapse.

Still inadequete. Compare your explanation to the crisis of 1941 eg. Operation Barbarossa, when the Soviet economy was more of a command economy than it was in the 1980s (with the worst excesses of ministerial concentration and party interference) and when the losses/threats were far more serious... the system survived and rebuilt. The lack of oil profits pales in comparison to losing a large chunk of industry and the raw materials that fed them as the western USSR was lost. The Chechen insurgency during WWII makes Solidarity look like a friendly disagreement.

You might also ask why the Soviet Union collapsed nearly two full years after completing withdrawal from Afghanistan. So material losses had essentially ceased by that point (only aid to the Afghan Communist govt. continued), and its a bit hard to claim it was symbolic but nobody really noticed for two years.

[Social_Critic]

A badly wounded bear takes time to die. The Soviet Union was dealt a series of blows in the 1980's. Some of them were self inflicted. Also, i propose that communist regimes tend to decay over time, as the communist party oligarchs become more and more disconnected from the people and focus more on securing power for their children. So this process takes time. The Soviet Union was undergoing this change, with increasing corruption, less focus on socialism and more on filling their bellies, when the four horsemen of the apocalypse rode in. I came in during the early colapse days, and helped clean up to make sure communism wouldn't raise its ugly head again. I really enjoyed it.

This is a sense what's happening in China now, the end of communism really started in 1979 or so, but it has been more managed, because the Chinese saw what the Russians underwent. Today, we see a similar process in Cuba, where they are moving away from communism towards a militarist fascism

[The Clockwork Rat]

You aren't addressing anything that people have said. You're just repeating the claim that communism is inherently unstable, corrupt, etc, etc, even going so far as to claim that Cuba is becoming a military fascist dictatorship, without giving any plausible arguments or sources.

[Rich]

We should also keep in mind that we're comparing a basketcase that wasn't in the G20 in 1910

Russia was one of the top industrial powers 1910, my guess would be number 6, and also a major grain exporter. Russia was behind the United States, Britain, France, Germany and Austro-Hungary. I'm not sure but I think you'll find it was ahead of Italy and Japan.

However what the Soviet Union achieved economically in the Second World War, given its industrial base in 1929 and its huge loss of territories and resources in 41 and 42, was arguably the greatest economic miracle of humanity of all time.

Basically the Soviet elite at the end of the eighties said to themselves why don't we just grab all of this vast countries resources for ourselves. We can engage in one of the great thefts of history and have the retards on the American right cheer us on while we do it. It makes me laugh when people talk as if they the Soviet elite lost the cold war. They won big time, it was everybody else, inside and outside who had to live with the mess they left behind.

[The Clockwork Rat]

Just as well you aren't sure, because that's bullshit

Russia got tanked by Japan in the Japan-Russia war of 1900. They also had the lowest rate of literacy in Europe, and a working class that consisted of about 5% of the population; >90% were peasants.

[Rich]

Just as well you aren't sure, because that's bullshit

Russia got tanked by Japan in the Japan-Russia war of 1900.

Do you mean the war of 1904/5? If anything that demonstrated Russia's military industrial superiority. Russia could have won the war if they hadn't sued for peace for largely internal considerations. They had great difficulties because they were fighting a war thousands of miles from their industrial centres and their navy had to go right around the world to get there. It wasn't that different from the conflict in 38/39 (can't remember the exact date) First things went badly for the Soviet Union but given time they were able to defeat the Japanese. Even in the first world war, Austro-Hungary was no match for Russia, they had inflicted a severe defeat on them in 1916. Before the February Revolution broke out, the central powers prospects on the Eastern front were not good.

[The Clockwork Rat]

Aye, I got my dates mixed up; I was thinking of the Sino-Japanese war that was just a few years earlier. Yeah, Japan had successfully waged war against China within about 30 years of beginning their industrial development. Russia was, at the point, not too significant considering its size. I won't disagree that Russia had power, but their actual level of development was pathetic, as I mentioned regarding proportions of working class and peasantry. Even most of their industry was owned by foreign bourgeois.

[Potemkin]

Do you mean the war of 1905? If anything that demonstrated Russia's military industrial superiority. Russia could have won the war if they hadn't sued for peace for largely internal considerations. They had great difficulties because they were fighting a war thousands of miles form their industrial centres and their navy had to go right around the world to get there.

And as soon as they arrived, the Japanese promptly sank the entire Russian fleet. You have to bear in mind the sheer incompetence of the Tsarist regime. When the Russian fleet sailed into the North Sea on its way to the Far East, it fired on and sank a British trawler because they believed it was a Japanese spy ship. Tsarist diplomats only narrowly managed to avert a war with Great Britain as well as with Japan. The Tsarist regime by 1905 was rotten and ramshackle, held together with chewing gum and bits of string, and everyone knew it.

[Rich]

Haven't been able to get any figures but:

Yet Russia heavy industry if small in relative terms was comparable to that of France.

I don't think it was me that was bullshitting but all the Communist apologists. The Commie lie machine portrays the Tsarist army as having to share rifles in WWI as the Holywood lie machine portrays the Soviet troops in WWII.

[The Clockwork Rat]

*cough* Rasputin

Yet Russia heavy industry if small in relative terms was comparable to that of France.

Perhaps, but it was foreign owned and contained within the state that Potemkin just described.

[Rich]

And as soon as they arrived, the Japanese promptly sank the entire Russian fleet. You have to bear in mind the sheer incompetence of the Tsarist regime. When the Russian fleet sailed into the North Sea on its way to the Far East, it fired on and sank a British trawler because they believed it was a Japanese spy ship. Tsarist diplomats only narrowly managed to avert a war with Great Britain as well as with Japan. The Tsarist regime by 1905 was rotten and ramshackle, held together with chewing gum and bits of string, and everyone knew it.

I'm no fan of the Tsarist state and in fact the large majority of educated Russian were embarrassed by it at the time. But the truth is that economically Russia was developing at a good pace in the final decades of Tsarism. Before the catastrophe of the First World War, the problem of transition was a political one not an economic one?

[The Clockwork Rat]

Economics and politics were (are) essentially intertwined. The surplus labour primarily went towards supporting the grand lifestyles of the Russian aristocracy, not towards developing ... well anything really.

[Potemkin]

Before the catastrophe of the First World War, the problem of transition was a political one not an economic one?

Tsarist Russia was backward economically, politically and socially. It was making reasonably good headway on the economic front, but was, if anything, actually regressing politically and socially. Witness the fate of the Duma between 1905 and 1914.

[Social_Critic]

Clockwork, regarding Cuba's migration to military fascism, you are right, I didn't quote any sources. But then, I have a limited amount of space in each post. If I write too much, it just gets to be unreadable. So, since you've asked:

I have a good insight into what's going on in Cuba because I was born there, and I have relatives there, and so on and so forth. I sure wish I could post a link, but a lot of what i hear is first hand, so I guess you could just use me as a source, and link what I post here when you say Cuba is evolving towards military fascism. Then there's the issue of language, which is really really vexing me, because a lot of what I do see which I could use, is in Spanish, and I was advised not to link foreign languages. So this sort of limits my ability to provide you with those URLs you crave.

I do assume you realize Raul Castro is currently moving Cuba towards capitalism? Here's some links giving you a sense of what's happening:

Christian Science Monitor in 2008 http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas ... -woam.html
WSJ in 2010: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... TopStories

[The Clockwork Rat]

We heard about this a while back, but it is not a move towards capitalism; it is an introduction of market mechanisms in order to give a bit of a kick start to the economy. These can be removed as and when necessary, as was done in the 1920's USSR.

I live in the UK and I could say that the UK is tending towards fascism, but I would be wrong. Simply having lived in a country does not amount to knowing all facets of its political and economic structure.

[Social_Critic]

Clockwork, they are firing half a million people and telling them to become entrepeneurs. Now, the way this is supposed to work, these entrepeneurs have a list of jobs they can try out. For example, under the new system, you can be a clown. Before, you couldn't be a clown, but soon you will be able to clown around.

The rules do specify the type of clown you can be. For example, you won't be able to dress up like V (the main character in V for Vendetta). They are also going to have taxes, and I believe clowns will be able to hire other clowns, and pay them a salary.

They also plan to set up more deals where foreign companies come in and set up shop. Foreigners will, of course, be given chances Cubans can't get (because Cubans aren't supposed to be greedy capitalists, they'll be limited to being clowns and other non-strategic personages even if they are allowed to have hirelings).

But the key is that "Communist Party" overlords will still live in the large houses,and will still control the security apparatus, and the military. And they will expect loyalty from the clowns and the other entrepeneurs. And of course foreign corporations enjoying the fruits of capitalism in the workers' paradise will have to make sure they toe the party line. And what do we call this when capitalism flourishes as long as it's loyal to the party, there's one party rule, and mlitary types get all the good jobs as they seem to be getting? Militarist fascism. Communism, it seems, is no longer fashionable in Cuba.

[The Clockwork Rat]

From what I've read, very little has actually happened, i.e. no-one has been fired yet. The administration refuses to make people unemployed unless they are guaranteed to be able to find work.

It would be great if you, or someone else who speaks Spanish, could actually translate the proposals so the rest of us have a clue what is going on.

Like I said earlier, you appear to be standing on the fact that you are from Cuba as support for your claims, and frankly, I'm going to treat WSJ and (did you seriously link to them?) Christian Science as pretty unimpressive sources.

[Social_Critic]

Well, those two links I found using Google, just for you. It's not like I get paid for this, you know. So translating is out of the question unless you ask for it real nice and it's short.

Regarding the UK becoming fascist, you got me there. I go to the UK once in a while, and it seems to me the people there are just swell, not fascist at all. The food, however, tends to be a bit bland. And I really dislike the bit about looking to the right. I get so confused when I get home i have to be careful so i don't get run over.

Returning to Cuba, of course having been born there and having direct communication to people who are there gives me a much better insight. Cuba is kinda small, you know. It's so small, you can cross the island in less than two hours from side to side.

Anyway, I realize there's some hitches in the master plan. But the truth is the change is coming. And there's very little the commies can do about it. This is, like somebody said, like being buried by history.