Was communism so bad?

[bm-21Lemko]

I completely agree with Irene here.

Same thing could be said about USA and Europe just in another period of 20th century.

The great Depression affected everyone including Russia during the 20th century. So its a little surprising that they still had lines after WWII.

Communism never was except for propagandistic bull **** attempt of “Western Countries” Governments to turn their citizens into zombies and carbon copy clones.

Both sides did hence the name "Cold War"

Don’t know even one case a church was ever reduced to rubble intentionally. More over Soviet Government resurrect Moscow Patriarchate of Orthodox Church which was abolished by Tsar Peter centuries ago.

I know this is not true. Since the Tsarist regime was one with the russian othordox church and church and state was seperated after bolshevik revolution. "Thousands of churches and monasteries were taken over by the government and either destroyed or converted to secular use..." (John Shelton Curtis, The Russian Church and the Soviet State )

"That was true before 1954 but such things have nothing to do with idea of Communism. It was also true for Tsarist Russia Impire and a great deal of Asian countries."

I have to disagree with you again. The tsarist Russian Empire did not control the people to the extent of the Communist Regime. The Tsarist Regime did not control farm production or Factor production or markets for that matter.

So what? That job did not give enough money to support living unless one’s involved in stealing venture.

Freedom to choose....John Locke, French Revolution...

Once again, there was no communism in Soviet Union.

You are joking right?

Every working man tend to capitalize his earnings too become a capitalist since communism means everyone is equal, communism = capitalism

Nope. Capitalism does not share the wealth that ones make unless that individual decides to share his wealth.

It sounds like they failed to achieve their goals since you still have doubts and ask questions.

Every government tends to hold secrets to prevent mass panic such as bomb threats in major cities.

[Gotno Gizmo]

Soviet communism was becoming unsustainable. Its industries were overmanned and underproductive, usually using outdated technology. Communism was not not providing the impetus to compete in the global market place because of the lack of real incentive amongst would be creational individuals. It was on a gradual road to bankruptcy. I believe that President Gorbachev could see the end was coming and was aware of the disillusionment that the arrival of satellite television would bring to Soviety society. Wisely, he decided to let the European Soviet countries go and we all know what followed.
Sadly, for the working classes living in the west, the end of the potential for communism to develop within its own borders gave capitalism a greater confidence to be less social and more exploitative in its search for ever greater profitability that has produced the situation that we now find ourselves in. Could it be that capitalism will have the same messy end as Soviet communism?

[IreneLviv]

3 notes:
1) The soviet economy was heavily militarized - and military complex used advanced technologies. Think-tanks, best brains, all resources were all concentrated in the military sector
2) Gorbachev just went with the flow - he was hardly aware of any consequences of the arrival of computers and sattelite TV or predicted the collapse of the SU.
3) Anti-alcoholism campaign was the last straw - the SU never regained its 'equilibrium' after this severe blow.

[bm-21Lemko]

Originally Posted by Gotno Gizmo

gave capitalism a greater confidence to be less social and more exploitative in its search for ever greater profitability that has produced the situation that we now find ourselves in. Could it be that capitalism will have the same messy end as Soviet communism?

Doubt it. There will always be someone that has money whether it is a private individual or a monarchy. Even China no longer uses a command economy and they consider themselves communist with capitalist intentions of attaining oil resources in Africa.


If you think about it now. Capitalism is way less bad compared to the early 20th century. Horrible working conditions and pay that was very low. You could compare it i guess today of China or banana pickers in south America. But in the factories in china you dont have people losing limbs or a furnace exploding. Plus their pay is selfsustaining instead of whole familys living together working in a factory to make ends meet.

Its not a good lifestyle, but people tend to not complain about the food they eat or the products they buy so it continues whether your in Europe or North America.

[Gotno Gizmo]

"There will always be someone that has money whether it is a private individual or a monarchy"

If the capitalist sytem was to collapse, having money would be of little value, it would be worth only the scrap value of the paper it was printed on. On the British Pound notes it says "I promise to pay X Pounds". If the Pound collapsed would the Bank of England pay one pound of horse manure? Do you think that the "Smart Money" is predominantly saving paper money and coins? Why do you imagine that works of art, precious metals/ jewels, antiquities, classic/ vintage cars and all other forms of rare memorabilia are selling for record sums, usually well above their reserve price at auctions.
It will be the common man who of course will lose out. His savings, pensions, life insurance policies etc will become worthless, and the banks will ensure that they will foreclose on as many properties as it is viable and profitable to do, given that the value of property will decline catastrophically.

I wish I had your "comfort zone" about the longer term future.

[bm-21Lemko]

Originally Posted by Gotno Gizmo

"There will always be someone that has money whether it is a private individual or a monarchy"

If the capitalist sytem was to collapse, having money would be of little value, it would be worth only the scrap value of the paper it was printed on. On the British Pound notes it says "I promise to pay X Pounds". If the Pound collapsed would the Bank of England pay one pound of horse manure? Do you think that the "Smart Money" is predominantly saving paper money and coins? Why do you imagine that works of art, precious metals/ jewels, antiquities, classic/ vintage cars and all other forms of rare memorabilia are selling for record sums, usually well above their reserve price at auctions.
It will be the common man who of course will lose out. His savings, pensions, life insurance policies etc will become worthless, and the banks will ensure that they will foreclose on as many properties as it is viable and profitable to do, given that the value of property will decline catastrophically.

I wish I had your "comfort zone" about the longer term future.

Obviously the key word here is "rare". What I meant by money is not the general term of paper currency. What I meant is wealth. Generally people with wealth diversify. So if for instance the british pound were to drop they have other means of wealth. Rare cars, art collections, oil or some other things that are in high demand. Stock options in another country or possibly other currencies that are of high value.

The only way the capitalist system will die is if a better system is introduced or if the apocalypse occurs.

I'm not blind about the corruption and the effects of capitalism. Its hardly a perfect system.

Like you said the common man would lose out if a currency were to become nothing such as Germany after WWI.


However society for centuries has operated under a heirarchy whether its a village elder, King, or elected official. Capitalism is the same way, much like the caste system of previous cultures. There are those on top and those on the bottom and those in the middle.

A king is only as powerful as the people who support him. Capitalism is only powerful as the people who buy things.

sharing the wealth under communism is great idea on paper but implementing it is another problem. The fact is the computers we are using to access this forum and post are the by products of capitalism.

[Gotno Gizmo]

In recent months I have been travelling around most of the former Communist (Socialist) Eastern European countries. Most of these I had already visited 30 years ago and I was interested to see how they had changed under the Capitalist transformation. I am pleased to report, that for the most part, the "grey" and anachronistic lifestyle of the citizens has gone. They dress in more diverse and fashionable clothes and are driving better cars. Modern houses are mushrooming everywhere, at a pace that I envy when I consider how my own country (UK) has an inability to build housing at anything like the rate that is required to meet the demand of affordable housing. Even the mass housing stock of Soviet design apartment blocks have been painted, including graphic designs on the large concrete wall ends of the building to enhance their appearance.
I used every opportunity, when discovering English speakers to quiz them about their opinions as to whether life was better now in comparison to the former communist years. Unfortunately, these English speaking people were too young to make a comparison but where able to interpret on behalf of their parents/ grandparents, or older inquisitive bystanders. The consensus of opinion amongst those less than 50 years of age is that life is much better now. From 50 to 60 years of age divided, and those over 60 years of age are nostalgic for the "old days" and believe that they would be better off in retirement under communism.

The pluses:
Greater selection of food and choice of other goods in the shops.
Better and freer TV and other media
More opportunity for travel (although having enough money and visa problems restrict many)
Receipts of foreign currency from their citizens working abroad and sending money home
Enjoying more tourism from diverse nationalities bringing financial gain
Freedom to start own businesses and derive more reward from skills/ talents
More workers being promoted upon ability rather than because of political party loyalty (although the having the right contacts still remains advantageous).

The minuses:
More expensive food, utility services, and energy
Accommodation rental cost for those who do not own their own homes
Medical "payments" necessary to ensure better healthcare within alleged inferior non communist healthcare system
Unemployment (especially amongst youth) in a more competitive and contracting labour market ("everything is being imported from China")
Varying corruption within business and government officialdom, with a "Mafia" element still enduring
Alleged lesser retirement pensions pro rata to living costs than in the communist times
I believe that most of these countries have adapted well to the political changes thrust upon them following the collapse of communism within the vacuum of authority resulting. They face the same challenges that the countries with a longer capitalist history now must endure. The financial uncertainties of the future, against a backdrop of self serving and incompetent leaders. Governments who cannot govern in the best interest of their citizens because of their lack of courage to act against the global oligarchy who have sponsored their political party’s election promotion.