Baradiel said:
Before the Five Year Plans. Russia was agrarian. It had no industry to speak of, and any factories were dangerously close to Europe. Stalin knew this, which is why he instituted the Plans. Magnitgorsk was one of many cities literally created in less than a decade, dedicated solely for heavy industry. Stalin also aimed to move the majority of Russia's industry to behind the Ural mountain range, because it was previously very close to the border with Europe. The First World War showed how disastrous it was to lose that part of the country, so Stalin had major industrial centres built further into the country. Hence why the German Blitzkrieg, while devastating, didn't cripple the country.
The Soviets could manufacture more weapons and vehicles, and draw up more men, than the Germans (patriotism went a long way in recruiting soldiers, mind you), but being able to manufacture seemingly-endless tanks and weaponry, went alot further.
I don't think you understood what I meant by patriotism. First off let me go farther back and explain something about Marxism on the long scale- it doesn't work. Not if you want to go forward in the world anyways. The problem is that you provide no incentive for mans work, no real reason for him to work harder. Take the USSR for instantce: In the USSR factories involved in the production of engines created a quota in the form of weight of how many engines needed to be produced. Instead of producing economical viable engines, lightweight and strong, the USSR developed some of the heaviest engines in human history. Why? Because they had no real incentive for making better engines, they were just doing the work they were forcibly given.
Now take patriotism, the incentive is now there. "STOP THE GERMAN WAR MACHINE: OR DIE." Suddenly far more people were motivated to try harder. You'll notice how the different areas of the economy effectively died off after the war. Instead the government just kept focus on a few areas, while others suffered.
Hail, from the United Kingdom! I was particularly talking about David Cameron (the Tory) and his deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg. Its a coalition government, since no one party got enough of a majority, so in effect this government wasn't even voted in. Since its a coalition, both sides have had to sacrifice policies, which the Liberal Democrats becoming worse off, since they're the smaller party. Its not necessarily Clegg's fault, but the Lib Dems haven't got a chance in the next General Election if they keep him as the head.
Ah I see! I was thinking that was where you were from. Anyways I can see the problems you have with your government, but then I see Trump considering running for president over here and suddenly your country doesn't seem half bad. I'm fairly certain he'd sell half the continental US just to make a dime. (BTW Thank God he finally dropped out)
I'm not even sure what my point was supposed to be with that statement.
Me neither. I assume it had something to do with the inhumane treatment that the PRC regurally pushes on individuals.
I was thinking more the American hegemony over the Americas. True, it seemed to be "the thing" to do at the time, having an Empire of some sort was a badge of honour among the playground of international relations.
Ah yes I see now, sorry, I think I went a bit too far back. But didn't you hear? Empires were so totally in then! Now of course Oil is whats what. Anyone who is anyone's got oil!
True, and I say this honestly, without trying to cause offense; I'm glad I don't have your government. As much as mine screws up regularly, it still seems better than yours. Thats just an outsiders opinion though.
I take no offense at that statement. But I love my nation, and understand the ideals that went into its formation. Even if my leaders won't fight for them, I'm obligated to try. Beside's, who knows? Maybe one day we'll get things right.
Even aside from that level of ignorant loyalty, the effectiveness of the party system in the US rules out any other candidate of ever reaching office. I'm not sure of the exact stats, but didn't Obama's campaign cost in the excess of $1 Billion? What kind of independent candidate could ever match that, or have as much support?
Oh yes most certainly, I had actually completely forgotten to mention that. But it all comes down to publicity really. You have to make yourself known across the nation, and that costs money. Short of the government funding all presidential campaigns, I don't know what would be done.
Thats pretty much the definition of society; maintain the status quo. Too much drastic change upsets people. Thats always been the case, and most likely it always will be.
But the world has never been a constant, and it never will be.
Being different is always seen as wrong, regardless of the situation. Whether it's a physical difference, or a religious, or even a different way of thinking, it often leads to hostility and outright hatred, depending on the circumstances. If not, those reactions are probably hidden behind political correctness and forced smiles. People don't like different.
No doubt, the fact is that the very foundation of a democracy- 'tolerance' is one of the hardest things for humanity to do. I like to think that - at least in a majority of the US, (unsure about UK) - that we are fairly tolerant. I mean we got some nazis and hicks here and there, but I think we may do better than most.
In my opinion, your government should try and cut down expenditure on things like the military and use it for public services. The chances of that happening are microscopically tiny, though. The Military Industrial Complex has far too much influence, for one thing, and how would the US maintain its empire without a military presence in most countries?
But then comes the question, If we do not speak for those whose voices can not be heard, who will? Simply put, if we sit back and watch as China murders innocent protesters and throws intellectuals in prison, then how will the world ever get any better? I'm not saying there aren't some places we should pull out of, but still...
Prepare for incoming smart bomb!
Every war is effectively the same, until we decide to go to war with an alien race or a particularly offensive race of cacti. Regardless of what nationality, race, creed, religion, starsign, eye colour, choice in garden furniture, everyone is human, and its always human beings fighting and killing human beings.
But the literal definition of a civil war is a war between citizens of the same nation.
This goes back to the change discussion. Society doesn't like change or difference at all. Still I see the world in a different view. I like to think of myself as a Human Being first, a Capitalist second- and an American third. That way when I look at the world my first thought is, "These people need help!" Not, "Those damn Arabs can take care of themselves."
But yes that is the literal definition of a civil war. You my good sir, have won this smart ass war simply because I can't honestly think of another smart ass thing to say. Well, I can't think of a smart ass thing to say that is on topic.
Oh, the relations were strained at first, theres no denying that, but my point was that Mao started the relations (publicly at least). There was trade between China and the outside world as a direct result of Ping Pong Diplomacy, and yes, the relations did improve once Deng took control, but it was Mao and Zhou who established the starting relations.
True, true, but was it really Mao? Was it now with Nixon visiting Beijing that the relationship really became 'legit'? But still, I argue against it because Mao was obviously forced into the corner by his starving masses, he hated America more than any other country on earth. The true benefits of the relationship would not be had til later, ie. Deng. Although we didn't really get many benefits from it...
The Sino-Soviet Split is an entire subject of its own, but its got a few main events. For starters, Stalin actually support the Goumindang, the Nationalists, over the Communists during the Civil War, because he believed that a right wing government in China would be a buffer between America and Japan. He didn't particularly want a Communist China. He was much more interested in Socialism in One Country, and was satisfied with the buffer Eastern Europe now gave the USSR.
The Korean War was the first time Mao was disappointed with the Soviet Union. Instead of joining the fight directly, Stalin only provided support in the form of military hardware and training, and even then China had to pay for it. That wasn't the right thing for Communist allies to do, and Mao was severely disappointed.
The death of Stalin in 56 was the first major split in Sino-Soviet relations. Mao had expected the be given the reigns of the Communist world, as the now longest serving Communist leader. He was still the junior partner, and he hated Khrushchev for taking his place, and dismantling Stalinism, which Mao had based his economy and political system on. This was seen as a slight, and Mao resented not being informed of the Secret Speech before it was actually announced.
Yes I never have trully understood why Stalin supported the Nationalists instead of the Communists. But the Korean war is a subject in of its own as well. It was a complicated conflict- the US fighting under the banner of the UN to stop the spread of Communism, while China only really intervened in an attempt to stop the US from getting to close to China's borders, he was unsure whether or not the Americans would stop. The result from him even getting into the conflict were millions of dead chinese soldiers, many of whom had been sent into battle without proper weapons or ammunition in the first place. There are stories of waves of korean soldiers coming towards american troops without anything but their fists, and Americans being forced to gun them down. I can understand Mao's dislike of the USSR when it didn't lend a hand in the conflict, and then the dismantling of the old leader, (which partially started to happen in China before the Tianenmen Square Protests) Like I said people in power don't want it taken away.
Very true. We can't know for sure, but diaries written by leaders (not the same as a memoir, which is written for publication) often express their true feelings about events and policies, and go a long way in establishing their personalities.
Of course, how stupid of me, I hadn't even thought of those.
But corporations control money, or at least, the control alot of it. Therefore, they control politicians and policies.
True, I think we can both simply agree that, money makes the world go round.
But where does it become parental care? Parents protect you from dangers and dangerous people; surely the police and fire service are an example of that? Parents teach you; as do schools. Parents look after you when you're sick; the NHS does the same.
Paying taxes to fund schools, or the police force, or the military, is no different than paying taxes to fund medical care.
Yes but when parents do care for you is when you are young and inexperienced. Eventually you are left to fend for yourself. We would have a society of children if the government simply went to each and every individual and held their hands through life. How would anyone make anything of themselves? How would society push onward and advance?
When you start to care for people as children then they will become children. And when the government has that much power to take care of that many different things, well then, whats to stop them from taking over another responsibility, like your career choice so that there are enough people working in each area... and another, when they decide what you are allowed to think, what you are allowed to say... what you are allowed to do.
Look, I know I must sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I want to be in control of MY life. I only get one in this world and I would like to be in control of it. If I want to be a video game designer- I'll be damned if anyone stops me. I think you get my drift. The point is that when you have such freedom to think and speak as you please- why are we so quick to go back to the nasty ol' government for help again?
America is the only country currently in an embargo with Cuba. America might be an economic heavyweight, but Cuba still has the rest of the world to trade with. It isn't starving to death. It isn't doing fantastically, but its surviving.
Thats funny, they are doing poorly enough that Castro is being forced to allow more capitalism in the nation. Sacrificing their idealogy for something I assume.
I think I'll have a look around my house. Theres a stash of my granddads books somewhere. Might be interesting to see what he had.
Let me know what you find!
