Dear Joker (and others),

Did you read my post about the Russian revolution in the Revolutions(and the start of new empires) thread? I admit its quite long; but it proves Russia before 1917 certainly wasn't "feudal" in any way. The Russian monarchy before 1905 -the year the first Duma was granted after a succesful revolution- can best be described as a Despotism.

quote: Then I would like to point out that the serfs were liberated in 1861 in the reign of the 'liberal' Alexander II(1855-1881), one of the more able Russian monarchs though not a strong personality, during the period of the so-called Great Reforms. The peasants became personally free at once, without any payment, and his landlord was obliged to grant him his plot for a fixed rent with the possibility of redeeming it at a price to be mutually agreed upon. If the peasant desired to redeem his plot, the government paid at once to the landowner the whole price, which the peasant had to repay to the exchequer in 49 years. By 1880 only 15% of the peasants had not made use of the redemption scheme, and in 1881 it was declared obligatory. The landowners tried, but in vain, to keep their power in local administration. The liberated peasants were organized in village communities governed by elected elders. The following citations do come all from the books of Pipes. 'There exists a widespread impression that before 1917 Russia was a "feudal" country in which the Imperial Court, the Church, and a small minority of wealthy nobles owned the bulk of the land, while the peasants either cultivated minuscule plots or worked as tenant farmers. This condition is believed to have been a prime cause of the Revolution. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth: the image derives from conditions in pre-1789 France, where, indeed, the vast majority of peasants tilled the land of otheres. It was in such Western countries as England, Ireland, Spain, and Italy (all of which happened to avoid revolution) that ownership of agricultural land was concentrated in the hands of the wealthy, sometimes to an extreme degree. Russia, by contrast, was a classic land of small peasant cultivators. Latifundia here existed primarily in the borderlands, in regions taken from Poland and Sweden. At the time of their Emancipation, the ex-serfs received approximately one-half of the land which they had previously tilled. In the decades that followed, with the help of the Land Bank, which offered them credit on easy terms, they bought additional properties, mainly from landlords. By 1905, peasant cultivators owned, either communally or privately, 61.8 percent of the land in private possession in Russia. As we shall see, after the Revolution of 1905 the exodus of non-peasant landowners from the countryside accelerated, and in 1916, on the eve of the Revolution, peasant cultivators in European Russia owned nine-tenths of the arable land.' (source: R.Pipes:'The Russian Revolution',1990)

Now I quote the Joker:

quote: I disagree on Russia having always been a great power. In WW1 the russian army was litteraly slaughtered by the germans. The russians didn't stand a chance. After the revolution the commies very fast started an industrial revolution, and in WW2 - only 20 years later - the russian army could actually beat the german one.

I agree almost out of habit with all opinions of the Joker, but this is really untrue. From the reign of Peter the Great(1682-1725) -who by the way would be a far better choice as leader of the Russians, instead of that terrible Lenin- Russia was always considered a Great Power. Read Kennedy (or any other good study)! It is always possible that a Great Power is defeated in war by another Great Power.
Britain and the Russian empire in the end did defeat Napoleon. After the Congress of Vienna(1815) Russia expanded far to the west, annexing Poland and lots of other territory. It became the stongest continental power; the other Great European Powers were Britain, France, Austria and Prussia.
During the nineteenth century the balance of power shifted, mainly as a result of industrialization. Britain, already the strongest of all, was the first to industrialize; France and Germany followed, but Austria and Russia began rather late with Industrialization, which indeed caused a change of the position of power of Germany and Russia. But her status as a Great Power was never in doubt, nor was the position of the far weaker Austria-Hungary. The French put all their hopes on Russia to seek revenge on the German empire for the defeat of1870, another example showing that a Great Power can lose a war and still remain a Great Power!

I'll use my Pipes again:
'In this connection, it is often ignored that the economic development of the United States also benefitted greatly from foreign investments. European investments in the United States in mid-1914 are estimated to have been $6.7 billion, twice the capital invested by Europeans in Russia. "In considerable measure the funds for the national expansion and development of the United States," writes an economic historian, "had been obtained from abroad." And yet the role of foreign capital is rarely mentioned in American histories and never led to charges that it had made the United States a "colony" of Europe.

The opening phase of the Industrial Revolution in Russia got underway around 1890 with a rapid spurt in industrial production. Some Western European economists have calculated that during the decade of the 1890s Russian industrial productivity increased by 126 percent, which was twice the rate of the German and triple that of the american growth. Even allowing that Russia started from a much lower base, the rise was impressive. Between 1890 and 1900, the value of Russian industrial output more than doubled (from 1.5 billion to 3.4 billion rubles).

In 1900, Imperial Russia was the world's largest producer of petroleum, her annual output exceeding that of all the other countries combined. It is generally agreed by economic historians that on the eve of World War I, by which time the value of her industrial production had risen to 5.7 billion rubles, Russia had the fifth-largest economy in the world, which was impressive even if, proportionate to her population, her industrial productivity and income remained low. Thus, in 1910, Russia's per capita consumption of coal was 4 percent of the American, and of iron, 6.25 percent.

The Russian army was, first and foremost, the guarantor of the country's status as a great power. The military establishment was to an even greater extent than the bureaucracy the personal service of the autocrat, if only because the Tsars took a very personal interest in the armed forces and favored them over the bureaucracy, whose interference and pressures often annoyed the Court.

With a standing army of 2.6 million men, Russia had the largest military establishment in the world: it was nearly equal to the combined armies on active service of Germany and Austria-Hungary (1.9 and 1.1 million, respectively).

The most that one can say is that a revolution in Russia was more likely than not, and this for several reasons. Of these, perhaps the most weighty was the steady decline of the prestige of tsardom in the eyes of a population accustomed to being ruled by an invincible authority -indeed, seeing in invincibility the criterion of legitimacy. After a century and a half of military victories and expansion, from the middle of the nineteenth century until 1917, Russia suffered one humiliation after another at the hands of foreigners: the defeat, on her own soil, in the Crimean War; the loss at the Congress of Berlin of the fruits of victory over the Turks; the debacle in the war with Japan; and the drubbing at the hands of the Germans in World War I. Such a succession of reverses would have damaged the reputation of any government: in Russia it proved fatal. Tsarism's disgrace was compounded by the concurrent rise of a revolutionary movement which it was unable to quell despite resort to harsh repression. The half-hearted concessions made in 1905 to share power with society neither made tsarism more popular with the opposition nor raised its prestige in the eyes of the people at large, who simply could not understand how a ruler would allow himself to be abused from the forum of a government institution. The Confucian principle of T'ien-ming, or Mandate of Heaven, which in its original meaning linked the ruler's authority to righteous conduct, in Russia derived from forceful conduct: a weak ruler, a "loser", forfeited it. Nothing could be more misleading than to judge a Russian head of state by the standard of either morality or popularity: what mattered was that he inspire fear in friend and foe -that, like Ivan IV, he deserve the sobriquet of "Awesome". Nicholas II fell not because he was hated but because he was held in contempt.'

It is true indeed that Russia suffered most humiliating defeats during WWI. Yet they contributed in a rather indirect way to the victory of the Allies.

'To the Russians, 1915 brought unmitigated disaster, as painful politically and psychologically as militarily. They had lost rich lands that had been under their rule for a century or more, as well as Galicia, which they had conquered recently. Twenty-three million of the Tsar's subjects -13 percent of the Empire's population- came under enemy occupation. The defeats dealt a hard blow to the morale of Russian troops. Soldiers who had fought smartly against the Germans the preceding fall and winter now came to regard the enemy as invincible: the mere sight of a German helmet sowed panic in Russian ranks. The Germans, it was said, "could do anything". One effect of this sense of hopeless inferiority that spread in the Russian armies in 1915 was a readiness to surrender. In 1915 the Germans and Austrians captured over one million Russians, whom they sent to work in the fields. Russian troops began to show signs of demoralization. To appease them, General Ianushkevich unsuccesfully urged the government to issue a pledge that after victory every war veteran would receive twenty-five acres of land. Officers were heard to grumble about the failure of France and Britain to help Russia with diversionary attacks as Russia had done for their benefit the year before.

The old Russian army was no more. By the fall of 1915, the frontline forces were reduced to one-third of what they had been at the start of hostilities, 870,000 men at most. Nearly all the cadres of the Russian army of 1914, including most of its field officers, were gone; so was a good part of the trained reserves. It was now necessary to induct reserves of the Second Levy and the National Militia, made up of older men, many of them without previous training.

And yet it can be argued that the splendid German victory of 1915 led to the German defeat of 1918. The 1915 offensive on the Eastern front had had a double objective: to destroy the enemies's armies in Poland and force Russia to make peace. It attained neither goal. The Russians managed to extricate their forces from Poland and they did not sue for peace. The German High Command, summing up the lessons of the 1915 campaign, concluded that given the willingness of the Russians to sacrifice lives and territory without limit, they could not be decisively defeated. This conclusion led Germany to put out peace feelers to Petrograd. Second, the 1915 campaigns gave the British the breathing spell they needed to assemble a citizen army and place their industrial establishment on a war footing. {Remember my War/Peace SE choice?} When, in early 1916, the Germans resumed operations in the west, they found their opponents well prepared. For all its brilliant battlefield successes, therefore, the German campaign of 1915 must ultimately be classified as a strategic defeat, both because it failed to attain its military purpose and because it lost precious time. The debacle of 1915 may well have been Russia's greatest, if unintended, contribution to Allied victory.

Civilians, however, rarely think in strategic terms. The Russian population knew only that its armies had suffered a humiliating defeat, one of the worst, if not the worst, in their modern history. They were fed by the press an unremitting diet of disaster stories. From the moment the Germans launched their April offensive until they suspended operations half a year later, the country was in a state of mounting outrage. This at first found outlets in a quest for scapegoats; but as the extent of the debacle became known, clamor arose for a change in the country's political leadership. By June 1915, the spirit of common purpose that had united the government and opposition in the early months of the war vanished, yielding to recriminations and hostility even more intense than the mood of 1904-05 when the Russians were reeling from Japanese blows.

Military historians have observed that in war demoralization and panic usually begin, not at the front, but in the rear, among civilians who are prone to exaggerate both defeats and victories. So it was in Russia. Measures were taken to evacuate Riga and Kiew, and the government discussed the possible evacuation of Petrograd itself. In May 1915, a Moscow mob carried out a vicious anti-German pogrom, demolishing stores and business firms bearing German names. Anyone overheard speaking German risked lynching. The public clamored for heads.'

I think Tiberius's analysis of Communism is a sound one. I'll quote an important remark:

quote: You must understand one very important thing: in communism, the leading people were not the great thinkers, or scientists, or managers. NO. The most important quality of a leader was the loyalty to the Communist Party. In every domain. And they were bad professionals, bad leaders and very often stupid and sneaky people.

Accountability is one of the greatest strengths of democracies. In autocratic regimes people in power as a rule don't need to give account.

Because I love statistics and believe they can prove something (-but what?-) I'll give some figures.

Infant mortality rate (per thousand live births) ~1900, ~1950, ~1980
Sweden: 96 / 22/ 7.0
Great Br: 145 / 33 / 10.8
France: 149 / 53 / 9.0
United St: 162 / 33 / 10.9
Japan: 151 / 60 / 6.6
Russia: 260 / 81 / 27.7
Mexico: ?? / 96 / 60
Brazil: ?? / 107 / 79
India: 232 / 127 / 130
Iran: ?? / ?? / 108.1
Nigeria: ?? / 87 / 124

Expectation of life at birth ~1900, ~1950, ~1980
West Eur: 47 / 67 / ??
Sweden: ?? / 71.5 / 76
Engl+Wal: ?? / 68.5 / 73
France: ?? / 66.5 / 74
United St: 48 / 68.5 / 74
Japan: ?? / 58 / 76
Russia: 32 / 64 / 69
Mexico: ?? / 49.5 / 65
Brazil: ?? / 54 / 59.5
China: ?? / 46 / 64
India: 23 / 41.5 / 45.5
Iran: ?? / 42.5 / 57.5
Nigeria: ?? / 34.5 / 47.5

Estimated adult literacy rates in 1950
North Africa: 10-15%
Tropcl and Sth Afr: 15-20%
North America: 96-97%
Middle America: 58-60%
South America: 56-58%
Sth West Asia: 20-25%
South Ctr Asia: 15-20%
Sth East Asia: 30-35%
East Asia: 50-55%
Nth & West Eur: 98-99%
Central Eur: 97-98%
South Eur: 79-80%
UnSoSoRe: 89-90%
Oceania: 90-95%
(sources: C.M.Cipolla:'The Economic History of World Population',1962; R.Cameron:'A Concise Economic History of the World',1989)

Sweden, democratic and socialist, always gets very good statistical figures, though the difference is rather marginal.

quote: Originally posted by Tiberius on 05-19-2000 09:39 AM Just because bullshits like this millions of people lived 50 years in misery, lie and hate (if lived). If you want to try it, then try it on yourself. Why don't you go and live a few years in North Korea? Did you read George Orwell's "1984"? That was supposed to be our future, in the communists vision. [This message has been edited by Tiberius (edited May 19, 2000).]

Do I see Reinforcements for Venger ?

btw North-Korea is no communism . its the plainest simplest despotism , hiding under the pretence of Communism . anyway , ppl that say that Communism is plain despotism are wrong , even for this reason :
in communism -the goal is the good of the people , maybe implemented in a rather bad way sometimes , but the goal is good .

In despotism the goal is the Welfare of the Elites.

S. Kroeze :

quote: I think Tiberius's analysis of Communism is a sound one. I'll quote an important remark: quote: You must understand one very important thing: in communism, the leading people were not the great thinkers, or scientists, or managers. NO. The most important quality of a leader was the loyalty to the Communist Party. In every domain. And they were bad professionals, bad leaders and very often stupid and sneaky people. Accountability is one of the greatest strengths of democracies. In autocratic regimes people in power as a rule don't need to give account.

oh , really ? well you should really come visit Israel some time .....

that's all for now .

It seems you want to make a very clever and important statement. Could you please be more specific? At the moment I can only guess what your point will be.
Thanking you in advance,

I know that this all had a point, but I'm beginning to lose sight of what that was, so I'm going to respond to Venger and then continue on with some statements that Grier made during the post.

quote: Originally posted by Venger on 05-18-2000 11:55 PM It's damn near all tax...

Yah...Socialism has it's benefits, but at what cost!

quote: Originally posted by Venger on 05-18-2000 11:55 PM He attacked at exactly the RIGHT time. Examine the actions of Stalin leading up to the war. Russia would never be more vulnerable. That's the thing, Germany already got good timing and luck. Which explains their early success. Wait another year, what makes you think Russia

If I was in Hitler's position (no I do not support Nazism, but if I was trying to win the war) I would have conquered Europe, North Africa, and Great Britain. Never declared war on US (That was a tragic mistake) and if Japan complained - to hell with them. If he had waited until he secured Europe under German control - Yes, I do believe Russia would've been a pushover. Germany didn't attack when Russia was at it's weakest, just when they were gullible. Stalin wouldn't have done so much to prepare for war with Germany during the time he conquered Europe. Hitler could have easily dooped the entire Russian government into believeing a joint control of Eurasia, and then taken over. That's just my view. He blew it, to many countries at war at one time, Germany was to small to handle it.

Yes, I know Spain would have gladly let the US land and invade Germany, because they were scared to be "next". But the Pyrenees were fortified along with the Atlantic wall. Southern France was defended by a wall. It wasn't THE Atlantic Wall but it was similar, and usually the two are used together as "the Atlantic Wall". Western Italy meaning the little portion that touches France.

There were Axis ships in the mediterranian.

Russia is in a state of Anarchy, so I think we should give that to their credit when talking about Alcohol abuse. The children in Major cities like Moscow are at war with each other (It's the Pro-Nazis versus the rappers) And the government is being rebuilt from scratch (what a tole Communism played on Russia) But drinking in the US isn't even a simple drink anymore. People go to sporting events and brag about how many beers they drank. Highest I heard was at a Flyers hockey game - 22 8 oz Beers. (BTW: There's a posted limit of two per customer) That's 176 ounces of beer!!! His friend next to him drank 18. So between the two of them they drank 320 ounces. Wanna know what else - They both drove seperate cars home. I think drinking problems are found in both the US and Russia.

BTW: The spelling crack was just a joke, I figured it was a simple typo

Ok, Grier I noticed you gave a system about different government types...I liked it, but I had a change or two that I see fit. Looking for comments on this b/c I think it would serve a lot of purpose in the game.

quote: Originally posted by Grier on 05-18-2000 6:13 PM Dictatorship: Very high stability, low crime, cheap military, low trade, low science, low diplomacy, low production. Monarchy: High stability, med crime, average military, high trade, low science, high diplomacy, medium production. Communism: Medium stability, low crime, cheap military, low trade, medium science, medium diplomacy, high production. Democracy: Low stability, high crime, expensive military, very high trade, high science, high diplomacy, high production. NOTE: Stability represents how stable a form of government is at its inception, all governments would grow more stable over time.

Ok, I think Dictatorhip, Monarchy and Communism should become less stable with time. Similar to real world (who supports Dictatorhips today? Cuba maybe, but they're "Communist")

Than Republic and Democracy get stronger with age.

What about fundamentalism? I say it shouldn't become stronger or weaker but I know there are many views on Fundamentalism.

I know that this all had a point, but I'm beginning to lose sight of what that was, so I'm going to respond to Venger and then continue on with some statements that Grier made during the post.

quote: Originally posted by Venger on 05-18-2000 11:55 PM It's damn near all tax...

Yah...Socialism has it's benefits, but at what cost!

quote: Originally posted by Venger on 05-18-2000 11:55 PM He attacked at exactly the RIGHT time. Examine the actions of Stalin leading up to the war. Russia would never be more vulnerable. That's the thing, Germany already got good timing and luck. Which explains their early success. Wait another year, what makes you think Russia

If I was in Hitler's position (no I do not support Nazism, but if I was trying to win the war) I would have conquered Europe, North Africa, and Great Britain. Never declared war on US (That was a tragic mistake) and if Japan complained - to hell with them. If he had waited until he secured Europe under German control - Yes, I do believe Russia would've been a pushover. Germany didn't attack when Russia was at it's weakest, just when they were gullible. Stalin wouldn't have done so much to prepare for war with Germany during the time he conquered Europe. Hitler could have easily dooped the entire Russian government into believeing a joint control of Eurasia, and then taken over. That's just my view. He blew it, to many countries at war at one time, Germany was to small to handle it.

Yes, I know Spain would have gladly let the US land and invade Germany, because they were scared to be "next". But the Pyrenees were fortified along with the Atlantic wall. Southern France was defended by a wall. It wasn't THE Atlantic Wall but it was similar, and usually the two are used together as "the Atlantic Wall". Western Italy meaning the little portion that touches France.

There were Axis ships in the mediterranian.

Russia is in a state of Anarchy, so I think we should give that to their credit when talking about Alcohol abuse. The children in Major cities like Moscow are at war with each other (It's the Pro-Nazis versus the rappers) And the government is being rebuilt from scratch (what a tole Communism played on Russia) But drinking in the US isn't even a simple drink anymore. People go to sporting events and brag about how many beers they drank. Highest I heard was at a Flyers hockey game - 22 8 oz Beers. (BTW: There's a posted limit of two per customer) That's 176 ounces of beer!!! His friend next to him drank 18. So between the two of them they drank 320 ounces. Wanna know what else - They both drove seperate cars home. I think drinking problems are found in both the US and Russia.

BTW: The spelling crack was just a joke, I figured it was a simple typo

Ok, Grier I noticed you gave a system about different government types...I liked it, but I had a change or two that I see fit. Looking for comments on this b/c I think it would serve a lot of purpose in the game.

quote: Originally posted by Grier on 05-18-2000 6:13 PM Dictatorship: Very high stability, low crime, cheap military, low trade, low science, low diplomacy, low production. Monarchy: High stability, med crime, average military, high trade, low science, high diplomacy, medium production. Communism: Medium stability, low crime, cheap military, low trade, medium science, medium diplomacy, high production. Democracy: Low stability, high crime, expensive military, very high trade, high science, high diplomacy, high production. NOTE: Stability represents how stable a form of government is at its inception, all governments would grow more stable over time.

Ok, I think Dictatorhip, Monarchy and Communism should become less stable with time. Similar to real world (who supports Dictatorhips today? Cuba maybe, but they're "Communist")

Than Republic and Democracy get stronger with age.

What about fundamentalism? I say it shouldn't become stronger or weaker but I know there are many views on Fundamentalism.

quote: I don't like "Communism" nor "Nazism"! got it? I'm against some of Venger's points not all his ideas OK?

I'll try not to hold your disagreements against you...

quote: There are so many reasons why Germany lost the War becasue of Hitler but by Atmoic bomb.

His loss cannot be directly attributed to the atomic bomb. What if's are indeed somewaht irrelevant. But in the world of what if, realize that as soon as it was developed, the war was over.

quote: 1.First he diverted his forces too soon(England had to be subdued or neutralised first before operation "Barbarossa".)

Only was to neutralize was for Hitler to pursue Sea Lion, which had a rather low prospect of success.

quote: 2.He declared a war against USA(fatal strategic mistake)

Frankly, whether he declared or not, Hitler was at war with the U.S. in late 1941. U.S. LendLease and other material aid was more important than troops at that early juncture. I don't consider this a real factor.

quote: 3.Dunkirk evacuation was possible because of Hitler's halt order on Panzer corps near there.(Hitler wanted a diplomatic solution on England)

Not sure what the long term impact really would have been had they pressed the attack on the BEF.

quote: 4.Operation Barbarossa was a failure from the beginning.(Hitler's overconfidence & incorrect infomation about USSR's potential armed reserve->hugh manpower,the Siberians)

Agreed, Germany had numerous strokes of luck just to enjoy the early successes of Barbarossa.

quote: 5.Failure to take the most decisive and strategic point of Russia(Moscow)at right moment(Hitler's interference->attacking Caucassus)

Not sure how important Moscow truly was. He wanted the oilfields...

quote: 6.Only Germany was never geared up to its full potential for total war, whereas USSR,UK,USA,Japan were.(it was for later stage of the war but it was too late)

Certain sectors certainly were. There are some somewhat exaggerated stories about life in Germany during the war.

quote: 7.Too many unnecessary "hold" order to the front line troops which were facing an annihilation.

Certainly didn't help. The Germans developed very effective retreat and defense tactics, they'd have extended the war slightly had they been allowed to utilize them sooner...

quote: 8.Too many stupid interferances on armament industry as well as military research.

Well, that's nationalized socialism for you. And for the complaints to interference, German military industry was fairly resourceful under Speer.

quote: Because they never were in a position to develop the only weapon that could have possibly saved them. Same perception and same logic with those Nazi Germans during later stage of the war. Germany lost the war because of that kind of illogical way of thinking. They thought "if we bomb London more often" or "if we have something to scare the allies" can be the way to achieve victory. In fact, Hitler was the one spreading this kind of thinking from very early stage of the war.

The atomic bomb isn't "something to scare the allies". It was the penultimate weapon. Germans should be thankful it wasn't bult a year earlier, cause it'd been dropped all over Germany...

quote: Again you are up to my word not point. I ask you this now once and for all: CAN YOU SAY "There is not a single field where Soviet science was advanced"? no more woggle giggle Venger! just simple answer "yes" or "no"!

Soviet sciense was advanced in some fields, yes.

That's not the same as being more advanced. That's where I dispute...

quote: No, I am rebutting your argument that the country that launches the most satellites has the most advanced space program. No more, no less. Did I say "SPACE PROGRAM"? I recall I said "ROCKET TECH". why do you change my word?

I think they are fairly concommitant.

quote: I bet the junk computers in my garage are more advanced than half the systems on Mir. Then bring those junk to NASA and shoot up you own space station. I wonder why one US based firm contracted with Russia for Mir for long term commercial use.

Because they can? Mir is not useless, just rickety.

quote: and I don't see your "killing ratio" mentioning SU27 or SU35. also Pilot quality was not counted with your examples. Imagine the outcome if those Syrians piloting F16,F15,etc and the Israelis piloting Mig29,Su27,etc.

Soviets had not exported Flanker or Super Flanker aircraft to those nations at the time.

quote: so you must have heard someone say "I love it" in a sardonic manner You should have known that and I assume you are pretty confused with face to face taliking from written statement.

I still don't see how you can take it any other way...

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger on 05-19-2000 06:11 AM Sorry to butt in your debate but I would like to get a word in edgewise.

Everyone's welcome...

quote: Most of you are saying that Communism doesn't work and points to the Soviets as an example. The problem with this is you are confusing an idea with its implementation.

If it cannot be implemented, doesn't that kinda mean it doesn't work?

quote: From somebody who has taken Political Philosophy, Communism works great in theory.

From a Cum Laude graduate of the UT-Dallas school of Government and Politics, there is no such thing as "working in theory". Either it works, or it doesn't. Communism does not work. Can not work. Will not work.

quote: Lets look at it in another way. How many tries did it take before the first heavier than air craft completed a successful flight? How many times did Edison stumble before he found the right material for light bulb?

How hard can you try to make a pig fly?

It's always interesting to listen to someone who has lived under a communist regime respond to what we may call communist apologists.

For some reason, academia and the college years create a caustic reaction in the minds of youth, leading to a blind romanticism for communist policy. It's interesting to see the neophytic vision challenged by real world experience, paid at a price too high for any of us to imagine. Your input is very valuable, as you've seen firsthand the effects of an utter absence of liberty and self determination.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is like a drug to some segments of American college-age youth, only the lessons of life can act as an antidote...

quote: If I was in Hitler's position (no I do not support Nazism, but if I was trying to win the war) I would have conquered Europe, North Africa, and Great Britain.

Britain's gonna be a real *****. And while you do that, Stalin develops his position in the East and modernizes. You're never likely to have the confluence of good timing and the stunning idiocy of Stalin again.

quote: Never declared war on US (That was a tragic mistake) and if Japan complained - to hell with them.

Again, I don't see that as a real failure. Do you really think the U.S. was going to stay out of the war? After Japan attacked, we adopted...a Europe first strategy. Trust me, Hitler declaration or not, the U.S. was going to war with Germany.

quote: If he had waited until he secured Europe under German control - Yes, I do believe Russia would've been a pushover. Germany didn't attack when Russia was at it's weakest, just when they were gullible.

Russia never got weaker during the war. Only stronger. Once they recovered from the intial thrusts, it was only a matter of time.

quote: Stalin wouldn't have done so much to prepare for war with Germany during the time he conquered Europe.

Stalin was preparing for Soviet expansion, be it in Germany or the middle east or Asia.

quote: Hitler could have easily dooped the entire Russian government into believeing a joint control of Eurasia, and then taken over. That's just my view. He blew it, to many countries at war at one time, Germany was to small to handle it.

Well, you got that last part right. Too much to bite off.

quote: Yes, I know Spain would have gladly let the US land and invade Germany, because they were scared to be "next". But the Pyrenees were fortified along with the Atlantic wall. Southern France was defended by a wall. It wasn't THE Atlantic Wall but it was similar, and usually the two are used together as "the Atlantic Wall". Western Italy meaning the little portion that touches France.[quote] Once a second front was opened, the German position was critically exposed. [quote]There were Axis ships in the mediterranian.

They are all still there, occassionally an anchor lands on one.

quote: Russia is in a state of Anarchy, so I think we should give that to their credit when talking about Alcohol abuse. The children in Major cities like Moscow are at war with each other (It's the Pro-Nazis versus the rappers) And the government is being rebuilt from scratch (what a tole Communism played on Russia) But drinking in the US isn't even a simple drink anymore. People go to sporting events and brag about how many beers they drank. Highest I heard was at a Flyers hockey game - 22 8 oz Beers. (BTW: There's a posted limit of two per customer) That's 176 ounces of beer!!! His friend next to him drank 18. So between the two of them they drank 320 ounces. Wanna know what else - They both drove seperate cars home. I think drinking problems are found in both the US and Russia.

I don't drink. It tastes awful. Besides, I;m so much damn fun sober...

I recognize alcohol and it's effect here and in Russia. The whole thread of this relates to a quote where someone said "Not all Russians are drunks". No, but more of them are than in any other country in the world. I said it then, I'll say it now. It's a shame.

quote: BTW: The spelling crack was just a joke, I figured it was a simple typo

I do it alot, I think faster than I type...although I have never dooped anyone...I did dupe them once...see above...

quote: Ok, I think Dictatorhip, Monarchy and Communism should become less stable with time. Similar to real world (who supports Dictatorhips today? Cuba maybe, but they're "Communist")

Don't change them with time. The point isn't to make them fail like in real life, rather to add variety to the game. I really don't want to have a government that flushes itself down the toilet after 70 years...

quote: What about fundamentalism? I say it shouldn't become stronger or weaker but I know there are many views on Fundamentalism.

Fewer free units, more corruption than now, but that's it.

Venger

quote: What if's are indeed somewaht irrelevant. But in the world of what if, realize that as soon as it was developed, the war was over.

Yes, only in the World of "what if" which does not belong to the realm of History.

quote: Only was to neutralize was for Hitler to pursue Sea Lion, which had a rather low prospect of success.

Yes,low probability because of the success of operation "Dynamo"(Dunkirk evacuation) prior to operation "Sea Lion"(invasion of England) I will explain about it down there.

quote: Frankly, whether he declared or not, Hitler was at war with the U.S. in late 1941. U.S. LendLease and other material aid was more important than troops at that early juncture. I don't consider this a real factor.

Do you think USA would send combat troops to Europe if Hitler did not declare a war on USA? Maintianing LendLease program and actually declaring a war on Germany would have quite different consequences. If there was LendLease alone, the pressure on Germany wouldn't be that hard considering daylight bombing of USAAF on the German industry.

quote: Not sure what the long term impact really would have been had they pressed the attack on the BEF.

That survived bulk of BEF consisted main body of the island's defence which made heavy burden on planning "Sea Lion".(more invasion forces needed which meant more ships which Germany could not afford to get and bigger size convoy means less chance to get through RAF and Royal navy)

quote: Agreed, Germany had numerous strokes of luck just to enjoy the early successes of Barbarossa.

True and the early success and luck made Hitler more insane and overconfident.

quote: Not sure how important Moscow truly was. He wanted the oilfields

Moscow was the centre organ of Russia(all the communications are centralised to Moscow)
Guderian saw the importance of taking Moscow(he thought the earlier the better)but Hitler diverted Army group centre's panzer arms into Caucassus(yes he wanted the oilfields)and valuable some months were gone for Army group centre(it could not advance without panzer arms)when it received its panzer corps(exhausted)winter was already approaching and you know bulla bulla..... many military historians ask if Guderian's request was accepted, what would had happend? Many agree Russia would be paralysed and eventually collapsed.

quote: The Germans developed very effective retreat and defense tactics

Yes the Hedgehog tactics!

quote: Well, that's nationalized socialism for you. And for the complaints to interference, German military industry was fairly resourceful under Speer.

Sure if there was no Speer, Germany would be in even bigger trouble. Only his brilliant performance could offset Hitler's stupid interfence without any significant production penalty. There are many examples that Hitler ruined Germany's resource allocation. Germany desperately needed more fighters to intercept increasing number of Allied bombers day by day but Hitler ordered to build more bombers. While the German front line troops in Russia crying for getting more 88mmflaks Berlin was filled with these for AA defence. There were more than 48 separate institutes researching on so-called secret weapon under Hitler but not a single information was shared nor complemented.(what a waste of resource!)

quote: Soviet sciense was advanced in some fields, yes.

Good, I needed that answer.

quote: That's not the same as being more advanced. That's where I dispute...

Who would say USSR is more advanced than USA overall? nobody will! and are you disputing that? and your very original statement was this:

quote: There is not a single field where Soviet science was advanced

quote: I think they are fairly concommitant

Yes fairly but not entirely.

quote: Mir is not useless

Good! Venger that's way different from what you were saying from earlier posts. I'm satisfied on this now.

quote: Soviets had not exported Flanker or Super Flanker aircraft to those nations at the time.

but if they were, I would bet my money on the Israelis not the Syrians.

quote: Yes, only in the World of "what if" which does not belong to the realm of History.

Aren't we doing that when we say "if Hitler had" and "if only Germany had"?

quote: Do you think USA would send combat troops to Europe if Hitler did not declare a war on USA?

Absolutely. The United States knew the greater threat. Hitler could declare war or not, but sooner or later it was inevitable.

quote: Maintianing LendLease program and actually declaring a war on Germany would have quite different consequences. If there was LendLease alone, the pressure on Germany wouldn't be that hard considering daylight bombing of USAAF on the German industry.

We'd "lend" the pilots. Wouldn't matter, the U.S. was going to war in 1942.

quote: That survived bulk of BEF consisted main body of the island's defence which made heavy burden on planning "Sea Lion".(more invasion forces needed which meant more ships which Germany could not afford to get and bigger size convoy means less chance to get through RAF and Royal navy)

With or with the BEF, Germany had no hope of invading England successfully.

quote: many military historians ask if Guderian's request was accepted, what would had happend? Many agree Russia would be paralysed and eventually collapsed.

Assuming a) it would collapse and b) they could have taken it anyways. Isn't this a what if?

quote: Who would say USSR is more advanced than USA overall? nobody will! and are you disputing that? and your very original statement was this: There is not a single field where Soviet science was advanced

Indeed, I did not communicate that well at all. Soviet space program was advanced (the rocketry side), military science was advanced, etc. This of course is in relation to the entire world. In realtion to the U.S., I'd say there were, depending on the field, dramatic differences. But I concede your point, I worded it very poorly indicating Soviet scientific knowledge was on par with that of Ecuador, which is very very wrong.

quote: Mir is not useless Good! Venger that's way different from what you were saying from earlier posts. I'm satisfied on this now.

Hmmm...didn't seem to recall saying it was useless. A broken clock is right twice a day...but we've kind of come to a conclusion on that topic...

quote: Soviets had not exported Flanker or Super Flanker aircraft to those nations at the time. but if they were, I would bet my money on the Israelis not the Syrians.

I would too, pilot experience being extremely important. But...if you think the flight avionics on the Su-35 can match the F-15 I'd say no dice. Every system - fire control, radar, ECM, command and control, available weapons, are all advantage F-15.

quote: Have a nice weekend Venger!

Thanks, you too, I'm trying to salvage Civfan's game he was losing (another thread, he emailed me his game)...

quote: Aren't we doing that when we say "if Hitler had" and "if only Germany had"?

haha you are right and those(Hitler stuffs) too do not belong to the realm of History. But there is significant distinction between "what if" scenarios which are worth to be asked and the others which do not have such significance. For example, the case of "acceptance of Guderian's request" can bring much different historic consequences and this is like the decision making point of a decision tree(no other variables which affect this decision). However, to make "the Atomic bomb" decisive factor for WWII, there are too many variables have to be satisfied first.

The variables are:
1.as you mentioned before, the Eastern front has to be at the status of stalemate.
2.Allied offensives should have no significant impact on the War overall.
3.If there was no Atomic bomb there should be no way for the Allied to achieve total/decisive victory.

It is extremely difficult to create a situation for these variables satisfying at the same time.(I doubt even a single variable mentioned above has reasonable probability to actually happen) Compared to this enormous difficulty to set the mosaic of Atomic bomb case right,things like the Guderian case has rather simple factor that is Hitler's yes or no and these are quite decisive and there are no other variables have to be satisfied for this case which make the case worth to be asked.

and for the silly weapon debate, I know US made weapons have higher quality than those of Russian but your initial posts did not have any reasonable respect toward Russian weapons and treated them like sort of junk. The Russian did their their best and lost and I think they deserve some respect not just boo-boo. Anyway I too myself made some colourful statements and acted like a child. Sorry about that and good luck to your salvage attempts!

quote: Originally posted by Tiberius on 05-19-2000 09:39 AM Just because bullshits like this millions of people lived 50 years in misery, lie and hate (if lived). If you want to try it, then try it on yourself. Why don't you go and live a few years in North Korea? Did you read George Orwell's "1984"? That was supposed to be our future, in the communists vision. [This message has been edited by Tiberius (edited May 19, 2000).]

You have a great theoritical basis for your argument, Tiberius.

"If it cannot be implemented, doesn't that kinda mean it doesn't work?"

Hot fusion hasn't been implemented either, does it mean there is no such thing? Dispite the fact that this process is taking place in all the stars?

From a Cum Laude graduate of the UT-Dallas school of Government and Politics, there is no such thing as "working in theory". Either it works, or it doesn't. Communism does not work. Can not work. Will not work.

Your alleged qualification doesn't impress me.

Please don't resort to this "Appeal to Authority" fallacy. If you want to make a assertion, please back it up with an argument.

"How hard can you try to make a pig fly?"

quote: Originally posted by Venger on 05-20-2000 02:30 AM Tiberius: It's always interesting to listen to someone who has lived under a communist regime respond to what we may call communist apologists. For some reason, academia and the college years create a caustic reaction in the minds of youth, leading to a blind romanticism for communist policy. It's interesting to see the neophytic vision challenged by real world experience, paid at a price too high for any of us to imagine. Your input is very valuable, as you've seen firsthand the effects of an utter absence of liberty and self determination. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is like a drug to some segments of American college-age youth, only the lessons of life can act as an antidote... Venger P.S. DAMN I'm screwing up my typing tonight... [This message has been edited by Venger (edited May 20, 2000).]

There is a fallacy called "Sweeping Generalization."

The viewpoint of one person who allegedly used to live in a communist country can hardly be used to substantiate any general theory on government forms. I am sure you know that, given your education.

About your dispute about sovjet weaponry and science, I want do add just one idea: don't forget Russia is the biggest country of the world, with huge resources and a lot of talented people. If they really want to do something, they can do it, no matter what type of government they have. So the simple fact that some fields of sovjet science was well developed, is not because of communist science, but because of the russians ambition to be the world's biggest power.

quote: there is no such thing as "working in theory". Either it works, or it doesn't. Communism does not work. Can not work. Will not work.

quote: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

Hopefully, CIV3 will come out with a new type of goverment, which will make all our citizens happy, along with great economics, science, and all the others. Just don't call it communism!

First of all Communism can derive greater scientific output then democratic countries due to the easy concentration of resources in one particular area. An example is the nuclear program in the Soviet Union. They developed the atomic bomb 4 years after the Americans (and with espionage to help them), but the hydrogen bomb came only 8 months after a similar detonation in the U.S.

Furthermore many of the statements that were made about the Russian technology are incorrect. The Mir space station has exceeded its limit by many years, lasted longer than anything that the Americans put in space and still continues to transmit scientific information.
The Syrian and Iraqi tanks that were destroyed by the Israelis and the Americans were the machines made at Vietnam war level and of course could not stand up to the new NATO technology. Despite its economic projects Russia still has a full fledged production of the T-90 tank (the most advanced tank in the world) and still has newer T models in the works. Also the Russian rocket cruiser "Peter the Great" stationed in St.Petersburg is the most advanced vessel of its class currently in operation.

However communists govermnets do have many weaknesses the main one of which should be its appaling inefficiency. Therefore I would propose the following model for the communist governments.

+10 % research rate (able to focus resources)
-30 % military production cost
no additional cost for unit prototypes (SMAC Spartan model)
-30 % tax revenue (widespread theft)
no luxury tax possible (government not people oriented)
10 % chance of defection for spies/diplomats
cities and units inside own territory immune to bribery

But I have an important exam the day after tomorrow and I really need to study.

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger on 05-22-2000 01:33 AM Venger, "If it cannot be implemented, doesn't that kinda mean it doesn't work?" Hot fusion hasn't been implemented either, does it mean there is no such thing?

It has been implemented. Just not by man.

quote: Dispite the fact that this process is taking place in all the stars?

Has communism worked ANYWHERE?

quote: From a Cum Laude graduate of the UT-Dallas school of Government and Politics, there is no such thing as "working in theory". Either it works, or it doesn't. Communism does not work. Can not work. Will not work. Your alleged qualification doesn't impress me.

As if your taking some class was impressive? Let's remember who offered their credentials here...

quote: Please don't resort to this "Appeal to Authority" fallacy. If you want to make a assertion, please back it up with an argument.

Soviet Union
China
North Korea
Bulgaria
East Germany
Cuba
South Yemen
Mongolia
Poland
Romania
Albania
Czechoslovakia
Hungary

All communist countries which where communism either collapsed or is in such present disarray to establish those retaining the form of government as third world nations.

quote: "How hard can you try to make a pig fly?" I see that rhetorical questions really make great rebuttals.

But they make great posits? PLEASE! Examine your own rhetorical statements there Mr. Wright Brothers and light bulb.

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger on 05-22-2000 01:36 AM There is a fallacy called "Sweeping Generalization."

Oh look, someone found an Intro to Philospophy book from a college campus! Be prepared for "Poisoning the Well", "Occam's Razor" and other neophytic analysis. Life is more than what you learned last semester.

quote: The viewpoint of one person who allegedly used to live in a communist country can hardly be used to substantiate any general theory on government forms.

Is he the only person you've ever met from a former communist country? His story mirrors every damn story from every ex-citizen of every ex-Communist country I've ever heard. Care to regale us with tales of wine and roses you've heard from former Communist citizens?

And is he not damn sure more qualified to testify on life in a communist country then either you or I?

quote: I am sure you know that, given your education.

Hmmm...you bring alot of attention to that, despite being the one who originally brought academic achievement or experience to the fore.

quote: An interesting fact: in Russia, the Communist Party remains one of the most popular. This should give people some food for thoughts.

An interesting fact: my dog like to eat cat shit out of the litter box. Does that make it a tasty treat? Only to the dog...

Let's do this. Get in power, bleed the country dry of it's gold reserves, destroy it's infrastructure and industrial heart, and make it a net importer of food. Then when it collapses, and there is no food, no money, no jobs, and no future, we can claim it's because we aren't in power anymore!

quote: All communist countries which were communist either collapsed or is in such present disarray to establish those retaining the form of government as third world nations.

Expectation of life at birth ~1900, ~1950, ~1980
West Eur: 47 / 67 / ??
Sweden: ?? / 71.5 / 76
Engl+Wal: ?? / 68.5 / 73
France: ?? / 66.5 / 74
United St: 48 / 68.5 / 74
Japan: ?? / 58 / 76
Russia: 32 / 64 / 69
Mexico: ?? / 49.5 / 65
Brazil: ?? / 54 / 59.5
China: ?? / 46 / 64
India: 23 / 41.5 / 45.5
Iran: ?? / 42.5 / 57.5
Nigeria: ?? / 34.5 / 47.5

quote: Originally posted by Napoleon I on 05-22-2000 02:40 AM As a person who has lived in the Soviet Union and still maintain ties with my relatives who still live there I think I can provide several insights on the strenghs and weaknesses of Communist governments.

Were you a Soviet citizen? I am understandably curious...

quote: First of all Communism can derive greater scientific output then democratic countries due to the easy concentration of resources in one particular area.

Ack hack cough...greater scientfic output? My God, what on earth could you possibly be referring to? Medicine, Computers, Agriculture, Manufacturing, what?

quote: An example is the nuclear program in the Soviet Union. They developed the atomic bomb 4 years after the Americans (and with espionage to help them)

Damn near totally taken from espionage.

quote: but the hydrogen bomb came only 8 months after a similar detonation in the U.S.

The H-Bomb was developed largely in house, without nearly the amount of stolen material. A good book on the subject is "Stalin and the Bomb".

quote: Furthermore many of the statements that were made about the Russian technology are incorrect. The Mir space station has exceeded its limit by many years, lasted longer than anything that the Americans put in space and still continues to transmit scientific information.

That is incorrect. Pioneer 10 still transmits data, as do Voyager 1 and 2.

Wanna read the latest mission ops reports? Click me.

But it doesn't still provide scientfic data does it? Sure does comrade! Click me.

So that would be, how do we say, uh, WRONG there buddy...

quote: Despite its economic projects Russia still has a full fledged production of the T-90 tank (the most advanced tank in the world) and still has newer T models in the works.

ACK HACK...based on what precisely? Look, I appreciate national pride too. The T-90 is a decent tank. But I've not see one person compare a M1A2 to a T-90 and come away thinking the T-90 ends up anything but aflame.

quote: Also the Russian rocket cruiser "Peter the Great" stationed in St.Petersburg is the most advanced vessel of its class currently in operation.

The Kirov class I beleive is what you refer to. Large indeed. Advanced...well, I'd say the AEGIS system pretty much holds that distinction. Note the problems the Kirovs have had with propulsion - only two are in active service. And let's be honest, toe to toe, which do you bet on? USS Iowa or the Pyotr Velikiy?

quote: However communists govermnets do have many weaknesses the main one of which should be its appaling inefficiency.

Indeed. The central planning and control which allows massive resource allocation and marshalling for single project successes (hydrogen bomb) are ridiculously inefficient viewed at the macro level.

quote: Therefore I would propose the following model for the communist governments. +10 % research rate (able to focus resources) -30 % military production cost no additional cost for unit prototypes (SMAC Spartan model) -30 % tax revenue (widespread theft) no luxury tax possible (government not people oriented) 10 % chance of defection for spies/diplomats cities and units inside own territory immune to bribery

Some interesting things! I concur with the reduced military production costs. I wouldn't reduce the tax rate, the lack of the Rep/Dem trade arrow bonus does that. Interesting defection model too...

quote: Originally posted by S. Kroeze on 05-22-2000 07:40 PM These figures clearly show that while less prosperous than the 'first' world, a communist regime as a rule scores more points than a poor democracy like India.

Democracy? In name only! Like the German Democratic Republic.

And I'd suggest we view more than a single statistic. Just one is kinda hazy. Compare Mexico and Russia. LE is very close. I've seen the abject poverty at the US/Mexico border, that's third freaking world. But Mexico never produced an aircraft than flew Mach 2.7 either...

quote: The current figures for Russia doubtedly will be worse, but for China they have improved. And in 80 years life expectation in Russia has doubled. The current chaos in Russia is only partly caused by communism. It is also the result of desintegration of empire, anarchy and almost thousand years of arbitrary government. Since the subjection of Rus by the Vikings Russia has always been ruled as if it was a conquered nation -like a colony- which it actually was.

The most overlooked point of Russian society is the utter lack at any point in history of any self determination in government. No concepts of individual liberty.

1. You wondered whether I was a Soviet citizen. I was born in the Soviet Union but I never got to be a citizen because I left the country when I was 12 years old.

2. I might have misworded my ideas a little bit when I was talking about the Mir space station. When I said that it has lasted longer than anything that the Americans put in space, I was reffering to objects of even similar complexity. You are absolutely right, Pioneer 10 and both Voyagers are still transmitting scientific data to us and will be for a long time. However let us take a look at the technical characteristics of these vessels compared to Mir. Pioneer 10 measures 9 1/2 by 9 feet, while the Voyagers are 43 feet long with the antennas fully extended. Meanwhile Mir measures at least 102 feet without the antennas and features at least 4 indemendent modules plus core module. For more information on the Mir space station check out this link:
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/rsa/mir.html

3. Now for your icredibly smug and equally ridiculous statement that "The T-90 is a decent tank. But I've not see one person compare a M1A2 to a T-90 and come away thinking the T-90 ends up anything but aflame."
It would behoove you well to keep in mind that T-90 features a stronger primary armament, similar machine gun, and greater cruising range than the M1A2. The T-90 also features a 12.7 mm anti-aircraft defence gun, and an additional anti-tank missile system (9M119 Refleks) that M1A2 has no trace of. The M1A2 does have a greater hp/ton ratio than the T-90 but the incresed cruising range and the fact that the T-90 is much lighter should fully equalize that factor. If you have any doubts about the information I provided above or wish to explore this matter further you can look at
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t90/

for the T-90 and at
http://www.gdls.com/programs/m1a2.html

for the M1A2 Abrams.

P.S. Please do not incur from the comments that I made above that I am a supporter of a Communist regime. In fact I am consider it to be as inhuman as the Nazi regime in Germany and I know that it ruined the lives of several generations of my immediate ancestors. Nevertheless, I feel that it is imperative to understand the strenghs that that regime was able to marshall and to adapt them if possible into our society so that we do not make the same mistakes.

I deeply respect your opinion and I usually agree with them as they are both logical and argumentative. However, your statement that "Since the subjection of Rus by the Vikings Russia has always been ruled as if it was a conquered nation -like a colony- which it actually was." is entirely incorrect and in fact obviously absurd to anyone who has studied Russian history in detail. I have and I could discuss the various reasons why it is not so but I don't really feel that this thread is the appropriate place to do so. Therefore if you are interested in this issue please let me know and leave an e-mail address where I could reach you with more information on this issue.

As for Dunkirk: The surviving troops had saved hardly any equipment. In the months after Dunkirk the british coastguard would have been a doddle for the experienced German panzers and stormtroopers. They would however have suffered heavy casualties in getting to their destinations as proven by the interceptions by the Navy during Weserübung (invasion of Norway). The british navy would likely have been annihilated by Stuka’s however. That was one hell of a tactical bomber

As for the atomic bomb: It surely would have been dropped over Germany (Berlin first I hope). I don’t know if it would have been decisive though. Hitler was a madman, desperately trying to hold on to his power. Even the annihilation of Dresden didn’t convince the Germans to stop the war, so one or two nuclears wouldn’t IMHO have made that much difference unless he got killed in the attack. You must know there was just enough nuclear material to produce just a few bombs

I haven't got time to read through all this and comment on it untill tomorrow. I do, however, have time to make another quotation:

"...America is as a large nation about to loose the overview of what is actually within the limit's of it's power, and what is beyond ... power tend to mistake itself with justice, and a large nation is paticularly acceptable to the thought of it's power being a sign of the good will of God, so it ascribes itself a certain responsibility for other nations - to make them richer and happyer and wiser, to recreate them in it's own glorious image. Power that is mistaken with being justice tend to being seen as omnipotence - and have one once seen oneself as having a mission, then a large nation will easily assume that it does not only have the means, but the obligation to do gods deed."

Thank you! 8)

Thank you! 8)

In a game, I believe that, sadly, it won't sell right unless you give people -- like the people here who speak negatively about Communism -- the type of Communism they have been lead to believe. But if game developers are wanting to go more with the real way, are wanting to tell the true way, please do read Marx.
But, seeing as they are Capitalist anyway, to be making games in the first place.. fat chance, huh? ;P

Oh well. 8)
Please do not take personal offense at my philosophical and political outlook. I am only trying to express my side and my beliefs, and I do understand this mgiht not've been the best place to do so. 8) Thank you. 8)

with authoritarian (maybe totalitarian) state government choice and socialist economics you could have your Soviet Union or the North Koreans...using democratic (maybe populist) state government choice and socialist economics you could have your marxist state...

this is just my observation but it seemed that Marx was afraid that massive amounts of wealth concentrated in the hands of the few would subvert the democratic process, and that wealth would defeat the ballot box...so in order to prevent this and use the wealth to help everybody he came up with his notions of communism

with the soviets instead of ruling from the bottom up (kinda like a massive grassroots movement) they ruled from the top down...instead of trying to make everyone have a happy life they tried to use the power of the people support one of the largest military machines ever

also with marxism even with everybody reaping rewards from participating in economic activity i think the loss of incentive would erode productivity over time and that unless highly productive manufactoring processes could be used to replace incentives for working harder that marxism would fail or would have to adapt and if it adapted then it would adapt to more capitalist system

with the soviet system the people never benefited ever...just the state

but those are only my opinions

quote: Originally posted by Napoleon I on 05-22-2000 02:40 AM +10 % research rate (able to focus resources) -30 % military production cost no additional cost for unit prototypes (SMAC Spartan model) -30 % tax revenue (widespread theft) no luxury tax possible (government not people oriented) 10 % chance of defection for spies/diplomats cities and units inside own territory immune to bribery

What about resource production. Increase/Decrease/Same?

P.S. to the people who continue to discuss how Communism could/couldn't will/won't work. Take this point into consideration...

True communism has never, ever been implemented on the earth as a form of government. The reason is simple - human greed. All Communist governments are in essence SOCIALIST DICTATORSHIPS

True Communism (Marxism) requires no leader. Just a figurehead who has no power.
Stalin - Dictator
Castro - Dictator
Mao - Dictator

Cuba - Socialist Dictatorship
Former USSR (Stalin) - Socialist Dictatorship
China under Mao - Socialist Dictatorship (not I see it more as a Socialist Republic)

Same with Democracy, simply does not exist

US - Democratic Republic
Ancient Greece - Democratic Republic

Democracy = Every citizen gets one vote and votes on EVERY issue addressed by the state.
This obviously will not work.

There are two factors that determine what you can categorize your country as...

Economy and Government style
Socialism + Dictatorship = "Communism" (Stalinism)
Marxist Socialism + Anarchy = COMMUNISM

People have to be perfect, not one person can be Greedy or powerhappy. Everyone must accept there place in society and work exactly the same amount as everyone else in the society.

S. Kroze - Yes Communism is meant for the good of the people, but it never turns out that way. And my theory is - it never will...

That's the way I see it so really, your argument should be that Socialist Dictatorships are failures. Not that Communism doesn't work.

Sorry about that Philosophical tirade. I know I've brought this up in two other threds now, but I'm trying to reinforce it.

quote: Originally posted by Napoleon I on 05-23-2000 01:43 AM Venger: Let me clear up several misconceptions that you might have about the communist government systems. Excuse me in advance for the abundance of technical details in my message but that is the only way that we can make this discussion argumentative. Now for the substance.

Apology not needed, detail always helps clarify the facts...

quote: 1. You wondered whether I was a Soviet citizen. I was born in the Soviet Union but I never got to be a citizen because I left the country when I was 12 years old.

Well, I'd say you were a citizen, maybe not under a legal term that is labeled "citizen" in the Soviet Union, but I'd say you'd have a feel for life there. Where did you live and what did your parents do?

quote: 2. I might have misworded my ideas a little bit when I was talking about the Mir space station. When I said that it has lasted longer than anything that the Americans put in space, I was reffering to objects of even similar complexity.

The shuttle is the most complex device ever placed into space. But, Mir and Columbia are very different beings. Mir holds longevity records for men in space and is a valuable piece of space exploration.

quote: 3. Now for your icredibly smug and equally ridiculous statement that "The T-90 is a decent tank. But I've not see one person compare a M1A2 to a T-90 and come away thinking the T-90 ends up anything but aflame."

Smug...mmm, maybe...

quote: It would behoove you well to keep in mind that T-90 features a stronger primary armament

Stronger? 120mm vs. 125mm? And that's just looking at the barrel diameter. Compare US DU APFSDS rounds and their equivalent. And post-Gulf-war analysis showed US tanks outranging Iraqi T-72 by over 1000 meters.

quote: , similar machine gun, and greater cruising range than the M1A2.

Not really pertinent really.

quote: The T-90 also features a 12.7 mm anti-aircraft defence gun,

Might as well throw rocks at an A-10 or AH-64 with that. Why do Soviet/Russian designers insist on hanging weapons all over their equipment like Christmas ornaments?

quote: and an additional anti-tank missile system (9M119 Refleks) that M1A2 has no trace of.

The AT missile likely would be effective against NATO light armor (Bradley), it wouldn't penetrate against a front line NATO tank (Challenger 2, M1A2).

quote: The M1A2 does have a greater hp/ton ratio than the T-90 but the incresed cruising range and the fact that the T-90 is much lighter should fully equalize that factor.

In a situation where manueverability is key, high HP/weight ratio is key, especially in terrain that's not flat.

And I've been to army technology, it's a great site.

quote: P.S. Please do not incur from the comments that I made above that I am a supporter of a Communist regime. In fact I am consider it to be as inhuman as the Nazi regime in Germany and I know that it ruined the lives of several generations of my immediate ancestors. Nevertheless, I feel that it is imperative to understand the strenghs that that regime was able to marshall and to adapt them if possible into our society so that we do not make the same mistakes.

Never thought that you were advocating it...

Venger

quote: Originally posted by Marcel I on 05-23-2000 07:15 AM Just 2 cents of my part In WW2 the communist system could gear up for war very quickly The T34 was the best armor (reliable, firepower and armour) of its time.

Sure enough, the only decent American tank of the war was the Pershing. They also developed some heavy hitting support fighters...those Tak's started whipping Nazi ass late in the war...

quote: In Vietnam US fighters were theoretically the most advanced. They got however one hell of a difficulty with sturdy Migs 21 (no gun in the f4).

No gun and no leading edge slats!!

quote: So Venger the commies did produce SOME good things and the suggestions for a communist government to represent this (good MILITARY production and cheaper units) could reflect this.

I suggest a 20% reduced cost for military unit production.

quote: On the discussion on WW2. Germany did hit Russia in the most vulnerable year (’41) only a month too late (because of the balkan war). Hitler made a few decisive ‘mistakes’: 1 He underestimated the number of divisions the Soviets had and the enormous stretches of terrain he had to cover.

Damnably stupid, didn't they have a map?

quote: 2 He diverted Guderians army to the south to assist in taking Kiev and seeing that the time was to short to get to Moscow to seize it before the winter refused to dig in and prepare for the next year . Maybe that extra month the balkan war cost him, prevented the Germans from victory.

Who knows, the battle for Moscow was going to be ferocious, and there's no guarantee of a German victory.

quote: 3 He declared war on the US. If he hadn’t Roosevelt would have no choice than to adopt a “Japan First” strategy.

Disagree here. Roosevelt with LendLease had already committed to a Europe first strategy.

quote: Luckily (for us) the war was lost by then for them.

Germany did what Japan did - attack countries he could never hope to out produce.

quote: The british navy would likely have been annihilated by Stuka’s however. That was one hell of a tactical bomber

But operating within range of British fighters, it would have been easy prey. A landing in Britain would have been opposed by the RAF and British Navy. I see...a catastrophe.

quote: As for the atomic bomb: It surely would have been dropped over Germany (Berlin first I hope). I don’t know if it would have been decisive though. Hitler was a madman, desperately trying to hold on to his power. Even the annihilation of Dresden didn’t convince the Germans to stop the war, so one or two nuclears wouldn’t IMHO have made that much difference unless he got killed in the attack. You must know there was just enough nuclear material to produce just a few bombs

If Hitler survived the first bomb. Hitler was always in awe of super-weapons. The third atomic weapon was to be dropped on Tokyo tentatively planned for August 22. More would follow. One atomic a week would do it...

quote: Originally posted by PrinceOfWeasels on 05-23-2000 12:59 PM *blinks* Reading through this all more, I'm a little unsettled. As a Communist/Marxist myself, it's always frightening to see how badly it is misunderstood by most people.

It's most misunderstood by Communists and Marxists...

quote: Communism is about giving power to the workers.

Why would you want to?

quote: Naturally, production and morale would increase this way.

Why? What does the line worker know about economies of scale? How does morale improve when you remove economic self determination and the rewards for risk and added work?

quote: Marxism is giving control to the people.

Marxism removes personal incentive and allows reduces us all to share in being the lowest common denominator.

quote: There are many different types of Marxism and Communism now, but in its true and right form, there are not Bolsheviks taking power as they did, and as you seem to believe is an integral part of Communism. If Communism were to occur in the United States, I believe that it could be the true example, a finally correct implementation of Marx's ideas.

Marx never thought of his ideas in developing nations, rather in advanced industrial nations.

quote: That's beside the point of a game, but because of my feelings for Communism, when I read these sort of things, you must understand how I feel somewhat unsettled.

When I read someone still buys Marxism in any form I feel somewhat unsettled.

quote: In a game, I believe that, sadly, it won't sell right unless you give people -- like the people here who speak negatively about Communism -- the type of Communism they have been lead to believe. But if game developers are wanting to go more with the real way, are wanting to tell the true way, please do read Marx.

Everyone should read Marx, Hobbes, etc...

quote: But, seeing as they are Capitalist anyway, to be making games in the first place.. fat chance, huh? ;P

They will do neither - they'll make it as balanced as they can to make it at least feel like running the Soviet Union without making it too weak or too powerful.

quote: Oh well. 8) Please do not take personal offense at my philosophical and political outlook. I am only trying to express my side and my beliefs, and I do understand this mgiht not've been the best place to do so. 8) Thank you. 8)

Hey, no problem, all points are welcome here...comrade...

BTW Prince and Venger: Giving power to the workers was only a means for Marx. His philosophy turned around people unable to influence their own destiny. In his view most people were unhappy in being only a little part of a proces without the means to influence the outcome. This was since the start of industrialisation caused by the accumulation of means of production in the hands of the few. Marx prediction of a ongoing accumulation in the hands of fewer people, resulting in a revolt of the have-nots, has ironically been more the case in agricultural (Russia, Cuba, China) than in industrialised countries. His thoughts about what makes people tick (satisfaction in the work they do), are widely spread in modern day democracies. ‘Modern’ companies give their workers more responsibilities. They tell them what they want as a end result instead of exactly HOW to achieve it.
In a way the workers do own the means of production (shareholders).
You could say the capitalist countries are more marxist than their former adversaries the communist countries.

Phew that was quite an essay in a strange language

It seems that the interest of SE has again increased, so I am currently thinking about posting my good ol' SE system in a thread for you to comment on. Do you think I should?

quote: ARGGHHH!! That is factually INCORRECT! It was never against the law to be communist! The McCarthy hearing were investigations into (supposed) communist activities in the government, army, and media. It was NEVER against the law to be a member of the communist party.

Did you actually mean that it would be ok for the government to invest into communist activities in the MEDIA??? Well so long free press is all I can say!

Lots of actors and such were accused of being communists (like Chaplin), and afterwards many of them had to "flee" to other countries due to the hetz.

quote: ARGGH! Factually incorrect AGAIN! Let's take 1824 as an example: Total votes cast: 360,000. Assuming your figure, that means the male population at the time must have been 9 million. Well, the 1820 census indicated the whole damn population was 9 million. That doesn't include those who didn't vote, couldn't vote, or were too young to vote.

I checked my source and it was right. But even if you are, it doesn't matter. So that just means that what - 6-8-10% of the pop could vote? Well excuse me, but that doesn't sound very democratic! It doesn't matter whether it's 10, 20, 30 or 50% of the pop that can vote. If it is not a vast majority of it (like 90% or more) then that country can not be described as a real democracy. Of cause when you only allow people with an income over a certain amount to vote, then the policy of the government will be remarkably different from if you let everybody do so.

quote: I cannot imagine a dictator as evil. How can you compare Manuel Noriega and Ferdinand Marcos to FREAKING HITLER????

How about Saddam Hussein?

I think what primarily makes people think of a dictator as being very evil is determined by the amount of ressources that that dictator has. Although Pol Pot is propably the dictator in history that has killed the highest percentage of his own people, most people don't think of him as being as evil as Hitler, Stalin or Mao. Because Cambodia is just a small unimportant country far from us.

quote: I disagree. It's not all relative.

Have you seen my quote on the arrongance of power? If not you should.

quote: Oh GOD ALMIGHTY NOT THAT AGAIN. Look, what do we care oil price wise which totalitarian shiekdom or muslim Sunni or Shiite group has the oil? It wasn't like he was going to take Kuwait's oil and never sell it...the world economy relies however on stable energy from oil producing nations. Kuwait wasn't the concern. Saudi was. And oil price wasn't a concern. Oil blackmail was.

I am aware that Saudi was the concern. But that doesn't alter anything. If Saddam was to control Saudi's oil he would control most of the oil in the world, and he would be able to rise the price. So we/you stopped him to save a few bucks on gas.

quote: The problem with developing countries - they don't want to develop. The U.S. and European economies took CENTURIES to develop. It required social and economic policies and forces ages to shape the environment to support robust capitalism. Some countries manage it: Japan, Korea, etc. But they have ancient cultures and social structures which allow rapid infusion into the advanced global economy. Eritrea does not.

So you are actually saying that the poor people of the third world want to stay poor? Or are you saying that if you didn't have an advanced social structure 100s or years old you can not advance into the global market? Nonsense.

quote: Nonsense. How come cheap Chinese goods can get in? MFN helps, but if a country wants to make and sell the US cheap goods that are in demand, no tariff is going to come in the way.

To use your own expression: Couqh cough! ARRGHHH! Nope, dude. WRONG!

quote: First, your English is better than half of the American's who post here...

I try. But when describing advanced stuff like economics it suddently gets hard tranlating my thoughts into english.

quote: Second, the key to advanced economic development is the velocity of money. You DO try and get everyone richer. More disposable income means more monetary velocity. If I sell you a shoe, you give me 10 dollars. Now, if I buy socks from you, I give you back the same 10 dollars. Now you buy pants from me for the same 10 dollars. That same 10 dollars is now 30 dollars of production. For a service economy, velocity is CRITICAL, both domestically and abroad. Movement of money creates wealth, absolutely needed now.

That shows you have some basic knowledge about economics, but it has no relevance here.

Sure, the velocity is important (the multiplicator), but the fundamental key to more wealth is higher productivity. The reason that we are richer now than our grandparents were is, that we can now produce much more with the same effort. In the end technological development is the key. But when the multinational coorporations take all the profit from the third world and sends it to us, and therefor don't invest in these countries, their technological development is slowed down. This is one of the key elements of what I have tryed to explain to you.

quote: But at what expense to them? Are they not going to be able to string nationwide fiber or forge a re-entry cone on a reusable space rocket because we are robbing them of bauxite?

'literally, rule by the people (from the Greek demos, "people," and kratos, "rule"). The term has three basic senses in contemporary usage:
(1) a form of government in which the right to make political decisions is exercised directly by the whole body of citizens, acting under procedures of majority rule, usually known as direct democracy;
(2) a form of government in which the citizens exercise the same right not in person but through representatives chosen by and responsible to them, known as representative democracy; and
(3) a form of government, usually a representative democracy, in which the powers of the majority are exercised within a framework of constitutional restraints designed to guarantee all citizens the enjoyment of certain individual or collective rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, known as liberal, or constitutional, democracy.

Democracy had its beginnings in certain of the city-states of ancient Greece in which the whole citizen body formed the legislature; such a system was possible because a city-state's population rarely exceeded 10,000 people, and women and slaves had no political rights. Citizens were eligible for a variety of executive and judicial offices, some of which were filled by elections, while others were assigned by lot. There was no separation of powers, and all officials were fully responsible to the popular assembly, which was qualified to act in executive and judicial as well as legislative matters. Greek democracy was a brief historical episode that had little direct influence on the development of modern democratic practices. Two millennia separated the fall of the Greek city-state and the rise of modern constitutional democracy.'
(source: Britannica.com, article 'democracy')

quote: Democracy = Every citizen gets one vote and votes on EVERY issue addressed by the state

Dear OrangeSfwr,

In my opinion you are using a very limited and rather personal definition of 'democracy', which does not help the discussion on the subject in any way. My suggestion is to use the general accepted application of the concept.

quote: Originally posted by Marcel I on 05-24-2000 05:14 AM BTW Prince and Venger: Giving power to the workers was only a means for Marx. His philosophy turned around people unable to influence their own destiny.

That's the utter and complete hypocrisy of communism/socialism. Empowering people by removing their economic self determination and tying the individuals prospects to society is folly. Empowerment comes via representative government, one man one vote, and the concepts of personal property, not by taking all and sharing accordingly.

quote: In his view most people were unhappy in being only a little part of a proces without the means to influence the outcome. This was since the start of industrialisation caused by the accumulation of means of production in the hands of the few.

The problem here is that the political power always tends to land in the hands of the few, especially when you empower government to take all property as it's own.

quote: Marx prediction of a ongoing accumulation in the hands of fewer people, resulting in a revolt of the have-nots, has ironically been more the case in agricultural (Russia, Cuba, China) than in industrialised countries.

Industrialized countries continued to develop vertical markets and allowed workers the ability to enjoy real gains in standard of living. As the countries developed, new markets opened for small business and entreprenuers. What killed Marx was the increase in the rate of intellectual and scientific discovery, the service economy, and finally the information economy.

quote: His thoughts about what makes people tick (satisfaction in the work they do), are widely spread in modern day democracies. ‘Modern’ companies give their workers more responsibilities. They tell them what they want as a end result instead of exactly HOW to achieve it. In a way the workers do own the means of production (shareholders). You could say the capitalist countries are more marxist than their former adversaries the communist countries.

Marx was no idiot - just a little too convinced of his own genius. People don't like being unable to effect economic self determination. But what on earth did he think would come of utter economic equality?

quote: Did you actually mean that it would be ok for the government to invest into communist activities in the MEDIA??? Well so long free press is all I can say!

The Government investigates many aspects of media activity, from music lyrics and broadcast content to transmission standards. The investigation of communism carried with it a concommitant investigation into Soviet coordination with said parties. Frankly, the entire investigation was given a bad name by McCarthy, who was guilty of being a little too arrogant...it was a foolish venture, but anyone who doubts the pervasiveness of Soviet espionage in the United States and it's coordiantion with spy cells should read Venona : Decoding Soviet Espionage in America, an excellent book about Soviet cold war espionage activities in America.

quote: Lots of actors and such were accused of being communists (like Chaplin), and afterwards many of them had to "flee" to other countries due to the hetz.

Nobody had to "flee the country". Some actors had trouble finding work. Some were tarnished and shouldn't have been. Sucks being involved in a cold war...

quote: So that just means that what - 6-8-10% of the pop could vote? Well excuse me, but that doesn't sound very democratic! It doesn't matter whether it's 10, 20, 30 or 50% of the pop that can vote. If it is not a vast majority of it (like 90% or more) then that country can not be described as a real democracy.

Put DOWN THE CRACK PIPE. The United States was far from perfect - slaves, women could not vote. Voting rules were determined by the states (Article 1, Section 4 and Article 2, Section 1 plus the 12th Amendment). But if you read the U.S. Constitution, you will find only the ridiculous and hence stricken 3/5th compromise as the only non-democratic statement in the whole document. The U.S. is a representative Republic, not a Democracy, at least in more exacting terms...

quote: I cannot imagine a dictator as evil. How can you compare Manuel Noriega and Ferdinand Marcos to FREAKING HITLER???? How about Saddam Hussein?

He doesn't even make the needle move on the Hitler-meter. The truly evil dictators are one of a kinds - Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot...

quote: I think what primarily makes people think of a dictator as being very evil is determined by the amount of ressources that that dictator has. Although Pol Pot is propably the dictator in history that has killed the highest percentage of his own people, most people don't think of him as being as evil as Hitler, Stalin or Mao. Because Cambodia is just a small unimportant country far from us.

See above.

quote: I am aware that Saudi was the concern. But that doesn't alter anything. If Saddam was to control Saudi's oil he would control most of the oil in the world, and he would be able to rise the price. So we/you stopped him to save a few bucks on gas.

Price was only half the concern, availability was the other. A "few bucks on gas" can lead to worldwide recession. All because of an arrogant power play.

quote: So you are actually saying that the poor people of the third world want to stay poor?

No, they want 2 cars and a house by next year. Not going to happen.

quote: Or are you saying that if you didn't have an advanced social structure 100s or years old you can not advance into the global market? Nonsense.

Look at the success stories of globalization: Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc. All are from cultures that were cohesive and were able to make globalization work. Compare Korea to Haiti. Was our tariff on Indonesian products any higher than on Haitian? Or Bangladeshi?

quote: To use your own expression: Couqh cough! ARRGHHH! Nope, dude. WRONG!

Examples PLEASE...

quote: Sure, the velocity is important (the multiplicator), but the fundamental key to more wealth is higher productivity.

Hmmm...what does productivity buy you without consumption?

quote: The reason that we are richer now than our grandparents were is, that we can now produce much more with the same effort.

I would argue we produce less with less effort, but that's another story. The reason we are richer now is that we are building upon what our parents built, and upon what their parents built, and their parents.

quote: In the end technological development is the key. But when the multinational coorporations take all the profit from the third world and sends it to us, and therefor don't invest in these countries, their technological development is slowed down.

What profit? What the hell are we stealing? Raw materials? Labor? Name the sector. We are in an information age economy that doesn't rely on raw materials.

quote: This is one of the key elements of what I have tryed to explain to you.

And I've tried explaining that the raw materials sector is a dead end argument for you, there is NO data to support you. Labor supports you somewhat, but only on cheap consumer goods.

quote: This is about the same as above. When we A: Don't allow them to export anything else than bauxite via out tarrifs,

So we steal the raw materials so we can make it here. Are you insane? Why bring materials here to $12 an hour labor when you can get $1 an hour on site?

quote: and B: Take all profit out of their country and into ours and therefor do not contribute to the development there, we are exploiting them.

What profit? Do you know the average margin on manufactured goods in this country? Sears doesn't make money on the stove, they make money on the repair contract for it. CompUSA doesn't make money on the computer, they make money on the software. For God's sake man, he days of stealing gold from the Natives for shipment to Spain are LONG GONE...

quote: Russia spends $1billion a year in the military department. The United States spent 277billion this year and before was more during the 80s.

They actually spend that much? What is that - 8 or 10% of it's GNP or what? That is a hell of a lot money to just throw away...

Well, that is what will make them loose their hegenomy in the long run, and be overrun by countries that use their production on more productive things. That is, after all, how all great countries that ever excisted lost their hegenomy.

quote: If Bush wins the elections(he will, Gore is a dull boring guy with few new ideas on health care, education, military, international affairs, economy, social security, all clinton policy, none of the clinton charisma IMO) he said(and he will IMO) increase military spending to raise pay of enlisties and get the parts for the planes(bad stuff when more fighters crash from bad parts than enemy fire).

For the sake of the entire world I sure hope that Gore wins, even if he is a, well, bore.

Orange:

quote: Ok some factual info: The guy from Denmark who pays about 4 dollars per gallon for gas is making an accurate statement. The sweeds as well, they pay up to 4$ a gallon due to socialist govt. (I believe Denmark is)

to use a Venger term: COUGH COUGH!!! What the hell are you talking about?!!??? A socialist government? I think you need to recheck your facts on socialism. Although the Danish government consists of the Social Democrats and the Radical Left (I can see why this sounds pretty extreme) it's policy has nothing to do with socialism. Socialism is all about nationalising production and such. Atually the Soviets were socialists (or state capitalists, as most people tend to think of them). Communism is the final stage of Marx's vision. It includes total equality and has never been accomplished.

The danish economic system is just socal capitalism, where we pay 50-55% tax so that there is no homeless people, all unemployed get about 1000$ a month from the state, there is free education and health care for everybody and such.

The reason for the high amount of tax on especcially gas is that gas pollutes a lot, and as Denmark (and the Danish people) are very enviromentally concerned (unlike the US) we accept to pay a lot of money for things that pollute. It is not just because the state wants more money.

Tiberius:

quote: A communist country CAN'T be democratic.

That is a statement. And a very false one, too.

quote: I definately think that communism should be the best choise in a civ world I'll take it as a joke. But I can't laugh.

quote: Did you read George Orwell's "1984"? That was supposed to be our future, in the communists vision.

HE HE HE HE HE HE HE!

I always love when anticommunists use 1984 as an examble. Not only did I read it, I wrote a large report on it in my final year of Highschool. (~20 pages)

First of all Orwell was a known socialist (communist - the difference back then was unimportant). He both took part in the Spanish Civil war at the communist side and he wrote "Missery's London and Paris" (something like that, not sure of it's original title, so I'm just translating from the danish one) that described how awful the living conditions of the working class in London and Paris were.

Second I started to examine the supplement about the new language. In it there is a few interesting expressions, that all sound a little know-all like. Terms like "New Language was suppose to be introduced in 2050" and "They thought that New Language...". It was like someone was looking back at the period, well knowing that "this wasn't how it would go". In my search for a brighter future in the incredibly depressing book I thought of this as an, although small, indication that some time between 1984 and 2050 something had changed. The Party had lost power, and a more democratic world order had emerged.

I then started to closely observe the society in the book, and I found some very interesting facts:

- The society is extremely polarized. The very poor prolatariat is about 60% or more of the population, and the upper class (the Inner Party) is just 2%.

- There is a constant and extreme exploitation of the third world.

- There is a constant war, that is not used to make the world richer, but to keep the people in poverty so they will not revolt against the upper class.

- The support for the party is almost religious. People are using their entire lives working for the party, as it is seen as being more important than themselves.

- There are very few countries left. In a darwinistic elimination race only the very strongest of countries has survived.

- The enemy of the Party (can't really remember his name) has a jewish name. So does Marx.

- Winston is constantly talking about the proletariat being the only hope to destroy the party. They could do it very, very easy, but they have to become aware of their own power first, which is the tricky part.

Anybody with a little knowledge about marxism should have a bell ringing now.

Fact is, that Orwell isn't talking about our future in a communistic world. In stead he is talking about THE LAST STAGE OF THE CAPITALIST SYTEM! Think about it. The society in 1984 excactly meets what Marx thought the end of capitalism would be like. Extreme polarization, very few countries, a constant depression etc etc.

What I meant was that Russia at the time of WW1 was a terrible country. It was in horrible shape, it was 50 years or more behind in the industrialization process, food shortages was frequent and peasant revolts, which in many other countries went with the middle ages were alsi a thing often seen in Russia. It was no match for Germany.

The communists changed all this as they started heavy industry and got it going in just a few years. And in WW2 they could compete against and even win over the well run Nazi war maschine.

I have never meant that Russia was never a great power.