Sorry its been a few days. Was busy with exams (one was, coincidentally, on the Russian Revolution and the Cold War)
Rex Fallout said:
Now on the economics stand point we need not argue, Stalin had alot of shit on his hands following WW2, including millions of his own starving people as well as all of that stuff you mentioned. His system was undoubtedly flawed, the only thing that kept his nation alive were truly the black markets- capitalist- black markets.
It wasn't so much the black markets. You can hardly deal with food on a large enough scale to feed a country without coming up on the radar. The newly-conquered satellite states agreed on trade deals which helped resurrect the fragile Soviet economy (they could hardly say no, with the Red Army having just 'freed' them from Nazi control.)
Also, Stalin's Five Year Plans had massive advanced the Soviet industry, allowing a relatively quick recuperation from the devastation of war.
Rex Fallout said:
You make a fair point. Young people almost always express some sort of rebellion against their upbringing, but it is temporary. I'm not sure where I'm getting this from, but apparently people are more open minded and more easily swayed when they are young, but when they start to mature their opinions become more fixed.
Its interesting that you bring up the hippy generation. Thats a perfect example of rebellious youth. But, like I said, it was a temporary phase. How many of those hippies are still hippies, compared to those that settled down and 'fulfilled their role' in society?
Sometimes they change back yes, sometimes it is just a 'phase' but it isn't always. And that bit of rebellion is enough to make some people know what they want in their lives.
Some people go through a rebellious phase, and just don't grow out of it. Thats very true, I can't argue that. However, in a 'true communist system' (read; unlikely/borderline impossible) working solely for yourself would be looked down upon to the same degree as, I don't know, getting a teenage girl pregnant and leaving her to fend for herself (literally pulled that out of the air). The social ramifications of it would be so great that those few that did would have very few followers.
Rex Fallout said:
But, being selfish is taught to children as being wrong, as being immoral. If you are selfish, that is seen as a bad thing, is it not? Being selfless is seen as good, selfish is wrong.
Although I see your point about willingness. However, if everyone did what they wanted, without concern for anyone else, the world would be anarchy. People have to be forced to do things to make society work. That is the true flaw with communism; true communism would require no government. People would work for the benefit of the whole. The problem is that people aren't like that.
Perhaps that is a problem in our society, we teach selfishness as wrong when in all actuallity it is the best way to survive when we get older.
That statement can swing both ways. Perhaps the fact that to succeed in this society we have to do something "
wrong ", perhaps that is the problem.
Rex Fallout said:
True about the willingness, however, that is one of the points of religion, by teaching compassion and morality on the small scale, many people naturally care about others, so everyone thinks about themselves- while simultaneously thinking of others... does that make sense? I'm typing this as fast as I can so I'm not sure if it is.
But, disregarding everything else, being indoctrinated into doing things for others is not true willingness.
And it sortof makes sense.
Rex Fallout said:
I remember you made this point earlier in this discussion, about not trusting the government. Personally, I would trust the government, an organisation designed to work for and for the betterment of their population, more than a company or corporation, which exist to make money, to benefit of their customers. This is especially true in a service like Health Care, where cost cutting can cost lives.
Tell me how many people has the terrible Exxon Mobile corpetation enslaved, tortured and killed? Because I can name a hundred governments off the top of my head- even thought they were designed to help the people- who did all of that and worse. So answer me this, why do you keep trusting government to get the job done?
I trust the government because they are there to GOVERN. A company exists to MAKE MONEY. A government exists to care for its citizens. A company exists to make a profit and grow.
And just because there have been governments which have ruled by force doesn't mean they all do. In a democracy (which America prides itself on being) people shouldn't fear the government! The government is elected by the people, to serve the people.
Why do
you trust a profit-induced company, an entity which is simply acting for its own interests, to protect YOUR interests? I just can't fathom this. It seems almost farcical.
Rex Fallout said:
Thats slightly similar to the current system in the UK, but it still comes down to this; if someone didn't have enough money, they would die. Personally, in my opinion, that seems wrong. How much is a human life worth?
The NHS means that question rarely has to be asked. If you are ill, you get treatment, regardless of how much you earn. If you have the money, you can get treatment faster, so it still gives an advantage to being rich (which is not necessarily wrong)
But people cannot be allowed to mooch off the government. Thats unhealthy, unethical, and well, flat out wrong. It falls back to that old saying from the pilgrims, "If you don't work- you don't eat." If someone is physically incapable of working, or is trying hard to find a job but cant thats an exception, but really.
Think of it in the grand scheme of things; a person gets sick. They don't have the money to be cured. They are so sick they cannot work. They cannot work, so they do not pay taxes. The government loses money. Their employer loses money. The person loses money.
If someone gets sick in the UK or France, or one of the many other countries with 'free' healthcare (you pay for it with your taxes, so you're still paying for it), a person gets sick and they get treated. They go back to work, they earn money, they get taxed, the government gets back anything they spent on healing the person, and more.
It helps the person, the government and the nation to have 'socialised medicine'. I know that sounds very dogmatic and poetically extreme, but its true.
Rex Fallout said:
Ghandi didn't have to fight a civil war, and maintain rule over one of the largest countries on Earth while in constant fear of nuclear and conventional attack from foreign powers.
You're right. Mao could have been remembered as a philanthropist, if the country he led hadn't been industrially backward, recovering from occupation by the Japanese and suffering the results of a decades-long civil war.
Simply put, Mao did not have the resources or the time to do things 'the nice way'. His being Communist had very little to do with what he had to do to his people.
Wrong on one account, Ghandi sort of did have to fight a civil war. He just did it peacefully. But that is true no doubt, Mao's situation couldnt have been easy. Still I find it wrong that the greatest mass murderer in human history, is revered by millions and has his face on their dollar bill.
I wouldn't call the independence of India a civil war.
Mao is 'revered by millions' because 1. Propaganda, pure and simple, and 2. He managed something incredible. He brought China to superpower status, revitalised its economy, established relations with a hostile America, and much more, all while fighting political plots against him and controlling the largest population on Earth.
Rex Fallout said:
True Communism, Marx's final (and most unreachable) dream, was such that it did not require governing. People did what they could for the betterment of all. It wouldn't be anarchy, because people would not want to effect others. This idea is extremely unlikely, and certainly won't happen in the near, or even long term, future, unless something extreme happens.
The idea of 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' comes from Lenin, who took over a country that was just starting to industrialise. Marx believed that the revolution would come when technology was such that the Proletariat would never need to work so hard again. Russia was largely agrarian before the revolution. Lenin believed that the working classes we A) Too small a group to maintain a country (he didn't consider peasants to be working class, by the standards of Marx) and B) Too uneducated, which they were.
Ok now I don't believe as Marxism as possible, or even a system anyone would trully want. It goes against the basics of human nature where as capitalism envelopes human nature and allows us to be individuals not only in thought- but actions as well.
And yeah lenin did come up with the dictator system, the fact is though that in every case people have copied him, even Mao who HATED him, (and Stalin). Which just points to the fact that once again, the philosophy goes against human nature. They want power and wont EVER give it up.
Err... what? Mao hated Lenin? Stalin hated Lenin? Where have you been told this? Lenin was revered as a God by both Stalin and Mao! If you're saying Mao hated Stalin, you're even more mistaken. Mao modelled his policy on Stalin, and was greatly offended when Krushchev proposed 'de-Stalinisation'.
Stalin, Lenin, and Mao all had power because, at some point, they wanted to improve the lives of their people. Whether they believed their people could make it better on their own is another question. I've already said that Lenin didn't consider the proletariat to be large or intelligent enough to lead their own revolution.
Rex Fallout said:
I'd disagree over religion rarely being negative. Taking Christianity as an example; religion restricts development, either philosophical, scientific or industrial. Darwin was faced with so must hostility and resistance to his Theory of Evolution, because it directly contravened the Bible, which stated that Humans and animals had been the same way since God created them in seven days. I'm not sure whether you are religious or not, but I'm agnostic, and the idea that everything we know was essentially created by magic is ludicrous to me. There is far too much evidence and theory about the origins of our planet, the Human Race, etc etc.
Christianity doesn't have to stop the advancement of science. As I said in that other guys post, it is supposed to be tolerant of ALL (maybe with the exception of satanistic worshipers) ideas. Not to endorse them but not to attack them either. People just don't follow this. Darwin was just one of many victims of that day and age, (Even if the eventual ideas of evolution from a protazoa were absolutely ridiculous) such intolerance went against their own beliefs.
I don't want to get bogged down in scriptural debate. What I will say is that the Church restricted development of science in numerous ways. For example, Galileo was dubbed a heretic for his theory that the Earth was not the centre of the universe. Now, I'm not sure if you've heard, but scientists are pretty sure thats actually true now. The development of medicine was stagnant for centuries because the Church refused the allow anyone to build on the theories of Hypocrates and Galen, as that would also be heretical.
Those are just a few examples of how religion, specifically Christianity, has hindered scientific progress.
Rex Fallout said:
And I happen to be a christian, but I am far more tolerant then most you probably know. And I'm gonna go ahead and ignore the comment about 'magic' since we were doing so well up until then.
Yeah, that was a bit out of line. I apologise. Its just that the idea that the universe was created by an omnipotent power in less than a week seems ridiculous to me. I think theres a God, or at least some sort of supernatural power, but not the Abrahamic god.
Rex Fallout said:
Guatemala was not communist. It wasn't even socialist. Arbenz simply used Marxist principles to make general life for the masses better. Individualism was not destroyed. People were actually more free, as the foreign companies restricted where they could go, where they could work, and where they could live.
And taking Cuba as an example; very few people died, compared to the many thousands that were executed under Batista. Those who were executed under Castro were 'war criminals' from the Batista-era, people who had actively oppressed the people, through torture and execution.
First I know little about Guatemala, it may have worked, but I cant honestly say from anything but from what you say which, I'm sorry but I have to take with a grain of salt. Lets assume you are completely right however, and move on. Yes the ideas of helping people can be good to a society, and technically these are the foundations of Marxism but if you aren't careful it can be a slippery slope once you start giving power to governments.
I don't understand your phobia of governments. Governments are supposed to be trusted, yet you seem to consider them to be nothing but thieves and murderers, who would sooner gouge out their own eyeballs than actually help their people.
And you realise that, by definition, governments already have power and control over your life. They
govern you. They introduce laws, collect taxes, control media sources, they have power.
Rex Fallout said:
And no doubt Batista was bad, but not as bad as Castro, Castro not only killed enemies but men he fought alongside with ON NATIONAL TELEVISION. And these men had done nothing but serve beside him. How is Castro no also oppressing the people?
Castro was acting because of a similar revolution in another Central/South American country. There had been a revolution, and the socialist/communist elements of the new government were overthrown by their right-wing allies. He was determined not to make the same mistake.
And I never said he wasn't oppressing the people. He's a dictator. Thats what they do.
Rex Fallout said:
Well crap I guess you learn something new every day don't you? Well I'll have to take a look at that when I get the chance. He seemed to want what some of Europe has today didnt he? Socialist with individualism? Still I wouldnt be so quick to want that. Actually, it does make sense when I think about it that he was socialist, I'd made the connection in my mind that many of his characters were based off of Soviets. Damn, should realized that myself. Ah well. On a bit of a side note, was Tesla a Marxist? I seem to remember many people mentioning that he was but his actions in business seemed to contradict this. Especially with his avid enthusiasm to compete with Edison every chance he got.
I'm not sure about Tesla. I admit, pretty much the only stuff I know about him is from either Fallout, Assassin's Creed, or random stuff I've picked up.
Rex Fallout said:
[possible spoiler of 1984]
A bit off topic but were you as depressed by the ending of 1984 as I was? For some reason I kept thinking everything would be ok and then... yeah.
It was a heartbreaking ending. I knew it couldn't have ended well, but I actually felt for Winston as everything he knew was destroyed. It is an incredibly bleak book, but Orwell wrote it spectacularly.
Oh no doubt he wrote it beautifully, it pained my heart to see him give in.[/quote]
Its easily one of the best pieces of literature I've ever read, and I have 2 walls of my room covered in bookshelves filled to the brim.
