PDA

View Full Version : World Without Communism



Digger
01-22-2007, 04:31 AM
The collapse of the USSR signalled a dramatic and potentially dangerous shift in the balance of power around the globe. Since 1945 the countries behind the Iron Curtain held the world's attention during a prolonged Cold War.

Whether you hold a for or against stance the political system behind the Iron Curtain was already in trouble before Gorbachev, Regan or Thatcher came along. The combined actions of these three hastened the end of the Soviet Union and it's satellite states, leading to not only a huge power vaccum but a potentially unstable pot pourri of independant states.

But would have the Soviet Union along with it's communist allies have gradually moved towards democracy and capitalism in time as we are seeing the gradual transformation of communist China into a communist/capitalist society?

And what place will the big three statesmen hold in history? Were their actions correct or not?

Regards Digger

Panzerknacker
01-22-2007, 05:47 PM
In my opinion they fall due to their own failures and mistakes...the external action was not that influential.

Digger
01-22-2007, 06:27 PM
I understand you mate. However there is a very big element who follow the theory the efforts of Regan and Thatcher to isolate the Soviet Union and outspend them on military hardware was instrumental in the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Case in point Regan's Evil Empire speech.

Regards Bob.

Panzerknacker
01-22-2007, 06:43 PM
I think the most powerful weapon agaist the comunism was the high life standar achieved in western Europe in 1980s, thing that made open the eyes to more that one russian citizen. :rolleyes:


Reagan might help but I dont think that a speech really matters.

Wolfgang Von Gottberg
01-22-2007, 06:58 PM
The Soviet Union was a government run by lies. They couldn't hold up any longer, and things eventually came back at them and became very hecktick. Just a web of lies in my opinion...

Digger
01-22-2007, 07:29 PM
Good points guys, which raises another question. Granted that totalarian regimes are built around lies and distortions, but the same can be said of democracies.

Perhaps it's the devil in the detail? I think Panzerknacker's point about the people wanting a lifestyle as enjoyed in the West was very important.

Regards Digger.

Nickdfresh
01-22-2007, 09:04 PM
The Soviet system was going bad by the mid-1960s. Reagan, and Pope John Paul, get far too much credit for the fall of "communism."

But I have to say, I've always wondered what it would be like if Trotsky had won the power struggle, and had eliminated Stalin. Would communism have been something akin to West European democratic socialism?

Chevan
01-23-2007, 01:14 AM
Hi guys. What's a nice day
Dear Digger have open the very interesting thread, thanks mate.


But would have the Soviet Union along with it's communist allies have gradually moved towards democracy and capitalism in time as we are seeing the gradual transformation of communist China into a communist/capitalist society?

Well this was a possible way of soviet transformations in end of 1980y. And this sould be the best way IMHO.Becouse in the begining the 1991 in the Russia come to power criminals gov. in head of Eltsin. Thay begin a stupig economic reform ( according the recomendations of of western "economists") which was the resault of lost about 70% of economic power or state. Some people had the problems with food.Becouse manies ogranisaition hadn't money to pay salary. The mafia openly did it's work. This was the most difficult time sine the 1945 as told me my father in 1993 when i had finished the school.
So thereis the point Digger. Could USSR to repit the way of China and saved its people and state from starvation in 1990. I think no.
Becouse the soviet communist party in contraduction with young power Chine's communists were degraded. They simply didn't see the dangerous of Gorbachev and could stop him . They lost the situation control after the 1990.
So indeed we had the situation which was- the practicaly full collapse of state authorities. And as the resault the criminal illegality in period after this.

BTW I don't think the world communism fall down becouse today China demostrate the amazing stable economical growth. Consider it like neo-communism.
Conteporary China look like the really independent ecomomical power state which protects its interes , but not by agressive way like it did the USSR and USA continie to do. I/m still sure in great communist future of this state.

Cheers.

Chevan
01-23-2007, 01:55 AM
The Soviet system was going bad by the mid-1960s. Reagan, and Pope John Paul, get far too much credit for the fall of "communism."
Regan , Pope Paul and Thatcher had nothig influence to the crased of USSR indeed.
The main reason was the Gorbachev and old Politburo idiots which were inpossible to held the power. USSR lose the information war, not economic or military competition with US.
Becouse if those communist idiot could able to think they must to know what could be the reason the desintigartion of USSR - war conflict , death about 6 million people only in Russia from the criminal illegality and worst economic conditions.


But I have to say, I've always wondered what it would be like if Trotsky had won the power struggle, and had eliminated Stalin. Would communism have been something akin to West European democratic socialism?
The Trotsky indeed was not able to take the power. He was pure theoretic. But this bastard had a power finantional support in 1917-18 from the New-York banker. Trotsky got about $20 million from the his friends ( enourmous money in this time) for the begining "russian" proletarian revolution. (Also there is the informaion that Lenin got the money from the Germany).
But "theoretical" specialisation not bother him to do the practice evil.
Trotsky was one who was responsible for the Big Red therror- cruel killing about million of christian in 1918-1921.


Would communism have been something akin to West European democratic socialism
Are you kidding mate?
Trostky supported the stupid idea of world proletarion revolution. He ordered the Tuchachevskij use the Red Army to invade the western Europe( to help the Germans worker to make the own revolution) . Thanks to the pole this army was crused near the Warsaw. If it didn't happen the whole the Germany had the revolution and first what would do the Trosky - to begin the Europear Red terror like it was in Russia.
Don't forget that the atrosities of bolshevics forced the West Europe to bias to the nazism.

cheers.

Panzerknacker
01-23-2007, 05:44 PM
Agree with Chevan, the permanent revolution of the Troskist movement was impracticable.

One Modern-time troskist was Ernesto Guevara...fortunately he did not survived longer... :twisted: :twisted:

Egorka
02-01-2007, 03:21 PM
Hello!

Someone mentioned here that the USSR regim was based on lies. Though we got probably more lies per ear compare to the western countries, the extent of it was not as dramatic as it is pictured now. In fact the longer I live the more I find cases that we were told the truth, but rejected it before as propaganda.

Another interesting thing, as I see it, ia that ex Soviet citizens was a generation of deceived people. I am reffering to the radio broadcast from abroad like BBC or "Voice of America" or "German Wave". My grand father listened to them very often during the late hours and so did I quite a bit. It was interesting. Forexample I liked the "literature hour" on BBC around 23:00. They would read from some books writen by the dissidents and so on. There were news and political analysis programs. It is only now I am starting to understand how much propaganda all these programs contained (together with correct data of course).

One of the curious, in my oppinion, examples is that one of the messages was that soviet citizens were not free to travel to other countries (rather correct at that time) and if only Soviet system let them go they would be so welcome to come to other countries. Very many people honestly beleived that someone kind and warm would welcome them in a far land. It is only now I lough at my self. What a moron I was to think like that! :) As soon as USSR opened borders, the west closed them. And who can blame them? They did right thing. But the whole country was mislead.

Conclusion: We lost the information war, not economical one.

AlbertSpeer
05-07-2007, 03:19 PM
A world without the scourage of Communism would be a glorious world indeed. Sadly, I doubt it will ever happen. It will always exist as an idea, but that doesn't mean we can't stifle and snuff out that idea whenever possible.

Nickdfresh
05-13-2007, 07:51 PM
A world without the scourage of Communism would be a glorious world indeed. Sadly, I doubt it will ever happen. It will always exist as an idea, but that doesn't mean we can't stifle and snuff out that idea whenever possible.

What about a world without fascism? As communism is just fascism in a pretty shade of pink.

Egorka
05-14-2007, 04:56 PM
A world without the scourage of Communism would be a glorious world indeed. Sadly, I doubt it will ever happen. It will always exist as an idea, but that doesn't mean we can't stifle and snuff out that idea whenever possible.

Hehehee... and could you explain us in few frases the essence of the Communist idea, please?
Lets see if you can get it correct...

Egorka
05-14-2007, 05:08 PM
What about a world without fascism? As communism is just fascism in a pretty shade of pink.

WHO the hell told you that? Uncle Sam?

In fact if you want a picture of the world without communism I can draw you a rough one in here:


Half of the world is Fascist or worse - Nazi! Want it or not the communists were the leading force in Europe to fight against Fascism and NAzism. And I am not talking about the USSR.
And if one day US whould help UK to bit Nazi Europe they would had lost millions of pople. So many of you would not have been born. And you know your self Western Allies think 10 times before sacrifising the people, right? So do you think they would save the millions of the counrymen lifes and let the other half of the world remain under Nizist rule?
The high living standards in Europe and USA (thank you consumer society for the global warming and other ecological problems) would not be nearly so high. A lot of the rights (economical ones especially) were given to you to counterbalance the communist ideas.


By the way, I am not a communist at all! It is just every plague is given to us for a purpose by Devine Providence. Communism is one of those plagues. But you do not see what is the reall problem with it, in my most humble opinion.

Chevan
05-18-2007, 05:46 PM
What about a world without fascism? As communism is just fascism in a pretty shade of pink.

Egorka our frined Nickdfresh simply could not admit the fact than soon (through 10-15 years) the Communist China will excel the USA in the economic power and influence in the world.;)

3.The high living standards in Europe and USA (thank you consumer society for the global warming and other ecological problems) would not be nearly so high. A lot of the rights (economical ones especially) were given to you to counterbalance the communist ideas.

BTW mate you hve touched the very importain porblem of western world.
After the collapse of the Soviet blook the western capitalists simply do not see the reason to increase the social guaranties for the workers.
If fact after the 1990 the relation of increasing the income of the average class / the superpover class is even decreasing.
And i know my friend Nick is not rich so would not so glad in his place for the FINAL downfall of communism.;)

Gen. Sandworm
05-21-2007, 11:49 AM
Egorka our frined Nickdfresh simply could not admit the fact than soon (through 10-15 years) the Communist China will excel the USA in the economic power and influence in the world.;)



Sorry but I see A HUGE difference between Modern China and Soviet Russia. Chairman Mao would role over in his grave if he new what was going on in modern day China. JMO!

32Bravo
05-21-2007, 12:34 PM
Why would one want a world without Communism? Communism is not a bad thing. In fact it promotes many good things and isn't far removed from what is written in the American Declaration of Independance. It isn't Communism which is bad, it is what men do in the name of Communism. The real problem with Communism is that it doesn't take into account the ambition and drive of the individual. Sadly, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism and Trotskyism have given Communism a bad name. I wonder how many of those that 'pour scorn' on Communists and Communism have actually read Marx's Communist Manifesto?

Personally, I love my country and its political system ( with all of its flaws) far too much to consider living anywhere else in the world, under any other form of government.

Glancing quickly accross time, it appears to me that those revolutionaries whom have embraced and promoted Communism, have been a part of an extremely unequal society - practically feudal. However, they, in the most part, were promoting revolution in order to gain power for themselves - where, otherwise they would have no chance of power - and not for the greater good of their people.

Egorka
05-21-2007, 01:52 PM
Personally, I love my country and its political system ( with all of its flaws) far too much to consider living anywhere else in the world, under any other form of government.
But do you think that your point of view may not be objective, but just a matter of habit?


Glancing quickly accross time, it appears to me that those revolutionaries whom have embraced and promoted Communism, have been a part of an extremely unequal society - practically feudal. However, they, in the most part, were promoting revolution in order to gain power for themselves - where, otherwise they would have no chance of power - and not for the greater good of their people.

I think some of them geniounly wanted the best, and not just for themself, but for others. The problem was that they did not mind going in the blood up to the knees towards their goals.

32Bravo
05-21-2007, 03:15 PM
But do you think that your point of view may not be objective, but just a matter of habit?

No, I don't have any habits when it comes to thinking and not thinking - I could ask you whether you are thinking that I am incapable of a considered opinion on the subject, as a matter of habit...rubbish!


I think some of them geniounly wanted the best, and not just for themself, but for others. The problem was that they did not mind going in the blood up to the knees towards their goals.

Well, if you are right, then the power corrupted them and they lost sight of what they were truly fighting for. It would not be for the first, nor the last time. Robespierre, is a classic example, as is Hitler. I think, maybe you are speaking from habit and dressing it up with objectivity - ruthless, hard decisions etc. etc.

These people were living in societies which were unequal and unfair. People of intelect and ability who could never find themselves in a situation in which they could gain power without bringing down the regimes which governed/ruled over them. I imagine that you feel that the society in which you were raised and educated was worth them going up to their knees in blood, it usually is when its someone elses blood. Are you being objective, or merely grateful?

The point which I was so inadequate in making, was that it wasn't Communism which people should fear, but the regime.

Would it be possible, please, for once, to debate with you without you having to resort to accusations of coldwar propaganda or a lack of objectivity? I can appreciate we have cultural differences and that, perhaps, it is your way to try to put your opponent on the defensive, but I don't realy care about your opinion of me personally, I'm more interested in what you have to say on the topic. If you disagree with me, then, by all means, disagree. I'm willing to consider your point of view, but the rest becomes rather wearing.
It reminds me of the question in the UN which was unanswered and inspired the comment regarding hell freezing over.

Egorka
05-21-2007, 04:34 PM
Erhhh... I guess we got confused in here again. What a surprise! ;)

You said: "Personally, I love my country and its political system ( with all of its flaws) far too much to consider living anywhere else in the world, under any other form of government."

So I ment asking if you think that the reason that you love the "political system (with all of its flaws)" is due to the fact that you were born there. You know when I go to those places where I remember my self running arround as bare assed little boy my heart also crunches in the sweet recallections. If per say you were born in China or Russia for that matter you might have had similar (sort of warm) feelings towards what you find close to you.

That is what I ment. Are you sure it is purely you concious choise (read objective) or is it just a matter of habit (adoptation to the reality you were born and raised in).

I hope it is clear now what I wanted to ask.


I imagine that you feel that the society in which you were raised and educated was worth them going up to their knees in blood, it usually is when its someone elses blood.

No I do not consider them being worse any blod at all. Unless it is a blood spilled by the defenders of the country, like during the WW2 for example.

I think there are 2 things that always get mixed. I would call it "moral assessment" and "understanding of the reality". In a nutshell I from "moral assesment" find what we had in USSR very dramatic and tragic and deadly to many. But on the other hand the world UNFORTUNATELY is not driven by maral. The politics are the best example. Some goverments are worse and more brutal than others but the essense is very similar.
So from the "understanding of reality" point of view Communism also played a positive role. For example I honestly beleive that the Hitler was defeated mainly due to Communistic ideology. Well tragicly so. Because no one else would be ready to pay the same price for the victory (Remember the nukes were out of the equation then).

So I try to be balanced and not to judge too boldly when I look back. I am not defending the Communism regim at all. I ma just trying to show you (not specificly you, but all others) that the Communism (or rather the society in USSR) was much more complex and vibrant than just one thing called Communism.

Gen. Sandworm
05-22-2007, 02:39 AM
Well Egorka if we had an award for trying to stay objective I would nominate you for it. ;)

I cant totally agree with the statement: Personally, I love my country and its political system ( with all of its flaws) far too much to consider living anywhere else in the world, under any other form of government."

I do love my country and what it idealistically stands for. Lot of great things about it. However the level of decadence in the US scares me. If I had to make my own country from places ive been the majority of the ideas would come from the US. I can also say that I dont hate capitalism but im not a big fan of it either. Ive seen other countries play the capitalist game quite well without aquiring alot of the problems that come with it.

In any form of government I think you must change with the times to be successful. This IMO is what China is doing and is becoming much stronger as a result. To me it all kinda like writing a paper when your young. If you keep going back to that paper every couple of years and rewriting it. You will find its quite different from when you started. Things change quickly and so ppl and governments need to try to change with them.

32Bravo
05-22-2007, 08:51 AM
Erhhh... I guess we got confused in here again. What a surprise! ;)

You said: "Personally, I love my country and its political system ( with all of its flaws) far too much to consider living anywhere else in the world, under any other form of government."

So I ment asking if you think that the reason that you love the "political system (with all of its flaws)" is due to the fact that you were born there.


I was about to say no, it isn't because I was born here. However, that would be ridiculous, it has to be, in part, because I was born here. Having said that, I live quite a way from where I was born and raised and have no desire to go back there.

I have travelled widely, and when I compare the political systems of the countries I have visited with my own, I prefer my own country's system(I didn't always feel that way). It has an unwritten constitution which allows it to adapt and improve over time. Unlike other codified constitutions, which are, practically, carved in stone. There is much I could discuss on these issues, but I wouldn't want to bore you.



that is what I ment. Are you sure it is purely you concious choise (read objective) or is it just a matter of habit (adoptation to the reality you were born and raised in).

I hope it is clear now what I wanted to ask.

I think I might understand, its just that I can be rather slow on the uptake, so I thank you for your patience and understanding of my condition.

Questioning, as opposed to merely accepting, practically defines who I am.



No I do not consider them being worse any blod at all. Unless it is a blood spilled by the defenders of the country, like during the WW2 for example.

Well, that's a relief. When we defend our country and our people we make sacrifices. However, I'm never wholly impressed by those who would send others to make the sacrifice. If they are not willing to make the sacrifice themselves, then thy ought to be prudent with the lives of their people.
Yes I understand necessity.



I think there are 2 things that always get mixed. I would call it "moral assessment" and "understanding of the reality". In a nutshell I from "moral assesment" find what we had in USSR very dramatic and tragic and deadly to many. But on the other hand the world UNFORTUNATELY is not driven by maral. The politics are the best example. Some goverments are worse and more brutal than others but the essense is very similar.
So from the "understanding of reality" point of view Communism also played a positive role. For example I honestly beleive that the Hitler was defeated mainly due to Communistic ideology. Well tragicly so. Because no one else would be ready to pay the same price for the victory (Remember the nukes were out of the equation then).

I can appreciate some of that, but not in total. What I was driving at in my earlier comments, was not the shedding of blood to defeat Nazism, but the shedding of the blood of one's own people in order to gain and hold onto power. Power being the goal 'instead' of the good of the people. That was why I did not only refer to Stalinsim.

One can be objective and consider morals together. In such situations it is about choosing the lesser of the evils.




So I try to be balanced and not to judge too boldly when I look back. I am not defending the Communism regim at all. I ma just trying to show you (not specificly you, but all others) that the Communism (or rather the society in USSR) was much more complex and vibrant than just one thing called Communism.


I think I was aware of that, and in a way, was a part of my point. The society in the USSR was not Communism as we would describe it, in as much as the system in, say, the US is not Democracy either (did I say that? :D ).
Even I know that the USSR was a vast place, and with vast countries comprising various states it can be difficult to keep them united. I just don't happen to believe that state terror is the way. At which point does a leader, such as Stalin (for example), cross the line from caring about the state and terrorising the state for his own ends?

Is, or, is not, Communism about equality?

"The fundamental principal of democratic or popular government, the essential resort which sustains it and makes it move, is virtue - the love of country and its laws.

Since the essence of the Republic or democracy is equality, the love of country necessarily embraces the love of equality. It, therefore, presupposes or produces all virtues since all are simply expressions of the force of that soul which enables a person to prefer the public interest to all particular interests.

Not only is virtue the soul of democracy, it can only exist inside this form of government.
All citizens, no matter who they are, have the right to aspire to every degree of representation."

I thought that might interest you. :D

32Bravo
05-22-2007, 09:37 AM
I cant totally agree with the statement: Personally, I love my country and its political system ( with all of its flaws) far too much to consider living anywhere else in the world, under any other form of government."

I do love my country and what it idealistically stands for. Lot of great things about it. However the level of decadence in the US scares me. If I had to make my own country from places ive been the majority of the ideas would come from the US. I can also say that I dont hate capitalism but im not a big fan of it either. Ive seen other countries play the capitalist game quite well without aquiring alot of the problems that come with it.

In any form of government I think you must change with the times to be successful. This IMO is what China is doing and is becoming much stronger as a result. To me it all kinda like writing a paper when your young. If you keep going back to that paper every couple of years and rewriting it. You will find its quite different from when you started. Things change quickly and so ppl and governments need to try to change with them.

As I mentioned in my reply to Egorka, the British constitution is not codified. Thus, it allows for modification and continuous improvement.

I have debated this with many American friends and family, who are active in politics in the states. They find it strange to understand as the American constitution is caste in iron.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/british_constitution.htm

What I have difficulty with, with the American system that is, is that the head of govenmernt is also the head of state, and the Commander-in -Chief of the military. I would suggest a conflict of interests. It seems as if the President is practically a ruling monarch - untouchable.

But, hey, I have had this argument a thousand times with some very able people - if it makes you happy, what the heck. :D

Gen. Sandworm
05-22-2007, 10:51 AM
As I mentioned in my reply to Egorka, the British constitution is not codified. Thus, it allows for modification and continuous improvement.

I have debated this with many American friends and family, who are active in politics in the states. They find it strange to understand as the American constitution is caste in iron.


Maybe the British constitution is a bit more versatile but I dont understand the remark that the American constitution is caste in Iron. While the main document and the 1st 10 amendments (aka the bill of rights) are pretty set the amendments are not. Now the bill of rights is problematic coz they were written in the original document. Which is the whole problem with gun control (2nd amendment). People went nuts when they messed with the original coke formula........what do you think the will do if they mess with the Bill of Rights? The whole point of the amendments were to allow for changes. 17 amendments have been added since its introduction. Classic example of the ability to change is the 18th and its "repealment" ;) by the 21st amendment. Now unless im mistaken there is nothing that would prevent one from repealing an amendment in the bill of rights.

So to sum up..........I dont understand what they mean when they say the US Constitution is caste iron! Might also add that the amendments can be pretty versatile as well......Dubya wanted the 28th to be the banning of Gay marriage.

Better sites but for simplicity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Subsequent_amendments_. 2811.E2.80.9327.29

Also like to add that our government setup was meant to be different than Britain we still adapted alot from her. British common law for instance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#United_States_federal_common_law

32Bravo
05-22-2007, 11:11 AM
Maybe the British constitution is a bit more versatile but I dont understand the remark that the American constitution is caste in Iron. While the main document and the 1st 10 amendments (aka the bill of rights) are pretty set the amendments are not. Now the bill of rights is problematic coz they were written in the original document. Which is the whole problem with gun control (2nd amendment). People went nuts when they messed with the original coke formula........what do you think the will do if they mess with the Bill of Rights? The whole point of the amendments were to allow for changes. 17 amendments have been added since its introduction. Classic example of the ability to change is the 18th and its "repealment" ;) by the 21st amendment. Now unless im mistaken there is nothing that would prevent one from repealing an amendment in the bill of rights.

So to sum up..........I dont understand what they mean when they say the US Constitution is caste iron! Might also add that the amendments can be pretty versatile as well......Dubya wanted the 28th to be the banning of Gay marriage.

Better sites but for simplicity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Subsequent_amendments_. 2811.E2.80.9327.29

Also like to add that our government setup was meant to be different than Britain we still adapted alot from her. British common law for instance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#United_States_federal_common_law

Okay, correct me where I am wrong as I am no expert on the American Constituion. However, my understanding is thta changes within the Constitution have to be agreed by all fifty states? If so, then it would require some serious persuasion to get thta to happen. If I am wrong, then please inform.

A recent occurrence which I found rather illuminating, was the way in which John Bolton became Ambasador to the UN. The President, knowing he could not get Bolton, through Congress, waited until 'Washington' had buggered-off for their Hols. and then passed Bolton himself. He was able to do this because it is written within the Constitution that the president has this power when Congress is stood down, so to speak. However, this was written some two hundred years ago when Washington (D.C. that is ) was a rather swampy and humid place and everyone vacated for the summer ( still do). Now, in this day and age, i.e. the age of telecommunications; fax, e-mail, tele-conferencing, that ought not be a problem. The President took advantage of a loophole in the Constitution, which is set in stone - is it not?

I am not attempting to say that your Constitution is no good, but I happen to believe the British way is better for me - but then that could be habit. :D

By the way, I always thought the U.S. Government set-up resembled that of Imperial Rome as opposed to Britain. :)

32Bravo
05-22-2007, 11:23 AM
So to sum up..........I dont understand what they mean when they say the US Constitution is caste iron! Might also add that the amendments can be pretty versatile as well......Dubya wanted the 28th to be the banning of Gay marriage.

As I recall, the last time a British monarch refused to give assent to a law, was when Queen Victoria was presented with the Bill which made homo-sexual relationships illegal.

It went something like this:

Disrali presents the Bill for the Queen to sign.

After reading it, she says she cannot possibly sign it... it is ludicrous, how can women have home-sexual relationships?

Disraeli insists - the Queen refuses.

Disraeli takes aside one of the Queen's Ladies-in-waiting and says...look here, go and explain the ways and wotnots to the Queen.

Lady-in-waiting toddles-off and explains. Disraeli returns with the Bill for signature.

Disraeli presents the Bill to the Queen, the Queen remarks...We are not convinced!

Disraeli toodles-off, back to Parliament, amends the Bill (homo-sexual relationships between men, not women, illegal), the Queen signs the Bill.
The Bill becomes law. :D

32Bravo
05-22-2007, 11:27 AM
A minor point. Is not the Bill of Rights a different document to the Constitution?

Another minor point - are we drifting - ever so slightly - off topic? :)

Gen. Sandworm
05-22-2007, 03:48 PM
A minor point. Is not the Bill of Rights a different document to the Constitution?

Another minor point - are we drifting - ever so slightly - off topic? :)

1. No, The bill of rights is part of the US Constitution!

2. Yes.....maybe we should start a thread on US and UK constitutions!

Chevan
05-22-2007, 05:49 PM
2. Yes.....maybe we should start a thread on US and UK constitutions!
This is a good idea Gen;)
Do not need to discuss the difference of the UK/US constitution in the thread about communism.

Chevan
05-22-2007, 06:03 PM
Back to the topic

Sorry but I see A HUGE difference between Modern China and Soviet Russia. Chairman Mao would role over in his grave if he new what was going on in modern day China. JMO!
The comminist China indeed was a ful scale copy of USSR in the 1960-70 Gen.
We both had the Communist party as ONLY power that ruled by the state.
But in the midium of 1980 our way has dispersed - the USSR's comparty was desintegrated but the China's communists still strong.
And Mao will not "role over in his grave" in contrast i/m he would wonder of the political flexibility of the Comparty of China - this is a great success indeed - after downfall of communism in the world the China only single state that has appeared in better situation then all of communist former states. The power economical and military rise. What could be more importaint for Mao;)
Though "human right" is still far from a good ,but the progress since the 1985 is a great.

32Bravo
05-23-2007, 04:02 AM
This is a good idea Gen;)
Do not need to discuss the difference of the UK/US constitution in the thread about communism.


It's all related. This thread is based on a question of perception. Therefore, in order to understand where we are coming from in our discussions, it is important to understand one and others' points of view, and from where we draw them i.e. our models, benchmarks and experiences - otherwise we will be accusing each other of regurgitating Cold-war propaganda.

Gen. Sandworm,

yes, I think it would be an intersting thread, but I suspect that it would ony be the two of us participating - perhaps we should take a vote on it? ... the aye's to the right.... :)

Egorka
05-23-2007, 08:38 AM
So getting back from homo-sexual (it is when people have sex at home, right?) to the topic "World without Communism", I can say again being bad Communism has played a paramout role in the 20th century. Both ugly and good roles!

Rising Sun*
05-23-2007, 08:58 AM
Maybe the British constitution is a bit more versatile but I dont understand the remark that the American constitution is caste in Iron.

Coming from the same constitutional heritage that Bravo32 comes from, but living in a nation which has a constitution modelled in part on the US constitution while preserving the British system of government and constitutional monarchy (whether or not I agree with it!), I think the point might have been that those of us in other countries are astounded by the rights guaranteed by the US constitution and the vigour with which the US courts can support them.

A simple example is the right of free speech. We don't have one here (although our High Court - = US Supreme Court - found a very limited one in political discourse some years ago).

The defamation laws in America are circumscribed by the constitutional free speech guarantee.

Here, the defamation laws inhibit free speech when it comes to vigorous public debate about, say, politicians because they routinely get injunctions stopping the press from exposing their misconduct.

Perhaps the "cast in iron" comment was meant to refer to the certainties which are lacking in countries which don't have such a clearly written constitution?

Rising Sun*
05-23-2007, 09:20 AM
So getting back from homo-sexual (it is when people have sex at home, right?) to the topic "World without Communism", I can say again being bad Communism has played a paramout role in the 20th century. Both ugly and good roles!

Paramount means it was more important than anything else.

Significant might be more apposite.

Communism on its own didn't mean much. It got its power when combined with nationalist and or national liberation movements. There was never a purely communist government.

There was no standard form of communism. Maoists had no real common ground with Stalinists, and neither of them with Cuba, etc. Pol Pot had his own curious form of murderous communism, which outdid Stalin and Mao (and Hitler, who it is often forgotten was another national socialist) at their best. Or worst.

In the West we had the Moscow-aligned and Peking-aligned communist parties, and sundry others.

The essential problem was that the dominant Western governments tended to view 'communism' as the same everywhere and responded accordingly, which ensured that they rarely responded in a way which might be effective in achieving their aims because they never bothered to understand what they were dealing with.

The one outstanding exception is the British in Malaya, who treated it as essentially a security or large policing problem. This ensured that the enemy was accurately identified, targeted and dealt with.

Contrast this with the meaningless, counter-productive, and ultimately idiotic global 'war on terrorism' launched by Bush Jnr after 9/11 when it should have been treated as an internal security issue requiring forceful but carefully targeted action inside and outside the US to avoid generating exactly the potentially catastrohic alignments it has actually achieved. And worse ones it might achieve, such as an already nuclear armed Pakistan falling to the substantial radical Islamic forces in its civilian and military sectors.

32Bravo
05-23-2007, 11:46 AM
So getting back from homo-sexual (it is when people have sex at home, right?) to the topic "World without Communism", I can say again being bad Communism has played a paramout role in the 20th century. Both ugly and good roles!

Hey, this chap has a sense of humour! :D

One sees these Hollywood movies with amazing lines like 'Once a Commie, always a Commie!'

Is it Hollywood or is it reality? :D

I think its just a label. :D

Egorka
05-23-2007, 04:38 PM
Paramount means it was more important than anything else.

Significant might be more apposite.
More than 50% = Paramount. Right?

I am quite sure that if you count number of people in communist countries in 20th centruty you will see that more than half of theworld population was affected (China really helps me with this argument out there). And the other 20% were strugling against it - also affected. :)



Communism on its own didn't mean much. It got its power when combined with nationalist and or national liberation movements. There was never a purely communist government.

There was no standard form of communism. Maoists had no real common ground with Stalinists, and neither of them with Cuba, etc. Pol Pot had his own curious form of murderous communism, which outdid Stalin and Mao (and Hitler, who it is often forgotten was another national socialist) at their best. Or worst.


Ok, the idea of Communism combined with national specifics. Yes the human life in the east has lowere value compare to the West. And it is not necessary bad thing! Though I am risking to be misunderstood here!

Rising Sun*
05-25-2007, 07:23 AM
More than 50% = Paramount. Right?

More, but, much as it will distress you :D, a figure cannot be specified.


Paramount

1. Of chief concern or importance: tending first to one's paramount needs.
2. Supreme in rank, power, or authority.

n. One that has the highest rank, power, or authority.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/paramount

32Bravo
05-25-2007, 01:44 PM
Russia, cannot be understood with the mind. :)

Digger
06-27-2007, 08:13 PM
I think Marx(Karl, not Groucho) would have been the one to roll over in his grave at what Marxism/Communism had become. Whether you agree with Communism or not, Marx's philosphy was founded on humanist principles. He clearly wanted a better world for the average person.

Egorka summed it up fairly well when talking about his childhood. Sure he and Chevan lived under an 'enemy' regime, but they both have fond memories of their youth. The thing is, it does not matter what country you live in, what regime you live under, the average person just wants to get on with their lives.

It's the politicians and leaders who screw things up.

Regards digger:)

Cojimar 1945
06-30-2007, 01:56 AM
Mutually assured destruction would make armed conflict seem unfeasible. If the countries were really going to settle who was stronger they should have had their best fighters meet in hand to hand combat. That seems like a better way of resolving who the best is.