«

[Kearnsy]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(_r.u.s.s. @ May 29 2006, 11:37 AM) [snapback]232937[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gregor @ May 29 2006, 09:11 AM) [snapback]232901[/snapback]

1. they were doing already bad before they became communist countries
[/b]

socialistic, not communistic. communsitic state NEVER existed. it's an idology, a final stage of socialism. if it had existed, it would be like utopia. but it's realy impossible to do, so socialism served just as a tool to controll all the people
[/b][/quote]

Well many countries who turned to communism we're colonies (eg: Vietnam under french rule). Communism has the major advantage of being very popular for peasant classes and those who have little power. (Mao's long march).

It could work but the flaws are so fundimental that the system struggles from the begining and can be very prone to coruption.
Not to mention that US and others were incredably opposed to it and didn't give it chance to start.

[_r.u.s.s.]

i don't realy think that communism could work, it slows developement, science and research down. it's jsut impossible to predict and controll everything from center and make exact plans for next few years in this century..

[gregor]

if i remember correctly the Russians sent the first man into space.
it actually doesn't slow down things it's speeds them (development) up but it seems that this happens only up to certain limit. and that's the flaw - > limiting possibilities. because everyone is "equal" you are not really alowed to stand out. that's why they invented "heroes" like Gagarin and the rest of scientists.

It is only popular, because capitalism distributes wealth and power unevenly. problem there is that people have money eventhought they did nothing to earn it. and with money comes power. they might not be working but are still having money, while poor farmers are breaking their back and get payed very low for their work which is mkaing food so that rich fat pigs can get fatter. <_<

[_r.u.s.s.]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gregor @ May 29 2006, 12:47 PM) [snapback]232984[/snapback]</div>

problem there is that people have money eventhought they did nothing to earn it.
[/b]

acctually, they had to do something..
they use their brain. of course lots of powerful people doesn't care about others and if this changes, the world will be better=)

[rlbell]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Grinder @ May 28 2006, 08:55 AM) [snapback]232695[/snapback]</div>

I think that was already said.
In answer to ribell's post:
The argument about Henry Ford paying his workers is clearly right, but what is this about Castro? Imagine he chose a successor before his death that was just sucking up to him and pretending to adore the idea of Communism. After his death, the guy would completely go berserk, kill everyone in the government and make himself an absolute ruler of the island. Well done, Fidel, you have just made a fool of yourself.
That is where I personally think this particular theory is wrong. The rest is okay.
[/b]

It is not like people to quietly suppress their sociopathic tendencies; until, they get the opportunity for wish fulfilment. Saddam was always a vicious, ruthless thug. People who spoke against him had always disappeared. You cannot just choose a successor, you have to groom them. So that they can exercise power after you leave, you have to watch them exercise power, to catch mistakes. Not every candidate that you think might govern, actually can, so you have to start early. The real problem with successors is that you must give them the opportunity and means to replace you at their convenience. A sociopathic successor to Castro would not wait for Castro to die, he would simply kill him once the succession was secure. This is what made Saddam bounce around Iraq in a way that no one could predict, he could not always be sure of discovering rivals before they were readt to act

If Castro is a great leader, he is able to attract capable people to work with him, without the fear that these people will try to eliminate and replace him. You will note that I just not say that a successor was available before the body got cold, but was able to maintain an orderly society.

Saddam Hussein was not a great leader, he was a ruthless leader. Saddam Hussein retained leadership of Iraq by killing anyone remotely capable of governing the country, in his absence. Iraq is such a problem for coalition forces, because Saddam Hussein was very good at his brand of ruthlessness and there is still no one in Iraq with the confidence and capability to replace Saddam.

Gamel Abdul Nasser was a great leader (I may disagree with his politics, but he obviously was a great leader), precisely because he attracted competent people to help him in his cause. Anwar Sadat was one of his subordinates, and he was able to govern Egypt for years. Sadat was suddenly shot by islamic fundamentalists within the Egyptian army (Sadat was shot while reviewing troops). His vice president Hosni Mubarrik stepped in and has governed the country, ever since, while maintaining and expanding the policies started by Sadat.

The mark of a great leader is how he is replaced when he can no longer lead. In Roman histroy, there is the period of "The Five Good Emperors". There were five emperors (Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurellius) in a row who were gifted administrators and capable leaders. It might have been six, but Marcus Aurellius was not capable of disowning his lout of a son, who was ambitious, ruthless, but not especially capable. There was a period in Roman history called "The Barracks Emperors" when a series of ambitious generals held the throne, but none of them were good leaders, and even most classical scholars do not bother to learn their names.

So if Cuba continues to be governed in accordance with Castro's hopes and dreams, after he dies, he must have been a very competent leader. This is not to say that Castro is a good man, merely that he can get people to follow him.

[Mighty Midget]

About that last note. I'm not sure. Now, let's say that the leader is a complete and utter despotic, madman piece of #%@¤, and he happens to design a system where people are deprived of all power and have-a-say, leaving that to his closest cult followers, so that when he dies, a new leader rises from that close circle. Was he a good LEADER then? For his cult, yes, for his subjects, a resounding NO!

Why? A headless chicken runs about for a while, but you can hardly say it's being lead anywhere.

[laiocfar]

It was hard to read all but i done near all, near coz between i wrote this and posted it there are some hours

First i wanna make some points in common:
1) Marx´s communism was designed to Germany, not to Russia.
Marx´s Communism is the last step in the human evolution, is the last part of a progress:
slavers society ---> feudalism ---> capitalism ---> socialism ---> comunism ---> utopia (people lives without need of work)
In a Marx way, CCCP has got to fail coz they skipped capitalism:
slaves -----> Feudalism --skip--> socialism --> glashnot and perestroika
Acient times Empire 1917 1990
After the end of the progress, in utopia status, there isnt need of goverment. Tech will be at top.
So CCCP, China, N Korea, Cuba, Nasser´s Egypt, Libia and others are differents ways of socialism.

2)

it actually doesn't slow down things it's speeds them (development) up but it seems that this happens only up to certain limit. and that's the flaw - > limiting possibilities. because everyone is "equal" you are not really alowed to stand out. that's why they invented "heroes" like Gagarin and the rest of scientists. [/b]

Communism goal is to distribute the wealth as equals and task according to skills. A top sportman will be an heroe by their skills but he will not get a fortune by that, at least this is a should. But in communism weath is distributed normally, the redistribution of the wealth comes from legal redistribution (tax to rich) and the redistribution of the production.

3) During Cold war neither CCCP block or US block were very democratic, at least in a modern way. The opposition (true opposition), were killed in both blocks without mercy or respect of the law.
Right now human rights arent better in US and close allies (UK is an exception) or the socialist nations.

4)

i don't realy think that communism could work, it slows developement, science and research down. it's just impossible to predict and controll everything from center and make exact plans for next few years in this century..[/b]

CCCP was in 1917, one of the most retrograd countries in the world. In 1950, even with the Stalin attrocities it got their living standars pump up and was the one the two most powerfull nations.
Cuba before Castro was a garabage dumping island. Even with lack of elections, Castro manage to raised the living standars, having the education and health standars top of America, and all this under siege in a isle that only produce sugar.

[gregor]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(_r.u.s.s. @ May 29 2006, 12:52 PM) [snapback]232991[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gregor @ May 29 2006, 12:47 PM) [snapback]232984[/snapback]

problem there is that people have money eventhought they did nothing to earn it.
[/b]

acctually, they had to do something..
they use their brain. of course lots of powerful people doesn't care about others and if this changes, the world will be better=)
[/b][/quote]

meh not if they were born into a rich familly. or if they "stole" it and got away with it. well maybe in this case they actually used brain but in an unethical way.

utopia -> I robot -> maschines do all the work for us. there is still the problem of energy source...

[Nick]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(laiocfar @ May 30 2006, 07:39 AM) [snapback]233146[/snapback]</div>

CCCP was in 1917...
[/b]

You are mistaken. In 1917 there was a only a revolution. CCCP was formed in 1922 on 30 December. As for me, maybe communism is a cool system. But you can't do so as sheeps are safe and sound and wolves are replete.

[rlbell]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(laiocfar @ May 30 2006, 03:39 AM) [snapback]233146[/snapback]</div>

It was hard to read all but i done near all, near coz between i wrote this and posted it there are some hours


Cuba before Castro was a garabage dumping island. Even with lack of elections, Castro manage to raised the living standars, having the education and health standars top of America, and all this under siege in a isle that only produce sugar.
[/b]

Castro has been very good to Cuba, if only in comparison to the man he replaced, Batista. Castro even appreciates all of the help he gets from the US. The american embargo against Cuba gives Castro a handy excuse for all of Cuba's economic problems. If Castro was as bad as some americans describe him, his regime would collapse within months of resumption of trade with the US.

Communism works best when everyone has nothing, and there is no wealth to redistribute. Cuba may not have better health care than the best available to americans, but working class cubans are better off than working class americans, and Elian Gonzales had a longer life expectancy as a little cuban boy than a little boy in a working class, South Florida household (at least, so says the World Health Organization).