Utopia

perception:
You are riighy on the button when
you talk about the reason communism failed in the Marxist perspective was he thought human nature could be changed for the better. But I do not agree with your optimistic view that capitalism is better to-day than it was then.......Human greed has been honed to a perfection to-day that even our rules and regulations are so "worded" that every loophole possible for greed to persist unbounded is encouraged by our "leaders"...all in the name of the benefit of the few over the many.
Our only hope is that human nature will evolve into a state that the qualities if justice will
supercede greed as a survival mechanism.

ilikimr

Thanks for your comments------Try to look at capitalism in a more positive manner------it is providing an environment where innovation and entrepreneurship can flourish which in turn will enrich many more lives. I agree that capitalism as a system can be just as ugly as human nature but if mankind recognizes the failings of both and develops an infrastructure which constrains the bad elements while nurturing the good elements capitalism, when teamed with some form of elective gov't, is the best hope for the world.

You must have an environment when man can hope and dream and the spirit must be free-----as long as we can provide that environment we will prevail. All other systems want to force mankind into something we are not----man will always rebel when forced to do anything.

Perception, I like your concluding statement, i.e., that all other systems try to force man into being something he is not. Capitalism permits and encourages man to be his greedy self, but as you say, that greed must be contained within some kind of boundaries, while not being completely stifled. Communism tried to force man into being a communal and altruistic being. That was a laugh. And it's the reason I cannot abide anarchism. I don't trust people enough to do without a government to force them (and me) to cooperate sufficiently to make for a decently secure life. Perhaps if Jesus had been more effective we could have achieved a purely altruistic and communal life, a life not unwritten by greed and a persistent need for material things and gratifications. But as I suggested earlier, Jesus pointed the way and we chose to suck his finger for comfort. Some people even have the gall to argue that Jesus supported capitalism. That's the biggest laugh. I see capitalism as the best necessary evil around. We have not evolved sufficiently to achieve communism. And, by the way, a major reason that Sovient pseudo communism failed was that it could not compete with the productive power of capitalism. We broke their bank. We didn't win because God was on our side. We won because Mammon was on our side.

JLN-- I recently studied Cold War USSR, and they were living in deplorable standards without any intervention from us. I think it is fair to say they failed. Maybe if they weren't so huge, they could've survived---but they took on far too much land--were stunted previously by the Mongol invasion, which cut them off from the Renaissance-- It was like locking a child of three in a dark room with poor food and no light--no interaction--and expecting them to keep up with the other children it's age after a two year isolation. They can never catch up. What they missed can't be slapped together later.

The Revolution, IMO, was a worthwhile endeavor in spirit, but the Communist government was more cruel to the people than the Czars were.

I think it's safe to say they just failed. Reagan just forced the issue.

jlnobody and one or two others have said much of what I was thinking coming into this thread. A regulated capitalism is essential to the welfare of a nation. The regulating incorporates some elements thought by some to be godless communism, for there must be a safety net for the populace, something akin to what Roosevelt instituted, only honed and refined to fit a present reality.
Also, anybody who has read and thought very much about it should know that communism is not true Marxism. It is a totalitarian system, not a socialism derived of the people. I am not suggesting that we institute Marxism, just put a few elements into capitalism to make it more sympathetic to the working poor.

Edgar, I agree completely. A safety net is essential to a system in which some must be better off than others. It IS a competitive system after all, and some people, well-meaning, hard working people, just can't succeed like others with more "appropriate" personality systems and rich parents. It's very likely that Roosevelt's reforms saved capitalism, even though the capitalist extremists among us argue that he spoiled it. What do they want a science fiction type of society in which the wealthy live in a walled center with the major starving on the other side of the wall, where the only jobs are as servants to the rich or as military to put down rebellions? No, an enlightened capitalist class will protect its long term interests by providing for the majority, the majority who support the legal system that favors the property interests of the upper classes.

Sofia, your class did not consider the "deplorable conditions" under which the USSR lived as at least partially caused by the high portion of the nation's wealth spent on the arms race? I was in Leningrad and Moscow two weeks before the coup (a real brush with history). The conditions WERE deplorable and the people were bitter, but mainly against Gorbechov, because he had opened up the society to petty capitalism and reduced their security. The entreprenueal spirits approved, but not the majority, at least as I saw it. I think they are better off now, but they did not see it that way then. By the way, why have you gone as far back as the Renaissance to explain the results of the Cold War? I missed your reasoning. Are you suggesting that their deep history had a deleterious effect on their national character? Remember, these are the people who endured many invasions, include those of Japan and later Hitler.

I'm definitely not taking anything away from the Russian/Soviet people. They endured the harshest history I can imagine. And, they were a sturdy, stout-hearted lot, IMO. I wonder if there is a people, indigenous to an area, who have been so mistreated and ill-governed for so long...

But, yes, I do point to the Renaissance. They missed out on sweeping progress in government, human rights, medicine, ....basic knowledge that would surely have steered their govt's course in a more favorable direction. Doesn't knowledge always?

The Soviet land expansion was incredible--but their ability to properly use it, and care for it's inhabitants made it a loss, rather than an acquisition. If they could have mined their resources... The oil that seeped out on to the ground, useless...while people starved and froze.

Its like buying a mansion, but not being able to afford the twenty servants for upkeep, plumbing, electrical--it falls into disrepair, and down on your head after a while. Had they not been sequestered by the Mongols during the Renaissance, yes, I believe they would have fared better. The serf issue would have been resolved sooner and more equitably, I think---and negated the tempers that led the Revolution. That issue was one of the changes they would have learned from re: European Renaissance. Not a character issue--but seeing a better, more efficient way to run a country.

Good answer, Sofia. Could you Apply the same reasoning to China? Their history has not been any more conducive to the Capitalist spirit. Or has it? I really don't know. What I do know, or believe, is that they are on the brink of passing us up as a capitalist enterprise. Could this eventually be the case for a capitalist Russia as well?

Ran across this-- Pretty damning of forced labor--communism
---
Communism: The decline


Between 1985 to 1991 Mikhail Gorbachev was the leader of the USSR. In 1989 Soviet control of Eastern Europe collapsed. In 1991 the Soviet Union fell apart.

Was Gorbachev responsible for the collapse of communism in Europe?

The standard of living

In the early 1960s, communists had been convinced that communism was better than capitalism and that the communist states would soon produce more goods than in the USA and Western Europe. By the 1980s it was clear that communism had failed to deliver high living standards.

Most people in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe were much poorer than the people of Western Europe. Some basic goods, such as sugar, were rationed. The gap between communist and capitalist economies was growing all the time. The Soviet Union and its allies were not able to compete with the West in the new industries of the 1980s - computers and telecommunications.

By the 1980s Soviet farming had failed. The Soviet Union had rich land at its disposal but it could not produce enough food to feed its people. Many people worked on the land but they were very inefficient. In the 1980s farming employed over 20per cent of the workforce, compared with 3 per cent in the USA. On average each American farmer produced seven times more food than each Soviet farmer. As a result the USSR had to import millions of tons of grain, much of it from the USA.

(*Inefficiency and lack of motivation--Not to be confused with American intervention~S)

Corruption and the decline of communism

The founders of communism promised a new kind of state based on fairness and equality. Under the leadership of Brezhnev, Soviet communism moved a long way from these ideals and became more corrupt. As a result ordinary people had less respect for communism.

It was widely known that the family of Brezhnev was corrupt. Leading communists had luxurious country houses or 'dachas' built for themselves. According to one joke that circulated in the Soviet Union at the time, Brezhnev showed his own mother round a new luxury house that he had just had built: his mother commented, 'It's wonderful, Leonid. But what happens if the communists come back to power?'

A second Cold War

With the communist economies in trouble, the cost of the Cold War became more and more unbearable. The price of weapons was constantly increasing. By the 1980s a single bomber cost the same as 200 bombers built during the Second World War. America and its allies could afford these higher costs because their economies were doing well. The Soviet Union could only keep up with the USA by diverting a huge proportion of its national income to defense. People suffered even lower living standards as tanks were built instead of cars and televisions.
(So, with all their land resources and fishing waters--and taxable citizens--or 'state workers'---so much bigger than us--and all that OIL--isn't it a referendum on their form of govt? Didn't it just FAIL?~S)


The cost of the Cold War began to increase when the US President, Ronald Reagan, came to power in 1981: He rejected the idea of detente and encouraged a policy of confrontation with the Soviets. He took the view that communism was wicked and needed to be approached with great firmness. Reagan increased military spending and challenged the USSR to join a new arms race.



The early 1980s have been called the 'Second Cold War' because there was heightened tension between the USA and the Soviet Union. The competition between the superpowers was symbolized by Reagan's 'Star Wars' project (officially known as SDI: the Strategic Defense Initiative). This project involved research into ways of giving America nuclear superiority by destroying Soviet missiles in space.



War in Afghanistan

Brezhnev made a big mistake in December 1979. Soviet troops invaded Afghanistan to support its communist government. The invasion was widely criticized and lost the USSR many friends. It led to a widespread boycott of the Olympic Games that were held in Moscow. Afghanistan was a Muslim country and the USSR was criticized by much of the Islamic world. The Afghan rebels received help from the USA and the invasion encouraged Reagan to take a tough anti-Soviet stance when he became president in 1980.

The Soviet military action was a failure. The official Afghan army was not strong enough to win alone and once the Soviet forces had become involved it became very difficult to withdraw. With Soviet help the Afghan government controlled Kabul, the capital, and other large towns, but the rebels controlled much of the countryside. More and more Soviet troops were needed to prop up an unpopular government. In the early 1980s there were about 125,000 Soviet troops in the country.

The situation of the Soviets in Afghanistan was similar to that of the Americans in Vietnam a decade earlier. The 10-year war led to the death of about 15,000 Soviet troops. It also damaged the Soviet economy: one estimate is that the war cost the USSR about $8 billion dollars a year. The last Soviet troops finally left Afghanistan in February 1989.

JLN--

You have obviously seen the moves China has taken toward Capitalism. I guess that answers the question about Communism.

Can they pass up the US? Certainly. As Communists? Obviously not.

<Appreciate the reminder about China. Can't believe we don't have a thread, watching their progress--but, until they are decent in the Human Rights arena--don't look for anything too impressive. They are still in a long-term, internal Cold War-type civil disobedience. The anniversary of Tiannenman passed recently--with Tiannenman locked down, and protests thwarted. Human Rights and freedom are prerequisites, IMO, for major success on the global scale these days. Will start a thread, or revive one.>

Sofia
I like your very succinct appraisal of Chinese communism mixed with capitalism and the struggle of the Chinese people against their lack of freedom. The system in China is a very good example of powerful elitists pulling the strings over millions of souls who yearn to be free.

Utopia can only be achieved by divorcing humanity from its savage past;
eliminating the unthinking impulses - fear, territoriality, nationalism, predudice, violence, lust, superstition, greed (all of which are, of course, related) so we can think clearly, and share the resources of this planet equitably, and without concern for our individual survival.

I suspect this will only be achieved subsequent to our passing the torch on to our technologically devised, newly 'created' nonbiological successors; if we can manage to imbue them with whatever 'wisdom' we have dicovered, and not the 'foolishness' that we practice.

"Technologically devised, newly "created", NONBIOLOGICAL successors------- Thanks ----I needed that.

we "all" need them!
..............................................

[we are currently busy, building their ancestors!]

I guess you would explain that to me but it's probably classified.

Thanks, Sofia. Your input underscores the principle that major events, like the ending of the Cold War, generally are "overdetermined," that is to say, have multiple causes. I should at least have added the costs of the Afganistan war to that of the arms race.
By the way, could our involvement in Afganistan (not to mention Iraq) be comparable to the Soviet Union's involvement in Afgranistan.

JLN-- So nice to converse. Hope you're having a good day.

You asked--
By the way, could our involvement in Afganistan (not to mention Iraq) be comparable to the Soviet Union's involvement in Afgranistan.

No. The Soviets rolled into Afghanistan to grab land and assets due to their failure. It was a mugging.

Our reasons for Iraq, Vietnam, AND/OR Afghanistan may not have been universally accepted, or even ethical (arguable for some)---but none of them were global muggings for assets.

You seem to want to side-step Communism's inherent failure. Did you think it suceeded as a form of govt?? What were it's strengths, in your opinion?

Perception, BoGoWo is not kidding. He's our resident futurist.
Sofia, I can't think of any benefits from soviet style "communism." But I do think their chances of success were greatly limited by the opposition from world capitalism. Their goal, in theory, was more a matter of economic justice than economic growth. Ours is quite the reverse, at least until FDR.

Sofia:
You are undermining your position by making statements that are blatantly erroneous....
it certainly wasn't land that was the factor for the Soviet Union going into Afghanistan. That was one reason that was totally irrelevant.
It was the backing of the communist regime against the opposing forces which were anathema to the communist approach to life that was the motivating element that eventually made them pay dearly for their folly. They entered the fray because they feared the propogation of the
Chesna type of mentality further into their territory, ....a very similar reason given by the U.S.A. for the Vietnam fiasco....stop the spread of
communism !

Well- alikimr--

The Soviets had their eye on their borders--and, of course, they were trying to prop up their ideology--

I have read accounts that point to Soviet's desire for the Poppy income, and the superior Afghan worker--and anything of use or value, as they were drawing their last breaths. Their history is incredibly expansionist, IMO, and I do see them as land-grabbers--But, though I believe what I said to be true--I admit, it wasn't the BIGGEST truth--not the LEADING reason.

Sort of like we say motives in the Iraq War range from WMD concern to ridding the world of a brutal dictator, to planting a democracy in the ME.... There are multiple reasons and/or sought benefits. So, above, I DID focus on a smaller benefit--and was on a tear on a really peripheral point. My bad.

Afghanistan had an unstable govt-- USSR wanted to control the outcome--

Back after Sopranos--