Register
Events
Popular
More
Post #321The main incentive to work in China isn't the fact that Capitalism provides a good incentive - its that you must work or else you will starve.
Would you class Philosophy as hard work? Would you class being a house husband/wife as hard work? Being a full-time carer for a relative is hard work?
This is the main gripe I have with Capitalism - it only rewards those who work hard within the system. Those that do not 'work hard' do not get much support.
-
-
How is this necessarily a bad thing?
-
As an ex-Communist thinker, I have some input. The key mechanism of Communistic systems is the reliance on centralized economic schemes. On paper, Communism is a great idea because it allows standardized systems contributing to the public good to be contributed to by those with qualified merit. Because all systems would be monopolized by a centralizing entity, everything would be standardized and the whole of a Communistic country or society would reap benefits off of innovations or technologies spurred in one small portion of the society/country. No such thing as losers in such a society. If someone comes up with something almost as good as something else, but not good enough, their idea shouldn't be used; but it should fill up a text book to give others knowledge of the attempt and the person behind the failed idea won't be cast aside to face failure by the 'dictatorship of nature' (as opposed to businesses developing a failed idea and trying to market it as something it isn't just to make up for loss of time/money).
The problem is that we believe exploitation can only come from those not looking to serve the public good. Exploitation is not a factor solely derived from private interest. Exploitation can come from anywhere, due to incompetence or malevolence. In order for one to be a Communist, one has to have an optimistic mindset and a belief in the benevolence of government or whatever other entity (i.e: God, Sentient Artificial Intelligence, Aliens, Trans-Human Council of Elders) is in charge of the centralization scheme.
More often than not, however, we see these types of entities fail us in time of greatest need. Whether it's the flaw in human decision making (whether by sole dictators, a group of representatives in power, or even by plain mob rule) which prevents government from being useful, the lack of a sincere and felt presence in the case of God, the case of invading and conquering alien beings, the ever-growing fear of human obsoletion and termination from a strong AI presence, or the inclusive nature of human 'enhancement' which will by default create an inherent hierarchy of inequality within society. Either way, there are six ways from Sunday that 'benevolent' centralization schemes can end up fucking us over in the end, not even beginning to mention the idea of mafias, crime syndicates, and conspirators influencing the pillars of centralization for their own benefit. All in all, the Universe has a funny habit of telling us a great big "No."
At this moment of time, I feel patience and natural human evolution (not stimulated genetic engineering) is the one and true only way for the 'natural dictatorship' to benefit us (nature vs nature); not anything we try and manipulate or control or bureaucratize with human decision-making. That is all.
-
It all depends on what you define as hard work. I consider it a bad thing that Capitalism doesn't reward all the hard work that people put in.
Students don't earn money for working hard in their studies. Looking after a terminally ill relative does not earn you money.
Conversely, if your parents own a company and give you a job there does it mean you have worked hard to get there?
EDIT: My point was that people who work hard but do not participate in the Capitalist system receive no support. Charities do brilliant work yet they rely upon the the altruism of benefactors.
-
How should people be rewarded for looking after their ill relatives? It certainly shouldn't be through taxation. As for your parents owning a company, they should be welcome to hire whoever they want; it's only them who are at a loss if they arbitrarily hire a bad worker. Of course, I'd disagree with capitalism in as much as they "own" the company as private property is a foul invention, but the point still stands.
We shouldn't have an economic system that reflects hard work; it should reflect voluntary transactions alone. We should be free to associate with whoever we want. I have no stake in your terminally ill relatives so why should I be responsible for benefiting their carers?
I disagree with a few of capitalism's main tenets (i.e. private property) but not for the reasons you provide; it should be nobody's duty (in the sense of a legal obligation) to provide for anyone else.
-
Now ya see, this is where you go wrong. Because the only communist thinkers who supported that were the Soviet Union's Bolsheviks and other 'right-communists', and certain brands of socialists- it is not descriptive nor generally supported by non-Bolsheviks, and was not the mainstream before 1921.
It (centralization) can be puled off, but not through a Marxist system, because, as Bakunin was keen to point out, the state would enact to continue its existence and work in favor of its self-interest. Marx was only half on board with the centralism issue- communism's final phase would see a decentralized anarchism, while the socialist transition phase was left undefined, though Marx did argue at times in favor of a centralized state (getting lots of flack from Bakunin. Bakunin's critiques of Marxism are good reads, although I think he goes a bit overboard on some issues). Lenin was the one who made that popular through the theories of the Vanguard Party and the Workers' State- it was an unpopular belief on the left but gained acceptance from 1917 until 1921. In 1921, opposition in Russia to the centralized state peaked and the Kronstadt Sailors (the very same (well, mostly) who participated in both the February Revolutions and October Revolutions) attempted a rebellion but failed because of the empowered centralized state. Two states that were "free" leftist, Soviet Hungary and the Free Territory in Ukraine, were both rejected as workers' states by the Bolsheviks, in no small part because both enacted horizontal industry and worker control of industry over Vanguardist version of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
Lenin and Stalin both abused this greatly, and Trotsky and Bukharin gained from it, although both of the latter seemed to in part realize their mistakes too late (Trotsky was actually a major voice in Russia against a strong, centralized and controlling state for a while before the revolutions).
My point here is that the abuses of the centralized state are not characteristic of communist, socialist, and left anarchist theory as a whole and was the exception, not the rule. We only see it as such because of the prominence of the degenerative workers' state in history and the silencing of critics through state terrorism (unfortunately defended by Trotsky in 1920) by both fascism/revolutionary fascism and Bolshevism in Europe, where most leftist thinkers resided during the heyday of leftism, and persecution in the capitalist west at the same time.
Basically, if folks stepped out of the USSR-zone and looked at the less-commonly known leftists and read critiques and additions and commentary on leftist philosophy and policy at the time when it was the most applicable and the most accepted, you'll see that there's many different perspectives, with the dominant ones including the rejection of strong centralism, Vanguardism, Bolshevism, and state terrorism that lead to the degenerative workers' state. Hell, even the most-known critique (the critique of the degenerative workers' state) of that system was coined by Trotsky, another communist.
The people who say that communism, socialism, or leftism relies on a centralized means of production and a heavily centralized state often haven't read past Marx and Lenin, and even then have often not experienced critiques and commentary on those by other leftists, both now and then.
Edited:
Well, I'm not in total agreement, but I'm wondering, just for the sake of curiosity, what you'd say to a anarchist-like economic system with horizontal employment and cooperative/worker-controlled/democratic/soviet industry.
This type of economy tends to see the employer as an unnatural parasite, but bases the ownership and decision making through democracy of those involved in the business or industry. It's still based around free association, and still a competitive free market, but it removes the private property aspect of the market.
-
Sorry, but I don't consider Anarchy a leftist policy, and Anarcho-Communism is just a new wave rethink of Anarchy.
The whole 'process' of a true Communist transition talked about by Marx is simply to let society experience a wave of out of control human decision making until everyone finally finds out that controlling things that can't be controlled (especially controlling others' wills and intent) is what leads to problems.
-
Aaaaand this is wrong also.
There's an extremely strong connection between early anarchism and Marxism. In fact, Marxism, 'socialism' and 'communism' of the pre-Marxist definition, and anarchism right up until the 1890s until that split that you're talking about (which, as most serious leftist thinkers know started in no small part with Bakunin, who by today's standards would be an anarcho-communist) were indistinguishable. They were all clumped under the same banner of revolutionary socialism, and it wasn't until the 1890s that people started separating them seriously. Yea, sure, there were factions- the First International's famous Bakunin-Marx split, and Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme, but both sides had their roots in the successes of the Paris Commune.
Black-Flag anarchism as we know it today (I assume you're talking about individualist anarchism, synonymous with today's black-flag anarchism, which has pushed anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, council communism, and libertarian socialism to the minorities) is notably different, and not what I was talking about. That form of anarchism was a very small minority of anarchists until the 1920s, and even then anarcho-communism was the variety most identified with when someone said "anarchism".
In Marxism and thinkers parallel to Marx, communism (and I don't mean the entirety of Marxism, as you seemed to mean when you referred to it as communism above) was strictly decentralized and identical to at-the-time anarchism (anarcho-communism, council communism, etc, see list above).
You can see multiple references to this fact by Marx, Bakunin (who right out says it in Critique of the Marxist Theory of the State), and later thinkers like Goldman and Bukharin.
Also, you misused the word anarchy. Anarchy is a state of organization, not a political philosophy. You're thinking anarchism.
(PS, if you need some physical evidence, the Marxist archive contains the most complete selection of works by Bakunin. Ask yourself why the Marxist archive would carry the works of the father of anarchism, if what I'm saying is incorrect?
-
If you're meaning that the different forms of 'anarchism' are somehow different from traditional 'anarchy', you have to realize that man is a social creature. Never in history has what you called 'individualist anarchy' ever existed, at least in terms of life. It might be good to make distinguishments, I agree, but the idea is far from new or leftist, which is the main problem I'm having.
-
I'm not arguing any of that, other than this: Anarchism is a leftist philosophy and spawned directly form the socialism and revolutionary socialism of the early 17th century. You claimed that anarchism was not a leftist philosophy- it is.
And now I'm going to argue that. It did enact itself. Communism/left anarchism existed in the Free Territory, portions of the early Soviet Union/Russian Republic, the Paris Commune, and in parts of Republican Spain- all very briefly. I'm surprised you don't know this, if you were once a communist or similar- even the most basic reader of Marx knows his praise and commentary on the Paris Commune.
I'm not arguing for individualist anarchism, or that it was ever carried out. I never said that. I said the opposite- traditional anarchism is anarcho-communism, not the other way around. I'm confused as to if you're actually reading my posts or not, because not only are you agreeing with me as a counter, but you seem to be missing the explanations and not speaking of them at all.
-
IIRC China is the only communist county growing, and all the others(except maybe Cuba) have shit economies.
-
I'd still say the policy is not leftist, despite the idea being thought up under leftist conditions. I'm complaining about the label of the idea as 'leftist', as I have great trouble labeling ideas under one banner over another. I prefer the humble route of letting ideas express themselves without needing to be placed under a specific light. There is no solid definition for left and right, other than opinionated bias. I'd rather not subject great ideas to simple minded word associations, as paradigms like left-right labelling divide humanity. Anarchism can be viewed as a right policy simply because of its abherance to natural law, which I referenced as the 'natural dictatorship'. Though I agree I'm probably a hypocrite in other areas, which is another reason I distrust human decision making.
-
Yes, sure, for individualist and black-flag anarchism. But for leftist anarchism, like the list I've stated previous, it is clearly a left philosophy as much as communism.
Arguing it shouldn't be labeled as either right or left is semantics and serves only to be ignorant of the history and relation, as well as the philosophy, behind the ideology. Regardless of if you label it as such, traditional anarchism is leftist and spawned as such. It's not a division, it's a measure.
Edited:
Considering how there's only 5 nations that identify as communist now, that's like saying that only 2/5 of communist countries have growing economies. Kind of silly, since it's such a small amount.
And that's technically not even right- Cuba, China, Laos, and Vietnam are all growing. So that's 4/5.
If you count the states that identify as Marxist (which I believe are Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador), all are increasing in GDP.
Korea is the only one that's doing shit out of the bunch. All of them are shit countries, really, but that's not due to communism itself, it's due to Vanguardism and Leninist-Marxism.
-
An interpretive measure which encourages division. Humans have notoriously associative minds, and it'd be great if swell ideas had more of a chance to pervade such minds if there were no associations to those ideas that would act as deterrents.
-
It's silly, though, to try not to identify something with a measure on a political spectrum. That's like saying we shouldn't be measuring anything at all, or naming anything, or labeling anything. It's not a matter of division, it's a matter of measurement and position on topics and issues, and that's all there is to it. I am left-wing. They are right-wing. If there was no method of labeling or measuring our positions, we'd be indistinguishable in out beliefs. And that's a lie, because there's a clear difference between an anarchist, communist, or socialist and a conservative, fascist, or classical libertarian.
Might as well just get rid of names now, too. We're all humans. Us on the internet? All users. I'm not [Seed Eater] and you aren't RaptillaMajor, we're "users". Rhinos and cats? Animals. Venus and Uranus? Only planets, nothing more to it than that, no reason to measure or distinguish between them.
Your philosophy is as silly as your understanding of leftist thought.
Pardon if I come off as harsh, or am using a strawman, I'm a materialist.
-
I'm not saying to do away with associative thought, at least unless and until we evolve/change. We should, however, take caution in presentation over notorious and sensitive issues. Someone on the right could find peace with a great idea someone on the left would if they didn't have any pre-misconceptions over that idea, simply by looking at its content rather than its label. It might be nit-picky for most things, I agree, but as I've implied: nit-pickiness tends to counts on sensitive issues.
-
Ah, but those folks on the left and right agree on things and have their on portions on the political spectrum. They're accounted for and measured. That's what the measure is there for. Chances are if they're ignoring an idea from the left or the right that they would normally agree with simply because of the label, then that's part of their politics just as much as agreeing with it, and not the fault or in any way due to a label or measure.
Regardless, this is now off track and has nothing to do with the issue.
-
Let's see: Capitalism or Communism, which is best? Well, one works and creates a functional society and one doesn't. Hmm. Capitalism?
(User was banned for this post ("This is NOT how to post in Mass Debate" - Megafan))
-
"Hey guys I don't know anything about communism besides what my eight-grade social studies class taught me."
If you call a system whereby someone must voluntarily subvert themselves to a property-owner in order to receive the necessities to live "functioning", especially in a system that promotes greed, self-promotion, and exploitation, then I don't agree with you.
If you prefer one with free association between labor and government, voluntary markets based on true participatory concepts, and a limited state, then that's communism.
If you're doing that thing that people uneducated on the most basic concepts of leftist political philosophy do where they look at the history of the Marxist state since 1917, point, and say, "Look at this failure!", then you're using a tired and dried argument that's been debated and debunked several times in this thread alone that simply proves that you know little about the topic at hand.
-
Both are perfect systems, and, when applied correctly, are perfect. The problem is undoubtedly human, with the main human problem being corruption.
The question is, which system is more resistant to human corruption and is most able to self-correct? Is there another political system that does this better?
-
I don't believe that saying they're perfect systems is correct if they're susceptible to corruption. However I do agree with the whole "which system is more resistant to human corruption" idea. I think that true Capitalism is a neat idea that turns greed into a driving force to turn the cogs of economics, and works pretty well.
I believe humans, for the most part, want to do what is best for them. This is not wrong, but merely how nature seems to be. The strongest, smartest, most adaptable (Darwin, I guess) thrive compared to the rest. To take a type of governance that fosters this while not destroying the lower people seems to be required.
I'm not entirely sure on what that would be.
-
That's exactly the kind of economy I had in mind. :)'[Seed Eater posted:
-
I've been listening to a good amount of Soviet military anthems on Youtube, and in the comments section all I've seen video after video is "hail communism!" this and "fuck capitalism all hail the cccp!" that. It simply strikes me as amazing that the people on these videos that romanticize the Soviet Union know almost nothing about the actual history of what comprised the USSR, or why it fell apart.
Hell, even I'm not entirely sure why it fell apart. Why did they focus so much on military industrialization after the second World War? Why didn't they focus more on growing their internal economy and developing their social sciences and political system? It's as if their strategy of "intense militarization as a method of defense" is what brought them to their knees.
-
After WW2, The West had made it very clear it will not continue to be as friendly towards the USSR as it was during the war by supplying it with massive amounts of supplies and resources.
The fact that the Soviet Union (rightfully, if you ask me*) annexed massive amounts of German land infuriated Churchill, who actually informed Roosevelt of what was going on since he was completely oblivious somehow. Everyone wanted a piece of Berlin, and the fact that the Soviets swiftly and brutally took it all for themselves set the tone for after peace was declared. That's why the SU decided to take up arms to even further defend itself against much bigger opponents than Germany. The hostility just grew from there.
*The reason I believe that the SU deserved the entirety (or at least, 90%) of Germany is the fact that they were the ones that took the biggest amount of casualties, and were by far the greatest contributors to the defeat of Germany. The United States clearly didn't even give a fuck about what was going on in Europe until Pearl Harbor - and even then, only joined the war at a much later stage when all the real fighting was happening at the Eastern Front. The fact that there are Americans who actually believe they 'saved Europe' or 'liberated' anything is appalling to me, but irrelevant.
When it comes to the UK, I suppose they deserved a portion of Germany as well, considering their commendable achievements in curbing the Afrika Korps and providing little support in air operations in Europe.
One could argue that the carpet bombardment of civilian factories by the US and UK to be a decisive factor in crippling German production, and it might be so, but even if they hadn't done it, it would only be a matter of time until the Soviets did. So maybe the war wouldn't be over by 1945 but drag a little onwards into '6 and '7. But Soviet victory was guaranteed regardless of Western intervention or the establishment of a second front.
-
And what of the large-scale Allied operations in Italy? Or in German-occupied France? To say that the Americans were not doing anything of note in Europe during the war is preposterous.
-
Oh no, they were doing plenty of things worth noting in Europe, and Im sorry if my wording lead you to believe that I thought they did absolutely nothing.
What I was getting at was that the operations in Italy and France - while noteworthy, are not as statistically significant when compared to Soviet operations, which were usually extremely bloody, brutal and even sometimes barbaric. (Although that has changed as the war progressed and the Red Army started to employ both new, experimental and old cunning tactics while both field marshals and soldiers gained combat experience.)
Basically, the Soviet Union was the only European power capable of eradicating Germany and at the same time even fighting off the Japanese all the way in the far east and the Italians on their own. Although I admit it'd have a very hard time making due without the Western supply shipments, regardless I am sure that they would be able to hold off long enough for their mass industrialization to kick in thus rendering the supplies useless. If memory serves me right, I think by mid-'44 the SU started to actually have overequipped units and started to distribute the incoming shipments of supplies to irrelevant fronts such as Georgia and the surrounding area - instead of the actual Eastern Front.
Edited:
I used to have a massive WW2 PDF library focused on the Soviet Union, I would source all my claims if I hadn't lost the links.
-
Whether or not you believe the Soviet Union could have taken Germany, Italy, and Japan all on its own is of little consequence in regard to what they did do. They waited to take action on Japan and Germany itself pushed quite a distance into Soviet territory, so to say that they could take on the Axis by themselves is not only unlikely but it sounds impossible.
-
They pushed 'quite a distance' because of two main reasons, Blitzkrieg and the fact that they basically just rolled across empty countrysides , fighting no one along the way and getting their tracks stuck in mud.
It was not until they've reached the major cities (or Hero cities) that the real fighting had begun, and do note that the SU was the first nation to successfully halt the Blitz dead in its tracks. After winter had set in, the entire offensive fell apart quickly and even Hitler started shitting himself - after finding out that he was not in fact fighting a drunkard, incapable hobo but a massive, ruthless bear. And that under no circumstances could he bring the Union to its knees in "a matter of months" as he had predicted. His arrogance clearly shows when he didn't even bother outfitting his troops with winter gear.
Now, this is the Soviet Army at its optimal condition - experienced and fully prepared. Fully comparable to the state it was after it had annexed Germany. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_...n_of_Manchuria Also, the Kwantung Army that was subdued by the Soviets was not just a shitty conscripted, underequipped force that consisted of nothing but shitty farmers, but rather "the largest and most prestigious command in the IJA."
Even after the massive casualties it had endured, the Soviet Union still had millions of experienced troops occupying Germany and the 'motherland' itself. There is absolutely no reason as to why it wouldn't have been able to push onward into Italy, crushing it in the process while simultaneously holding the Japanese front. (I dont think it would make much sense annexing Japan as well, as amphibious assaults were not something the Red Army had any exprience in) Keep in mind, the Japanese didn't even attack the Soviets after a direct request from Hitler himself, because they feared having the same fate Hitler's troops had suffered - and would rather engage a more distant foe - the US.
-
The Soviets had no reason to control Germany whatsoever, any more than Americans, French, or British did. I can understand why you could see that they should have oversaw a larger chunk because of losses, but losses did not mean right. The Soviets were ill prepared. Stalin spent his best in Finland, executed all of his experienced generals, and used the tactics of raping and pillaging his way with fear-driven, starving, untrained units. Trying to say that the Soviets should get more because they lost more is equivalent to saying that someone fucked up and lost because of their own ignorance, only to come back on top only after aided by their friend, so they should get first place over their friends. It doesn't work like that.
The Soviets had no chance of surviving the war without Allied cooperation. Had D-Day not happened, Stalingrad would have been lost, and the Germans would have been at Moscow's door in weeks. That's not to say that the Allies had won the war single-handed- they would not have succeeded without the Soviets. It was the splitting of the forces that caused a German failure, not the sacrifices of the Soviets or invasions of the allies.
The Soviets had no push in Italy- it had fallen purely by Allied hands and the Soviets would have never had made it to Italy on their own, even after the Germans had fallen. By the end of the war, the Soviets were seeing food, fuel, and morale shortages, surviving only on US and UK exports. Their homeland was in ruins, and I'm absolutely confused at how you could say there were "millions" of experienced troops when the Soviets were shipping men from Siberia and the far east and using "undesirable non-Russian" Armenians, Caucasians, and Kazahks in Germany by the end of the war, many of whom had not seen direct combat until landing on German soil. A Soviet soldier pre-Stalingrad was expected only to survive a couple of weeks. Post-Stalingrad, a month at most. The officers were beginning to become experienced, sure, but the tactics still revolved around human wave charges and barbaric sacrifices of scores of men for the capture of even the smallest amount of land.
Besides this, there's a couple of right-out fallacies you've stated.
Firstly, the Soviets took Berlin with consent of the Allies. They had talked it over beforehand, it was agreed that the Soviets would take Berlin. It wasn't as if they snatched it out of anyone's hands. It was a decision made for the reason you promoted- the Soviets had lost the most, therefore they would claim the prize. The bad relations after the war came because Stalin had plans to not stop in Germany- it was not the Allies being the aggressors, it was Stalin.
Secondly, the Soviets had no Japanese front. They signed a treaty to not attack each other, and it was held, until the Manchurian invasion. The invasion was a breaking of the treaty by the Soviets- the Japanese held it honorably, and occurred parallel to the Atomic Bombings, which they had no knowledge of. There was not strong resistance. At this point in the war, the Japanese were drawing most of their troops to the home islands in preparation of an American invasion. The Soviets took advantage of the weakness of Manchuko and pushed in hopes of taking as much territory as possible for bartering in Yalta. it was purely a diplomatic and political move meant to give the Soviets a say in post-war Japan. They marched their asses straight down to the 38th parallel, where they were stopped by American troops landing in Korea to stop the unsupported Soviet advance.
When Japan surrendered to the Allies, one of the terms was that Japanese forces in China would not surrender to the Soviets, and so they didn't. While this was a problem, the Soviets simply dealt with it by handing over their occupied territory to the Chinese communists and deconstructing the industries of entire Manchurian cities to be shipped back into the USSR. By no means was it a loss for the Soviets. The complete extent of the Japanese front was them leisurely taking north China and Korea, throwing a tantrum over not getting their way in Yalta because of the atomic bombs stopping the war early, giving their territory to Mao and stealing the industry.
What I'm saying here is that it's bullshit that the Soviets did much of anything in the east, didn't have the power to do anything much after Berlin, and didn't deserve all of Germany. You don't reward failure, especially if that failure involves mass rape, executions, and pillaging.
-
Well, firstly - Stalin did not spend his best in Finland, as most men who served during the Winter War weren't even men by definition, but rather young, untrained adults who were equally as inexperienced as the officers that lead them as the result of the great purge. This explains the massive and embarrassing losses they had endured.
Also, the myth that all Soviet soldiers were "ignorant rapists" is nothing short of a myth created and adopted by Nazi Germany and later - the US. But I'll get to that later.
Stalingrad showed no signs of falling, Im confused as to whether or not you actually know anything about the battle that took place in that city, seeing as the Soviets were often outnumbered, outgunned and obviously 100% surrounded - yet still managed to endure and pushed the Germans further back with every small skirmish. This is still regarded by many historians as an unbelievable battle to have won when literally all the odds were against the Soviets - besides the weather. And even then, is actually not that great of an advantage when you think about it.
There was also no "splitting of the forces". All Hitler's armies were either deep in Russia, or stationed in Germany itself. Im not quite sure what you're talking about here.
Their homeland wasn't "in ruins" by a long shot, all the lesser cities (cities that also had the new factories built in them as the result of Stalin's industrialization program) were completely untouched by the war. How do you think they managed to mass produce so much equipment and food if according to you "their homeland was destroyed"? And no, it wasn't due to Western supplies as the main resources that was actually supplied were trucks, ammunition, cloth and bandages. Not raw metals to mass produce tanks and weaponry.
Bam, this is where I know you've got no idea what you're talking about. I suggest not using CoD and Enemy at the Gates as an accurate portrayal of Soviet tactics.
The Soviet Union never used "human waves" as a core principle of its strategy. Im not sure where this misconception first arose, but I do know that it's utterly false.
During the German occupation of the SU, when the Soviets started counter-attacking on massive scales nationwide - troops and officers often used the Russian winter to their advantage. They would often sneak up on Germans who were blind as bats during blizzards - and attack. They didnt send platoons of conscripts into MG fire, but rather used flanking, stealth and deception to their advantage - much like other allied armies.
They had talked it over, but only after the Soviets had already formed a "steel ring" around Berlin and it was clear they were not going to share - as they have stated that nobody gets in or out. Churchill was pissed off bigtime, and I dont quite remember how Roosevelt felt about the whole ordeal but Im certain it was an apathetic reaction.
In fact, Churchill was so enraged that after the war had ended, he wanted to declare war on the SU and use German POWs as rearmed cannon fodder. Look it up.
I know they had no Japanese and Italian fronts silly, I was talking about a hypothetical situation and stating that they had the strength to pull it off.
The fact that it occurred parallel to the bombings doesn't make much difference - as it didn't affect the ability of the IJA to fight. Also not sure which treaty you're referring to, but the Soviets also had an agreement with the US stating that "the USSR declared war against Japan on 9 August 1945."
Again, it wasn't a puerly diplomatic and political move, it was an agreed upon US-USSR joint commision. In fact, it was the US that was wary of the SU and was the one to act behind their backs - Colonel Dean Rusk and Colonel Charles Bonesteel divided the Korean peninsula at the 38th parallel after hurriedly deciding that the US Korean Zone of Occupation had to have a minimum of two ports - basically making the Korean capital a responsibility of American troops and thus prevented the Soviets from not honoring their part of the agreement - which they hadn't.
How was it a "failure"? I was not referring to Soviet military casualties - but civilian causalities and the number of Soviet civilians that were condensed into concentration camps all across Eastern Europe. I didnt see many Americans or British civilians being stuffed into anything. And no, Im saying that "hurr we lost loads of civilians, therefore Germany is ours". Although it is part of it - Im saying that most significant military milestones during the entire war were credited to the Soviets - which is why in my opinion, they deserved the annexation.
Edited:
Holy fuck, talk about walls of text. I dont think this is even relevant to the thread though so we should probably stop.
-
I'd be happy to argue this with you more, but you're right. I hate it when a wall of text comes up, and then someone quotes it with counter points for each point, making it longer, and then someone quotes that etc. That's why I dropped out of the last communism vs capitalism thread.
-
Perfect is a subjective term. There are such things that can be perfect and elegant in terms of nature, and things which are perfect in terms of catering to human productiveness. I do believe that notion, that Capitalism and Communism are perfect systems. BUT, I don't believe that they're necessarily perfect in terms of human desirability.
Yes, by law of nature a Darwinistic idea would be required for human productiveness. So far the best idea that mimics this is Capitalism. But, I will note that Capitalism isn't perfect to human productiveness either because of the fact that the most merit-able humans quite notoriously don't fill the most powerful positions in our hierarchical systems. These positions tend to be filled with malevolence or incompetence, unless this is an indication of what our universe deems as merit.
P.S. Humans are an imperfect creature. To try and model perfect systems around an imperfect centerpiece sounds like an impossibility.
P.S.S. The only epiphany that will get you out of that debacle is the one that implies imperfection is a perfect invention in a perfect world, and good luck finding peace in certainty with a stigma like that.
Note: All my references to perfection assume perfection in terms of nature, not in terms of human-centric models.
-
I agree that anarchism has huge potential, I'm an anarchist (specifically anarcho-communist) too. However, there has never been a long-term term of anarchy besides pre-history (cavemen, hunter-gatherer tribes, etc.) So I'm slightly curious as to where it may go if it takes hold in today's world.
-
communism fails due to the prisoner's dilemma. human nature is bound to fuck anything up.
those who haven't a grasp of rudimentary philosophy won't know what i am talking about.
-
How does the prisoner's dilemma present a problem for communism? If we've learnt anything from the prisoner's dilemma and the subsequent game theory leagues (by Axelrod in the Evolution of Cooperation), it's that we have sufficient reason to cooperate with our peers given a set of conditions (which I think real life satisfies, largely).
-
communism requires total cooperation or the entire system will break down. this is why in the very few times it has been implemented it didnt last long at all.
-
I doesn't require total cooperation at all. A free-market communist system would allow for the same competitive incentives that our current system does. The localized center of law and society would require that only communities would need to be heavily cooperative. Given that this is already a reality outside of urban and suburban neighborhoods in western nations, I don't see how this is at all improbable.
-
Axelrod's game theory league shows fairly conclusively that this isn't the case, from a purely game theoretic perspective. In fact, it takes very few people following a cooperative strategy before the other players realise the benefits of adopting such a strategy. The problem is mostly irrationality; the only times a cooperative strategy aren't expedient are those when you're dealing with irrational players or when the payoff for the players is really asymmetrical (and I don't think the latter is the case since most humans are pretty equal when you get rid of our pathological obsession with private property).
however I'd argue that this presents a strong case for anarchism (not anarchocapitalism - not a fan of private property because I think they present us with fake inequalities that are the source of a lot of our irrationality), rather than communism
-
there's no system in marxism
i've explained this like a dozen times in this thread.
-
but he said communism
![[Seed Eater]'s Avatar](image.php?s=f15b86b71ef4ccd424522827093343f6&u=435930&dateline=1365822529 "[Seed Eater]'s Avatar")
