View Single Post
  #29  
Zhukov Zhukov is offline
Supa Soviet Missil Mastar
Zhukov's Avatar
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tasmania
Zhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's armyZhukov has joined BAPE's army
Old Nov 26th, 2003, 12:19 PM       
Didn't see other posts...

Italian Stereotype:
Quote:
I seem to recall the old Soviet system being on the brink of collapse until Gorbachev took office. Do you think the U.S.S.R. could have survived another Brehznev, Andropov, or Chernenko?
"brink of collapse" can only decribe the USSR after Gorbys agrarian reforms, but yes, the USSR was falling well short of its averages and the USA in just about everything. "Stagnation" started to happen with Nikita in the 60's - and even more so wiht Brehznev (who immediately blamed Khrushchev for the past failings). The agrarian reforms were intended to undermine the collective farms and promote private farming. They seized up, and Gorbochov blamed Brezhnev. There was the purging of the old guard, Glasnost, Peestroika etc - but really, if the USSR had maintained its average growth rate of 10 percent (or something) it would have been enough to prevent the break-up. All that would have been necessary was to reach at least the average rates of growth attained by the West at this time, which I think was 3 percent (probably around that). Given the potential of the planned economy, this should have been easily possible. In fact, such a target is far below the real possibilities, as the 1950s and 1960s show. Yet, shamefully the bureaucracy was incapable even of reaching this miserable target - because they were useless. So, yes - the USSR could have survived another Brehznev, Andropov, or Chernenko for the simple fact that they only had to hold on, instead of making things worse. But maybe they could have survived only one of them


One and Only:
Quote:
Zhukov, when a country goes BANKRUPT, it tends to get worse before it gets better.
First of all, what are you comparing it too? And the USSR hardly went "BANKRUPT". Second, when will we see the progress? You wont see guaranteed education, health, employment etc under the Russian capitalists.

"According to a September-October 1998 study sponsored by the U.S. Information Agency, only 50 percent of Russian adults were employed and only a quarter of the so-called “employed” got paid with any regularity."

What do Russian unemployed have to look forward too? In the USSR it was full employment, in the USA there is an army of unemployed.
There are other examples.

Quote:
Are you so sure that life was better in the Soviet Union for the common people? Or was it just those in the military?
Yes, sure. But you sound like you have something up your sleeve! Enlighten me, please.

Quote:
Heck, Russia was better BEFORE the Soviet Union. It was a lot more agrarian, but the only reason it was industrialized was to increase military capacity.
Ignorance of the highest capacity. If you have read the original article, I might consider posting a rebuttal.

Quote:
Why is South Korea so much better off than North Korea?
Because it is run by a extremely warped stalinist beuracracy ho relied on the USSR to feed the people. "Socialism in one country" does not work. But you also forget that in 1985 DPRK was the 20th richest country in the world. Also, you forget that it wass not through the good graces of the capitalists or the "superiority" of the capitalist system that has won the Western world its better living standards. It is through the hard won militant struggles of communists, socialists and unionists that finally forced the ruling class to smarten up and distribute the wealth a little bit more evenly throughout the system. Once the threat of full scale labour revolts in the mid-late 1800s and early 1900s did the working class finally gain its labour rights, and with labour rights rose the standard of living amongst the masses.

Quote:
Why is America so much better than China?
Ditto. If you want me to go into great depths about the bankruptcy of "Socialism in one country", I can. However, even I would rather be a worker in North America and be exploited by American big business, it is far better than being a worker in Asia and being exploited by American big business. China has opened it's bedsheets to let capitalists jump into bed to rape the victories of the Chinese revolution. I don't know alot about China in depth. I doubt you do either. I do know that a new elite is emerging, and I do know that severeal towns are literaly Ghost Towns with such high unemployment. So I am in doubt that the majority of workers in China are better off.

Quote:
These are all questions I could be asking you.
But you wont, becasue you dont want to burden me with China and DPRK while this thread is about the USSR.
Reply With Quote