PDA

View Full Version : Hard Facts about Communism/USSR.



Jan Fiala
11-16-2007, 05:17 AM
Communists weren't patriots. They didn't fight for liberty (independent Czechoslovakia), but for Stalin. Gottwald (if you're so clever, you must know that person) was drunkard who served Stalin. I am ashamed for communsits, for that swines.

You also spoke about Slovak uprising. Slovak "national" uprishing wasn't uprishing like other uprishings, but Slovakian fashists became bolsheviks when they knew Germans will fall. They always join stronger side.


No man- i speak not about who died fighting with NAzy.

What's the difference to with bolsheviks or nazis...

Chevan
11-16-2007, 06:02 AM
Communists weren't patriots. They didn't fight for liberty (independent Czechoslovakia), but for Stalin. Gottwald (if you're so clever, you must know that person) was drunkard who served Stalin. I am ashamed for communsits, for that swines.

Jan tell me honestly - how many communists did you personally know in your life?
COz you so boldly assert -thay did not fight agains liberty?
Tell me one more thing- are you rich?


You also spoke about Slovak uprising. Slovak "national" uprishing wasn't uprishing like other uprishings, but Slovakian fashists became bolsheviks when they knew Germans will fall. They always join stronger side.

So you think that the Slovaks who were real traitors?
They dastard not like the Czech , is this you rpoint?

Jan Fiala
11-16-2007, 06:21 AM
Personally? All our society is full of communists, so I meet them daily. I could tell you many things about "our" communists, but it would be very difficult to translate.

Slovakians really turned traitor us. When Germans were strongest then us, they joined them and became nationalists and later fashists. They were (are) real traitors.

Chevan
11-16-2007, 06:31 AM
Personally? All our society is full of communists, so I meet them daily. I could tell you many things about "our" communists, but it would be very difficult to translate.

Really today in Czech repubilc so many communists;)
What a surprise, i didnot even guess :)
So tell me in couple of words - why you so hate them so much ? May be the want to kill you?
Or send you to a Concentration camp?


Slovakians really turned traitor us. When Germans were strongest then us, they joined them and became nationalists and later fashists. They were (are) real traitors.

Well i/m understand why the Chohoslovakia were splited on two "independent" state;)
Coz your "patriots" hate each others;)
Sadly it was a great state though....

Jan Fiala
11-16-2007, 07:16 AM
Why?
1) because of utopian ideology
2) because of their acts (murders, collectivization, witch-hunt of people, gulags etc. it is so much)
3) because they destroyed Europe, our culture, industry (American life style finished it) etc.
4) they are not prohibited or punnished



Really today in Czech repubilc so many communists

Yes, here is so many communists.

Chevan
11-16-2007, 07:42 AM
Why?
1) because of utopian ideology

Is the social guaranties, equal possibilities ,free education and medicine service is this a utopia on you mind?


2) because of their acts (murders, collectivization, witch-hunt of people, gulags etc. it is so much)

Oh year...so how many the Czech communists that you meet daily killed the people ?


3) because they destroyed Europe, our culture, industry (American life style finished it) etc.

So you please make clear you point.
Is the American life style has finished YOUR culture or the communists around you?
Coz this is two great differences.
And how do you explain that early in the USSR we saw a lot of excelent Chehoslovakian and Polish films.
But today when you has been liberated for communists- we SEE NOTHING?
And YOUR television is full of foreign POP shit?
Where is YOUR national culture if you so FREE today like you say?


4) they are not prohibited or punnished

punished for what - do they propogande the extremism or race hate? Do they kill today a peoples in Czech republic?


Yes, here is so many communists.
So you hate them ---- for nothing coz they simply dislike you , right?

Jan Fiala
11-16-2007, 08:11 AM
1) Cancellation of class society and other communist nionsenses - it's utopia
2) Today not, but you probably don't know anything about 50's years in "democratic" czechoslovakia.


Is the American life style has finished YOUR culture or the communists around you?


Communists liqided patriotism and Czech culture. After 89. people doted on American life style - our televisions are a full of foreign POP shit! Today aou people can't use czech language, because they known only lousy words like a "ok, ****, shit, good, cool", they dosn't know Czech orthography. These factors are in our society because of communsit control until 1989.


Where is YOUR national culture if you so FREE today like you say?

We are free?! It's relative.

Punnish for what? For "liberation", 41 years of lack of freedom, collectivisation, witch-hunt of not communist people, executed humans, censorship... If you doesn't know about reality in eastern block, don't discuss about communism.

Chevan
11-19-2007, 02:36 AM
1) Cancellation of class society and other communist nionsenses - it's utopia
The class devision is not utopia.
This was may be the one of few RIGHT things that Carl Marx has invented in 19 centure.
The class devision is the obvious thing Jan.
True.. the bolshevick via their unhuman methouds have compromated this concept.
However the class struggle is the very accurate term for the actual relations of the Richs and Poors( ot betwen the masters and its workers)


2) Today not, but you probably don't know anything about 50's years in "democratic" czechoslovakia.

Probably you right.I know a not much about Chehoslovakia.
But at least i know for sure - in the soviet block the Chehoslovakia played the great and importaint economical and military role.
It was a industry and military producer.
Do you even know that the Czech produced the manies of kinds of the modern wearpons including the licensed Soviet aircrafts.
The Czech motorcycle Jawa was a one of the best in the USSR.So indeed communist made a lot of the creating the great industry in Chehoslovakia.


Communists liqided patriotism and Czech culture. After 89. people doted on American life style - our televisions are a full of foreign POP shit! Today aou people can't use czech language, because they known only lousy words like a "ok, ****, shit, good, cool", they dosn't know Czech orthography. These factors are in our society because of communsit control until 1989.

He he he.
Americans finished your Language and culture?;)
And who did help them today - YOUR DEMOCRATS-PATRIOTS.Not communists.
So relax and enjoy;)
YOUR democrats has finished you country Chehoslovakia.They has teared it into pieces.


We are free?! It's relative.

Punnish for what? For "liberation", 41 years of lack of freedom, collectivisation, witch-hunt of not communist people, executed humans, censorship... If you doesn't know about reality in eastern block, don't discuss about communism.
now you will tell me about realities in Eastern block:)
That's fun Jan.
I lived in USSR and I KNOW for sure that the DDR and Chehoslovakia was the BEST countries in the whole soviet block where the life level was much higher then in the USSR.
Those both states had no crisis like the Poland or Romanian had in 1980-yy.
So i would not portray on you rplace the terrible conditions in the Eastern block.;)
You really have not seen the bad reality.

Jan Fiala
11-19-2007, 09:50 AM
Stratification of the population is sole possibility.


And who did help them today - YOUR DEMOCRATS-PATRIOTS.Not communists.


Our current politicans are (exservice) communists who work only for money, not for our country.


I lived in USSR and I KNOW for sure that the DDR and Chehoslovakia was the BEST countries in the whole soviet block where the life level was much higher then in the USSR.


Yeah, but in prewar times was a life level very higher than in age of communists. We were advanced like a France, GB and other western states. Collectivisation destroyed agronomy in all eastern block, but in such advanced country as Czechoslovakia it was catastrophe.


You really have not seen the bad reality.

I know about the bas reality' That's just it why comunists must be punnished.

Chevan
11-21-2007, 02:24 AM
Our current politicans are (exservice) communists who work only for money, not for our country.

But your people have voted for them- so why is guit that such bastards are in a power;)
Righ ,thaey have no political convictions, and want just a money and power.
But why do you want to punish not them , but simple peoples around you who are not in the power but who believe in the equal of social rights and its ideals?They are at least honest and didnot changed their convictions in aim to get the power.
No you see while you want to punish commi - the dastard "democrats" are much worsen then them.


Yeah, but in prewar times was a life level very higher than in age of communists. We were advanced like a France, GB and other western states. Collectivisation destroyed agronomy in all eastern block, but in such advanced country as Czechoslovakia it was catastrophe.

This is a old fary tells of the YOUR nationalist.The simular tells i heared from Russian nationalist - the Tsar Russian was a greates state in the world that evil commies have destroyed.
Indeed the Czechoslovakia was the greates East European state even during the Soviet era.
The communists at least saved the Czehoslovakia.
The Democrat have teared it into the two pieces.
So lucky you now?;)
the Czech and Slovakian republic is nothing with comparition with Britain and France.
And you are wrong about collectivisation.
Althought collectivisation in 1930 has began from nasty things - this let the USSR to create the very power heavy industry that later has SAVED our state from the GErmans invasion (coz we have really mass productions of aircraft ,tanls and artillery).
Besides i know for the sure that there were as bad collective farmers as the enough succesfull ones.All depends form a personal management.


I know about the bas reality' That's just it why comunists must be punnished.

Yea ... you punish the simple communist while YOU dastard "democrats" enjoy the their power now.
Go on dude;)

Kato
11-21-2007, 03:20 AM
But your people have voted for them- so why is guit that such bastards are in a power;)
Righ ,thaey have no political convictions, and want just a money and power.
But why do you want to punish not them , but simple peoples around you who are not in the power but who believe in the equal of social rights and its ideals?They are at least honest and didnot changed their convictions in aim to get the power.
No you see while you want to punish commi - the dastard "democrats" are much worsen then them.

Those who can win democratic elections are to possess ample financial, media and often administrative resources.
Actually in post-communist states the only candidates who have possessed all these things are former communist party bureaucrats and security service officers. So


This is a old fary tells of the YOUR nationalist.Indeed the Czechoslovakia was the greates East European state even during the Soviet era.
The communists at least saved the Czehoslovakia.
The Democrat have teared it into the two pieces.

It is just the evidence that multinational states collapse as a rule.



And you are wrong about collectivisation.
Althought collectivisation in 1930 has began from nasty things - this let the USSR to create the very power heavy industry that later has SAVED our state from the GErmans invasion (coz we have really mass productions of aircraft ,tanls and artillery).
Besides i know for the sure that there were as bad collective farmers as the enough succesfull ones.All depends form a personal management.

It is not true. Collectivisation in 1930 was the mere liquidation of sound peasants who can potentially oppose to the Soviets. But it was not the essential source for financing the creation of the powerful heavy industry.

The main sources were the export of mineral resources and the free slave labour of millions of Gulag prisoners


Yea ... you punish the simple communist while YOU dastard "democrats" enjoy the their power now.
Go on dude;)

The most of the democrats in the Eastern Europe are former communists.
They just changed their image according to the global fashion. I would not speak about simple communits, I have not heard about activities of organisations that claim to be communist in the Czech Republic.

Chevan
11-21-2007, 03:41 AM
Those who can win democratic elections are to possess ample financial, media and often administrative resources.
Actually in post-communist states the only candidates who have possessed all these things are former communist party bureaucrats and security service officers. So

So it right be to PUNISH them - the former communists who today look as democrats, right?
Not the simple peoples ( mostly oldest) who still believe in the communist ideals


It is just the evidence that multinational states collapse as a rule.

Yea... so look for the USA man.
There live over 250++ nationalities today . Strange why it did not collapes;)
The "rule" is the ONLY for the dastard greedy nationalist leaders who want a more power for themself. But not for the normal states.


It is not true. Collectivisation in 1930 was the mere liquidation of sound peasants who can potentially oppose to the Soviets. But it was not the essential source for financing the creation of the powerful heavy industry.

The main sources were the export of mineral resources and the free slave labour of millions of Gulag prisoners

No again.
The primary aim of collectivisation was to get the MONEY and products for the INDUSTRIALISTION.
And you know it Kato.Coz the first positive resault of the collectivisation in Ukraine was Donbass, Dneproges, a hundreds of newest Greats plants and ets .


The most of the democrats in the Eastern Europe are former communists.
They just changed their image according to the global fashion. I would not speak about simple communits, I have not heard about activities of organisations that claim to be communist in the Czech Republic.
Well so What do communist Jan mean in Czech republic in this way?

Kato
11-21-2007, 03:55 AM
So it right be to PUNISH them - the former communists who today look as democrats, right?
Not the simple peoples ( mostly oldest) who still believe in the communist ideals

I don't think there are persons (especially oldest) who still believe in the communist ideals in the Czech republic. It is the case with the former republics of the USSR but this phenomenon will soon disappear. Communism is dead.

Kato
11-21-2007, 04:13 AM
The primary aim of collectivisation was to get the MONEY and products for the INDUSTRIALISTION.
And you know it Kato.Coz the first positive resault of the collectivisation in Ukraine was Donbass, Dneproges, a hundreds of newest Greats plants and ets .

After collectivisation the USSR turned from the main exporter of agricultural products into main importer of them. So any strategic benefits are very dubious. Besides the profits from the export of some potatoes and wheat is miserable in comparison with the export of mineral resources.

Dneproges, a hundreds of newest Greats plants were mainly built by slaves from Gulags and it reduced the expenses greatly.

Egorka
11-21-2007, 05:03 AM
After collectivisation the USSR turned from the main exporter of agricultural products into main importer of them. So any strategic benefits are very dubious. Besides the profits from the export of some potatoes and wheat is miserable in comparison with the export of mineral resources.

Kato, the collectivization actually increased the productivity of agriculture in USSR. At expences of other things amongst which are the lives.


1928 - 470 grain Kg/year; produced by 50 mill. pesants.
1937 - 430 grain Kg/year; produced by 30 mill. pesants.


source: "Драма самоуничтожения", Вадим Кожинов (http://stalinism.ru/repressii/drama_samounichtozheniya.html).
"Но вернемся во вторую половину 1930-х годов. Выше было сказано о тогдашнем впечатляющем сдвиге в сфере промышленности. В сельском хозяйстве дело обстояло гораздо скромнее, —уже в силу изложенных только что причин (промышленность зависит от местоположения страны в значительно меньшей степени, чем сельское хозяйство). И в последнее время постоянно высказывается мнение, что сельское хозяйство в тот период было менее эффективным, чем в нэповское время, ибо население росло быстрее, чем урожаи зерновых. Так, по подсчетам Л.А.Гордона и Э.В.Кло-пова. на душу населения в 1928 году приходилось 470 кг зерна (на год), а в 1938-м — 430 кг. Однако эти стремящиеся к объективности авторы тут же сообщают, что в первом случае перед нами результат труда "50—55 млн. крестьян-единоличников", а во втором — всего "30—35 млн. колхозников и рабочих совхозов" (цитата по "Гордон Л.А, Клопов Э.В. Что это было? Размышления о предпосылках и итогах того, что случилось с нами в 30— 40-е годы.—М.,1989,с.б4.", с.80), — то есть на 40% меньше."

The point is that the harvest prior to collectivization was a little bigger, but it was generated by many more people. So after collectivization an average peasnt produced almost 2 times more grain. There was a shift in the population - people moved into towns or were forcibly relocated into other areas to work in the industry.

Kato
11-21-2007, 06:27 AM
Kato, the collectivization actually increased the productivity of agriculture in USSR. At expences of other things amongst which are the lives.


1928 - 470 grain Kg/year; produced by 50 mill. pesants.
1937 - 430 grain Kg/year; produced by 30 mill. pesants.


source: "Драма самоуничтожения", Вадим Кожинов (http://stalinism.ru/repressii/drama_samounichtozheniya.html).
"Но вернемся во вторую половину 1930-х годов. Выше было сказано о тогдашнем впечатляющем сдвиге в сфере промышленности. В сельском хозяйстве дело обстояло гораздо скромнее, —уже в силу изложенных только что причин (промышленность зависит от местоположения страны в значительно меньшей степени, чем сельское хозяйство). И в последнее время постоянно высказывается мнение, что сельское хозяйство в тот период было менее эффективным, чем в нэповское время, ибо население росло быстрее, чем урожаи зерновых. Так, по подсчетам Л.А.Гордона и Э.В.Кло-пова. на душу населения в 1928 году приходилось 470 кг зерна (на год), а в 1938-м — 430 кг. Однако эти стремящиеся к объективности авторы тут же сообщают, что в первом случае перед нами результат труда "50—55 млн. крестьян-единоличников", а во втором — всего "30—35 млн. колхозников и рабочих совхозов" (цитата по "Гордон Л.А, Клопов Э.В. Что это было? Размышления о предпосылках и итогах того, что случилось с нами в 30— 40-е годы.—М.,1989,с.б4.", с.80), — то есть на 40% меньше."

The point is that the harvest prior to collectivization was a little bigger, but it was generated by many more people. So after collectivization an average peasnt produced almost 2 times more grain. There was a shift in the population - people moved into towns or were forcibly relocated into other areas to work in the industry.


I don't think one should take Soviet statistics as credible one. The fact is that
the Soviet Union was not able to satisfy its own needs in food-stuffs in the following decades after collectivisation.

Chevan
11-21-2007, 06:28 AM
After collectivisation the USSR turned from the main exporter of agricultural products into main importer of them. So any strategic benefits are very dubious. Besides the profits from the export of some potatoes and wheat is miserable in comparison with the export of mineral resources.

Again wrong Kato.
Listen what tells Egorka.
The collective farms in the late of the 1930 were ALREADY able to feed the whole USSR WITHOUT import.
Th new soviet cities population rised by very greats temps and the state needs a more agricalture products that could provide ONLY collective farm ( that has began to use the first tractors in that period).
So the increase of the Soviet Industry was possible ONLY due to Collectivisation - coz the USSR had simply no any investitions from the West for this.
The ONLY in the 1970 USSR has begin the export of the Canadian wheats coz the different economical reasons - it was cheaper to buy the whear then to increase the own production that still much uneffective
As you know the climate of the USSR is not the so good as the Canadian and American one.
And you NEVER WILL GET the equal harvest per unit of square in for instance Texas and in Kuban.
The collectivisation WAS the SINGLE sourse of the USSR to creat the OWN industry and develop own resources i that time.




Dneproges, a hundreds of newest Greats plants were mainly built by slaves from Gulags and it reduced the expenses greatly.
There is no and NEVER Gulag Slave in Ukraine Kato.
The GULAG camps was placed in Syberia and Soviet Far East ( Kolima) .ANd the total maximum quantity of prisoners never Iexceeded the 3 mln of people at one time. ( i.e. no more 1,5% of population)
Sure they work hard -mostly for the stockpiling of wood.

Kato
11-21-2007, 07:06 AM
Again wrong Kato.
Listen what tells Egorka.
The collective farms in the late of the 1930 were ALREADY able to feed the whole USSR WITHOUT import.
Th new soviet cities population rised by very greats temps and the state needs a more agricalture products that could provide ONLY collective farm ( that has began to use the first tractors in that period).

The collective farms are the best examples of agricultural failures. The backward tzar Russia had been one of the main exporter of agricultural goods in the world without any tractors or other vehicles. There were rediculous Soviet campaigns when city dwellers were forced to work on the fields as farmers in to gather at least some harvest.


So the increase of the Soviet Industry was possible ONLY due to Collectivisation - coz the USSR had simply no any investitions from the West for this. The collectivisation WAS the SINGLE sourse of the USSR to creat the OWN industry and develop own resources i that time.


I don't see connections between the destruction of agriculture with the mass killing of peasants and development of industry



The ONLY in the 1970 USSR has begin the export of the Canadian wheats coz the different economical reasons - it was cheaper to buy the whear then to increase the own production that still much uneffective
As you know the climate of the USSR is not the so good as the Canadian and American one.


I don't agree. Canada has suitable climate for agriculture only in the regions near the US border. The US climate with its annual hurricanes leaves much to be desired for agriculture as well while the USSR had Ukraine, Belarus, European Russia, Kuban with excellent climate The Soviet problems was in collectivisations, mass murders of farmers, poor business management.


And you NEVER WILL GET the equal harvest per unit of square in for instance Texas and in Kuban.

Don't be pessimistic. It is not the fault of weather or climate.

Egorka
11-21-2007, 07:58 AM
I don't think one should take Soviet statistics as credible one. The fact is that
the Soviet Union was not able to satisfy its own needs in food-stuffs in the following decades after collectivisation.
IThe stats are OK in this respect.
And again I said about efficiency, not about brutto production.
The efficiency of collectivised agricultural sector increased by factor 2.


Это означает, что производительность труда выросла весьма значительно: на одного работающего в 1928 году пришлось 1,4 тонны зерна, а в 1938-м —2,4 тонны. Разумеется, это было немного в сравнении со странами с более "благополучным" сельским хозяйством. Но и говорить об "упадке" сельского хозяйства в это время (как многие сейчас делают) нет оснований, ибо один работающий производилв 1938 году на 70% больше зерна, чем в 1928-м.

And BTW USSR exported 2 mill. tonns of grain in 1940.



"Война и геополитика". Кожинов Вадим Валерьянович. (http://whiteworld.ru/rubriki/000111/001/01062015.htm)
В высшей степени наглядно предстает геополитическая сущность войны в составленных накануне нее, 23 мая 1941 года, «Общих указаниях группе сельского хозяйства экономической организации «Ост«» (то есть «Восток»). Одно из главных «общихправил» сформулировано так:

«Производство продовольствия в России на длительное время включить в европейскую систему», ибо «Западная и Северная Европа голодает... Германия и Англия (да, и Англия! — В. К.)...нуждаются в ввозе продуктов питания», а между тем «Россия поставляет только зерно, не более 2 млн. тонн в год... (Наш урожай 1940 года — 95,6 млн. тонн. — В. К.). Таким образом, определяются основные направления решения проблемы высвобождения избытков продуктов русского сельского хозяйства для Европы (заметим: Европы в целом! — В. К.)... Внутреннее потребление России... должно быть снижено настолько, чтобы образовались необходимые излишки для вывоза» (цит. по кн.: «Преступные цели гитлеровской Германии в войне против Советского Союза. Документы, материалы. М.1987, с. 250, 251).

Egorka
11-21-2007, 08:18 AM
Don't be pessimistic. It is not the fault of weather or climate.
The weather plays a paramount role in agriculture... :roll:
It make a bit of difference if you collect 1 or 2 harvests per year...

Jan Fiala
11-21-2007, 11:11 AM
the Tsar Russian was a greates state in the world that evil commies have destroyed.

Haha, Russia has always been unadvanced. Our state was really advanced. You can't compare Czechoslovakia in 30's and russia in 30's.


Indeed the Czechoslovakia was the greates East European state even during the Soviet era.

Since 19th century we had most advanced industry in central Europe. Since 1948 we made only tractors and weapons for USSR.

Collectivisation of agronomy mean nationalization of soil, waste of resources, no private ownership, soil erosion... simply katastrophe...

h2so4
11-21-2007, 02:40 PM
Jan.....
You seem to be, a naive boy!!!!

The human change!!!!!.... Ok!..... You have time.... But no misapplication!

I see....

You believe, that you have find oll the responds.....

Listen to me..... search again from the beginning....

Perhaps ther you can find same hope



And now to our theme:.... ZHUKOV!

Librarian
11-21-2007, 08:35 PM
Sorry for my pretty late reaction, honorable ladies and gentlemen, but this week is completely fulfilled with different professional obligations. But, never mind that – let’s go to our slightly irrupted topic!


It is just the evidence that multinational states collapse as a rule.

Excuse me for my interference, but not necessarily, honorable Mr. Kato – Switzerland still represents a bold example that country that contains more than one national entity is not obligatorily susceptible to different nationalist challenges from within its own borders, especially if societal groups contained by the state do have an explicit and definitive supra-national identification.


…this phenomenon will soon disappear. Communism is dead.

Not inevitably, my dear Mr. Kato. Since he came down from the trees, man has faced the problem of survival not as an individual, but as a member of a social group. His continued existence is testimony to the fact that he has succeeded in solving the problem, but the continued existence of want and misery, even in the richest of nations, is evidence that his solution has been, at best, a partial one. Yet man is not to be severely censured for his failure to achieve a Paradise on Earth. It is hard to wring a livelihood from the surface of this planet. It is only because man is a socially cooperative creature that he has succeeded in perpetuating himself at all.

But the very fact that he has to depend on his fellow man has madethe problem of survival extraordinarily difficult. Man is not an ant, conveniently equipped with an inborn pattern of social instincts. On the contrary – he is pre-eminently endowed with a fiercely self-centered nature. If his relatively weak physique forces him to seek cooperation, his untamed unconscious drives constantly threaten to disrupt his social working partnerships.

In early societies the struggle between aggression and cooperation is taken care of by the environment – when the specter of starvation looks a community in the face the pure need for self-preservation pushes society to the cooperative completion of its daily tasks. But in an advanced community, this tangible pressure of the environment is lacking. When man no longer works shoulder to shoulder in tasks directly related to survival, when tree quarters or more of the population never touches the tiled earth, enters the mines, or builds something with its own hands, the perpetuation of the human animal becomes a remarkable social feat.

So remarkable, in fact, that society’s existence hangs by a hair. A modern human community is at the mercy of thousand dangers: if its farmers should fail to plant enough crops, if its railroad men should take into their heads to become bookkeepers or its bookkeepers should decide to become oceanologists, if too few should offer their services as miners, farmers, candidates for engineering degrees, nuclear physicists… in a word, if any of a thousand intertwined tasks of society should fail to get done, modern industrial life would soon become hopelessly disorganized. Every day the human community faces the possibility of breakdown – not from the forces of nature, but from sheer human unpredictability.

Classicistic wisdom claims that development of an astonishing game in which society assures its own continuance by allowing each individual to do exactly as he sees fit – providing that he follows a central guiding rule, will be sufficient to resolve the aforementioned problem. The name of the game is the market economy, and the rule is deceptively simple: each should do hat was to his best monetary advantage. In the market economy the lure of the gain steers each man to his task. And yet, although each was free to go wherever his acquisitive nose directs him, the interplay of one man against other results in the necessary tasks of society getting done.

Unfortunately, it is by no means clear that all the jobs of the society – the dirty ones as well as the plush ones – will be actually done, or that unequal access to productive resources will be able to assure necessitated degree of production, or that system will allow to all its members to play the game on the equal basis for valued rewards. Even today millions of people, in practically all parts of the world, have found reason to complain about the shape of their lives, and not a few of them have, from time to time, set up some sort of social movement, of protest, or reform to change existing societal fabric. Throughout history there have been men and women who imagined different societal alternatives, who thought about restructuring their societies in terms that they conceived of as better than any current arrangements. When people become dissatisfied with their current situations, thus compelled to change them, there is a plethora of alternative courses of action that are completely open. Different forms of more egalitarian social movements are then, at least sociologically, completely possible.:)


I don't think one should take Soviet statistics as credible one. The fact is that
the Soviet Union was not able to satisfy its own needs in food-stuffs in the following decades after collectivisation.

Well, fortunately we do have some highly credible American sources. So here they are:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/SSSR-agricultureproduction.jpg

Strategic Intelligence for American World Policy, by Sherman Kent [third edition] – (Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1963) – p. 261

The crux of the agricultural problem was not the collectivization, but productivity per acre, deeply dependant upon adequate mechanization and chemization of agriculture. Agricultural corporations - the ultimate goal of the Soviet Union in farming production - actually represented a direct copy of the highly inventive American organizational patent from 1932, aimed to handle the giant farms as specific factories, with enclosed production and different "inputs" (such as pesticides, feed, fertilizer, and fuel) and "outputs" (corn, chickens, pigs, and so forth). The goal was to increase yield and decrease costs of production, typically by exploiting economies of scale, with factual employment of workers-like, wage-earning personal of different profiles (harvesters, drivers, veterinarians, manual workers, accountants, etc.). This goal transformed the Soviet countryside from millions of small peasant holdings to a consolidated pattern of fewer than 50.000 centrally controlled operating units.

Despite significant transformations in early 1970’s, the bulk of the Soviet agricultural production represented a direct copy of the American intensive agricultural schematics, with some 26.000 giant farms – averaging 14.750 hectares (36.000 acres), plus so called state farms with average 6070 hectares (15.000 acres) occupying 97% of Soviet farmland. Some 38 million private plots of farm and city families made up the remaining 3 %.

Constant lack of sizable capital inputs for adequate machinery and chemicals (estimated lack of tractors for adequate soil preparation in 1956 was 200.000 units over 65 HP!) as well as ideologically driven abhorrence toward applied genetics in hybrid seeds production actually represented the main causes for the misbalances in the Soviet agricultural production.

International economics in the first half of the XX century were dominated by the brake in the fundamental unity of the old, known world, and the rise of two sharply polarized social and productive systems each of which was all but controlled by a giant. Not since the apogee of the Imperial Rome has any one sovereign community in the Western World risen to a position of such overwhelming superiority as the United States. Even Britain at the time of her industrial and commercial supremacy a hundred years ago never achieved such preponderance of power. And at the opposite pole the Soviet Union has an even more crushing power. The USSR has, with hardly any outside help, in merely 25 years of unparalleled effort not merely transformed itself from a mainly primitive peasant economy into the second largest Industrial Power equipped with every miracle of science and technology – from jet engines to hydrogen bombs – but initiated a completely new system of economic organization at fundamental variance with what was before. By her exertions USSR has proved the possibility of the conscious planning of supra-national economic destinies. The vast effort required and the constant, historically confirmed fear of armed attack led to policies – indeed to the rise of a whole system – which evoked apprehension, disapproval and hatred abroad.
Behind these struggles and antagonisms there were looms in both political spheres, with a fundamental problem of dealing with production, with transformation of primitive farming into an efficient provider of food for the growing population of both East and West. The old Malthusian problem of over-population and the forcing-down of living standards was once again posed for the majority of the human race.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/AnnualIncomePerCapita-1938.jpg

Woytinsky and Wojtynsky: "World Population and Production", New York, 1953


Sorry, honorable ladies and gentlemen - forced break of the page, the text i have entered is too long (12.745 characters)... to be continued.:roll:

Librarian
11-21-2007, 08:37 PM
PART II


The first successes of the Soviet experiment in economic planning were noticeable. Yet that experiment could not have started at a less propitious moment. Soviet Union had to rely on the export of primary produce to obtain the desperately lacking basic machinery to prime the pump of functional industrial construction. At the very point of launching the first of a series of industrialization plans these prices collapsed on the world market. Thus more and more had to be squeezed out of the country in order to obtain a shrinking amount of machinery from abroad. Additional problem was represented by the verity that the increase in Soviet production was slow in maturing.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/USSR-manufacturingcapacity.jpg

"Industrialization and foreign trade", League of Nations, (1945) p.13

In orther to overcome the difficulties encountered with the agricultural production, a wholesale collectivization of land was launched. The result was a collapse of the agricultural production. However, the collectivization, actually made possible an increase in supplies available to towns, thus it laid the foundation of the success of the drive for the industrialization. This was momentous: there can be no doubt that industrial production grew at a pace unparalleled even during the explosive expansion of the United States. As previouslu shown table shows, within a decade the Soviet Union, starting from a primitive state, emerged from the ordeal as the second largest industrial power of the world. The technical and economic achievement of the Soviet production was soon amply confirmed by the Russian capacity to resist German attack. Even the carnage of their administrative elite in the late 1930’s did not altogether stop expansion – it was merely reduced to a level roughly equal to that of the best years of the non-Soviet world.

Books suggested for further reading:

H. Arndt: The economic Lessons of the 1930’s (Chatham House, 1944)

P. T. Ellsworth: The international economy (Macmillan, New York, 1950)

Donald Marsh: International tTrade and Investment (Harcourt & Brace, New York, 1951)

A. Bergson: Soviet Economic Growth (Peterson & Co., Evanston Illinois, 1955)

National and International Measures to Maintain Full Employment (U.N.O., 1950); Measures for the Economic Development of Underdeveloped Areas (U.N.O., 1951)

Thomas Ballogh, The Dollar Crisis (Blackwell, 1949)



Since 1948 we made only tractors and weapons for USSR.

Indeed, honorable Mr. Fiala? How strange that these brochures for a Czech car named Tatra 600, or "Tatraplan" were printed in English, and distributed in Birmingham - United Kingdom…:eek:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Tatraplan1948.jpg

Tatraplan – Export Sales Brochure, British

...or that this nice Czechoslovakian car, named Škoda, more precisely Škoda 1102 Convertible, produced in more than 80.000 units was exposed for sale for 5505 Dutch Guldens at auto show in Amsterdam, April 26 1950.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Skoda1102-Amsterdam.jpg

Škoda 1102 Convertible, International Automobile Salon, 1950

Pretty strange for a country that produced only tractors and weapons for USSR, isn’t it?:)

Panzerknacker
11-21-2007, 09:13 PM
Nobody want to talk about Generals anymore ?

OK.

Closed until I can split the off topic post.

Panzerknacker
11-23-2007, 07:00 AM
All right, thread splited from "favorite russian general" and reopened.

Please avoid any kind of "inflamation".

Firefly
11-23-2007, 06:31 PM
Well done PK...

Jan Fiala
11-25-2007, 07:39 AM
Quote:
Since 1948 we made only tractors and weapons for USSR.

Indeed, honorable Mr. Fiala? How strange that these brochures for a Czech car named Tatra 600, or "Tatraplan" were printed in English, and distributed in Birmingham - United Kingdom…

Word "only" was hyperbolic, i mean five-year plans, major part of indusry were waepons, tractors(and other farm machinery and vehicles), simply heavy industry no matter the needs of market. Tatraplan was one of the best Czech post-war cars(with 603, 813 and some cars made in 50's). Other cars made in age of communists (Škoda 1000, 100, 105, 120...)were perturbative, poor quality cars...

Kato
11-25-2007, 10:38 AM
The crux of the agricultural problem was not the collectivization, but productivity per acre, deeply dependant upon adequate mechanization and chemization of agriculture.

Nothing of the sort. Before collectivisation the USSR was the main exporter of agricultural production with the same problems of adequate mechanization and chemization but after collectivisation the agricultural output started to decline.



Agricultural corporations - the ultimate goal of the Soviet Union in farming production - actually represented a direct copy of the highly inventive American organizational patent from 1932, aimed to handle the giant farms as specific factories, with enclosed production and different "inputs" (such as pesticides, feed, fertilizer, and fuel) and "outputs" (corn, chickens, pigs, and so forth).

The Soviet Union had a different ideological and economic system opposing to the one of the US. So if it had really tried to copy something it would have had to begin with converting state property into private one and not vice versa.



The goal was to increase yield and decrease costs of production, typically by exploiting economies of scale, with factual employment of workers-like, wage-earning personal of different profiles (harvesters, drivers, veterinarians, manual workers, accountants, etc.).

The goal was to prevent the possibity of "counter-revolution" and crack down nationalism. This goal was openly declared in the communist party meetings and its official documents


Despite significant transformations in early 1970’s, the bulk of the Soviet agricultural production represented a direct copy of the American intensive agricultural schematics, with some 26.000 giant farms – averaging 14.750 hectares (36.000 acres), plus so called state farms with average 6070 hectares (15.000 acres) occupying 97% of Soviet farmland. Some 38 million private plots of farm and city families made up the remaining 3 %.

To make some copy of the American intensive agricultural schematics, the USSR had to be a capitalist state.



And at the opposite pole the Soviet Union has an even more crushing power. The USSR has, with hardly any outside help, in merely 25 years of unparalleled effort not merely transformed itself from a mainly primitive peasant economy into the second largest Industrial Power equipped with every miracle of science and technology – from jet engines to hydrogen bombs – but initiated a completely new system of economic organization at fundamental variance with what was before.

It is tendatious interpretation.

Bolsheviks inherited the industrial basis of the Russian Empire. Yes, the industry of the Russian Empire wasn't the most powerful in the world but it rather closely followed the national industries of the leading countries. As to
primitive peasant economy, one may object that nearly all the European states ( even France and partly Germany) had peasant economies ( majority of the population involved in agriculture) in the 1920s.

The words "with hardly any outside help" are also wrong because the USSR concluded trade, economic and political agreements with all the leading countries and it wasn't economicly isolated.



http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/AnnualIncomePerCapita-1938.jpg

Woytinsky and Wojtynsky: "World Population and Production", New York, 1953

Any foreign statistics of AnnualIncomePerCapita and Production indicators can be generared on the basis of the Soviet statistics. Foreign institutions were simply unable to make up surveys in such a closed country like the USSR.

But even if these figures were adequate, they are just general indicators that can't give the idea about the proporion of national wealth distributed among ordinary population and retained by the state that pay miserable sallaries, owned all the means of production and even the living premises of its citizens.

Egorka
11-26-2007, 08:02 AM
Enjoy!

Czech Peoples Army photo album. (http://tiomkin.livejournal.com/692876.html)

pdf27
11-26-2007, 12:55 PM
Cheers for that Egorka. Nice photos, even if they don't show the Czechs being able to do much more than march badly...

Jan Fiala
11-26-2007, 01:05 PM
Some better photos of our (Czech) army:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwE2wY8YOGU

tankgeezer
11-26-2007, 01:12 PM
Enjoy!

Czech Peoples Army photo album. (http://tiomkin.livejournal.com/692876.html)
Thanks!I enjoyed the photos immensely, but #15 with the 3 tanks, and infantry, I hope it was staged for the photo, as that tight little group is just what the NATO forces would have been hoping for in a war. Without range finders, (doesnt look like they are equipped) they would be easy prey for ranging equipped Nato tanks.

pdf27
11-26-2007, 04:11 PM
Some better photos of our (Czech) army:
Umm... nice photos but that's got to be one of the worst videos I've ever seen on YouTube - the pictures change in time with the music, but so fast you can't actually take in the contents to any meaningful level of detail. Also, they're pre-1938, so aren't all that relevant to the topic of "Hard Facts about Communism"...

Nickdfresh
11-26-2007, 06:30 PM
Enjoy!

Czech Peoples Army photo album. (http://tiomkin.livejournal.com/692876.html)

Interesting pics.

Incidentally, does The Czech Republic still produce variants of the T-80 MDT?

Jan Fiala
11-27-2007, 10:07 AM
Also, they're pre-1938, so aren't all that relevant to the topic of "Hard Facts about Communism"...

No it isn't, but its also Czech army. Egorkas's photos of post-war army are not relevant too.;)

pdf27
11-27-2007, 12:22 PM
Egorkas's photos of post-war army are not relevant too.;)
I dunno. I mean, ensuring your vassal states (sorry, I mean "fraternal socialist allies", slip of the tongue there) are so incompetent militarily that they can't pose a threat to you sounds like an awfully typical communist tactic to me...

Dani
11-27-2007, 01:27 PM
I dunno. I mean, ensuring your vassal states (sorry, I mean "fraternal socialist allies", slip of the tongue there) are so incompetent militarily that they can't pose a threat to you sounds like an awfully typical communist tactic to me...

LOL A good one pdf!! You are entirely right.

Jan Fiala
11-28-2007, 12:20 PM
...can't pose a threat to you sounds like an awfully typical communist tactic to me... .

I don't understand. Please type by easy english, because "...can't pose a threat to you sounds like ..."this phrase is not unambiguously transferable.

Dani
11-28-2007, 12:43 PM
[...]this phrase is not unambiguously transferable.

Would you be so kind to use plain English? Now is my turn to stare and stare at your post.;)

pdf27
11-28-2007, 04:32 PM
I don't understand. Please type by easy english, because "...can't pose a threat to you sounds like ..."this phrase is not unambiguously transferable.

What I was saying was that a typical communist tactic was to ensure that nobody else could pose a threat to whatever communist country was currently the most powerful (in this case Russia). Therefore, pictures showing the Czechoslovak army during communist times as not being very good are relevant to the topic.

Egorka
11-29-2007, 04:30 AM
I dunno. I mean, ensuring your vassal states (sorry, I mean "fraternal socialist allies", slip of the tongue there) are so incompetent militarily that they can't pose a threat to you sounds like an awfully typical communist tactic to me...
Of course, only communists are capable of such behavious... no one else... I am being sarcastic here , in case it not clear... :)

Rising Sun*
11-29-2007, 05:35 AM
F.ex. the evil communists in attempt to free the enslaved West European workers from the decadant capitalists floud accross the peacefull European planes pillaging and raping everything that showes any sign of being alive.

That was the Soviet doctrine.

NATO, having learnt from the more ruthless approach of the Soviets during WWII, decided to be even more ruthless if WWIII broke out.

Field instructions were to rape anything, preferably but not necessarily female, with a pulse or, failing that, recently warm.

Consequently, all NATO units were equipped with secret equipment to keep warm, or just warm up in cold weather, communist sheilas.

Since the end of the cold war, these secret items have now been released for general use.

They are commonly known as patio (or in Spanish puta ) heaters.

Egorka
11-29-2007, 05:45 AM
By the way!
Guys I have a question. What was the NATO's war doctrine (I hope it is a right word) in case of a military conflict wit the Warsaw pact countries?
I mean what was the ground army prepared to do in case the hot war breaks out?

F.ex. the evil communists in attempt to free the enslaved West European workers from the decadant capitalists flooding accross the peacefull European planes pillaging and raping everything that showes any sign of being alive.

So what were the NATO armies supposed to do? Stay or move? What was the rough plan to neutralise the attacker?

Man of Stoat
11-29-2007, 06:12 AM
NATO had no "first strike" doctrine (unlike the Soviets...), and one of the key assumptions was that there would be an escalation followed by war (NATO tanks, for instance, were not bombed up with ammunition while the eastern counterparts were).

It was also assumed that tactical nukes would have been deployed relatively early on, and we had these marvellous things called nuclear demolition mines which were to be placed at important locations (many West German bridges were built with a cavity for one) to give the third shock army the good news.

Now, had the Soviets attacked outside of working hours on a weekend they would have been facing only largely British and American units, the Dutch, Danes, and Germans having gone home for the weekend...

It was essentially assumed that the first line of defence would be neutralised by the superior numbers of the Reds...

Rising Sun*
11-29-2007, 06:18 AM
By the way!
Guys I have a question. What was the NATO's war doctrine (I hope it is a right word) in case of a military conflict wit the Warsaw pact countries?
I mean what was the ground army prepared to do in case the hot war breaks out?

F.ex. the evil communists in attempt to free the enslaved West European workers from the decadant capitalists flooding accross the peacefull European planes pillaging and raping everything that showes any sign of being alive.

So what were the NATO armies supposed to do? Stay or move? What was the rough plan to neutralise the attacker?

I am a legend.

I responded to your post #44 with my post #43 ten minutes before you posted #44.

Do not trifle with me, for I am the Big Thing of Infinite Knowledge and Power. :D

Dani
11-29-2007, 06:30 AM
A legend for the others and not for the almighty staff:D
Obviously I can see posts deleted by both of you.;)

Man of Stoat
11-29-2007, 06:37 AM
Try this thread for an interesting discussion:

http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=80202/postdays=0/postorder=asc/start=0.html

Rising Sun*
11-29-2007, 06:53 AM
A legend for the others and not for the almighty staff:D
Obviously I can see posts deleted by both of you.;)

Fair enough, but couldn't you let Egorka wonder about my supernatural powers for a while. :D

Rising Sun*
11-29-2007, 07:02 AM
Try this thread for an interesting discussion:

http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=80202/postdays=0/postorder=asc/start=0.html

An alternative view is that the so called Cold War started well before WWII and that WWII (and the Spanish Civil War) merely interrupted it, and allowed the Soviets as the only organised agents of communism to expand much further than they ever could have hoped while ringed by the rabidly anti-communist parties to the Tri-Partite Pact, which foolishly destroyed their anti-communist aims by military adventurism in what became WWII.

Nickdfresh
11-29-2007, 07:10 AM
By the way!
Guys I have a question. What was the NATO's war doctrine (I hope it is a right word) in case of a military conflict wit the Warsaw pact countries?
I mean what was the ground army prepared to do in case the hot war breaks out?

F.ex. the evil communists in attempt to free the enslaved West European workers from the decadant capitalists flooding accross the peacefull European planes pillaging and raping everything that showes any sign of being alive.

So what were the NATO armies supposed to do? Stay or move? What was the rough plan to neutralise the attacker?


NATO's doctrine went from "defense in depth" to "Air Land Battle 2000" in the late 1980s. The basic overall strategy premise was to quickly cut off and attempt to rout Warsaw Pact thrusts into the West with armor to disrupt the offensive...

Egorka
11-29-2007, 07:14 AM
NATO had no "first strike" doctrine (unlike the Soviets...),
Could you, please, elaborate on this or give me some links to read?


and one of the key assumptions was that there would be an escalation followed by war (NATO tanks, for instance, were not bombed up with ammunition while the eastern counterparts were)
...
It was essentially assumed that the first line of defence would be neutralised by the superior numbers of the Reds...

That is not really what I asked about.

Lets say:

Reds attack.
NATO parries the first blow stopping the Reds advance.
Then what? What do NATO land forces do? Stay same place? Counter attack?

Man of Stoat
11-29-2007, 07:15 AM
Rising Sun, read further into that thread and there's some interesting discussions on nuclear demolition mines and other cold war weaponry

Man of Stoat
11-29-2007, 07:17 AM
Igor, presumably counter-attack at least until the tactical nuclear wasteland which is now the inner German border.

Egorka
11-29-2007, 07:19 AM
I am a legend.

I responded to your post #44 with my post #43 ten minutes before you posted #44.

Do not trifle with me, for I am the Big Thing of Infinite Knowledge and Power. :D
You are not a legend, unfortunately. But an unescapable reality... and my nemesis.
I asked a serious question and you got to attack it with your humor... ;)

Egorka
11-29-2007, 07:23 AM
NATO's doctrine went from "defense in depth" to "Air Land Battle 2000" in the late 1980s. The basic overall strategy premise was to quickly cut off and attempt to rout Warsaw Pact thrusts into the West with armor to disrupt the offensive...
That is parrying the first strike.
Do you mean that after the initial Red's attack the NATO forces whould just hold the line?

Egorka
11-29-2007, 07:27 AM
Igor, presumably counter-attack at least until the tactical nuclear wasteland which is now the inner German border.
:) Only until the border? Is it really how the NATO's counter strike was planned? IThat is what I wanted to find out with my question. Do you have any refferences/links on this matter?

Man of Stoat
11-29-2007, 07:55 AM
No idea, actually, there must be a book about it somewhere though

Egorka
11-29-2007, 08:04 AM
No idea, actually, there must be a book about it somewhere though

Ok. What about this one: "NATO had no "first strike" doctrine (unlike the Soviets...), "

Where was the NATO's "no first strike" doctrine defined? How do you know that Soviet's did nave "first strike" doctrine?

pdf27
11-29-2007, 12:14 PM
Of course, only communists are capable of such behavious... no one else... I am being sarcastic here , in case it not clear... :)
Oh, not in the least - most empires act like that with "native" troops they don't fully trust, see for instance the way the Indian army was officered and equipped prior to WW2.
However, the point I was trying to make in there was that during the Cold War the communist states tended to behave like this (military forces more competent than those directly loyal to Moscow or Peking being regarded with extreme suspicion), but that with a handful of exceptions the US was always encouraging it's allies to become more effective militarily.

Egorka
11-29-2007, 05:07 PM
However, the point I was trying to make in there was that during the Cold War the communist states tended to behave like this (military forces more competent than those directly loyal to Moscow or Peking being regarded with extreme suspicion), but that with a handful of exceptions the US was always encouraging it's allies to become more effective militarily.
I am not saying that this point makes no sense. To certain degree it was true. But I think the extend of this is normaly much overestimated.
The east european socialist countires were only partly controlled by the USSR's goverment. They had a great deal of freedom to dowhat the local burocrats wanted.

Anyways, do you have any specific info about how Soviet goverment kept down the development of other East European armies?

And by the way, what was that you saw in that booklet about Czheck army that showed it's incompetence?

Nickdfresh
11-29-2007, 06:06 PM
That is parrying the first strike.
Do you mean that after the initial Red's attack the NATO forces whould just hold the line?

No. Think German invasion of France in 1940, only, this time, NATO plays the part of the French that are cutting off the overextended and exposed supply lines of the German salient rather than allowing themselves to be cut off and annihilated in set piece battles...

An over simplistic take of my amateurish knowledge of tactic's, but I think that's pretty much it...

Of course, the Soviets were never much about logistics; one of the problems they had after invading Afghanistan...

Nickdfresh
11-29-2007, 06:10 PM
Igor, presumably counter-attack at least until the tactical nuclear wasteland which is now the inner German border.

Only if everything else failed. NATO became a bit more optimistic towards the end of the Cold War...

Some ever estimated that the qualitative advantage in AFVs gave NATO an overall advantage of 1.1 to 1 in tanks, even though the Soviets vastly outnumbered them...

Firefly
11-30-2007, 03:17 AM
Of this all is a wee bit mute as Soviet battle plans always included liberal amounts of Nuclear and biological weapons. So any wr scenario would have quickly turned into global annihilation.

Egorka
11-30-2007, 03:20 AM
Of this all is a wee bit mute as Soviet battle plans always included liberal amounts of Nuclear and biological weapons. So any wr scenario would have quickly turned into global annihilation.
What Soviet battle plans? Do you have any refferences?

pdf27
11-30-2007, 07:44 AM
I am not saying that this point makes no sense. To certain degree it was true. But I think the extend of this is normaly much overestimated.
Indeed - it was clearly in the Soviet interest that the Warsaw pact states were at least partially competent militarily. However, the Brezhnev doctrine (that Soviet troops would intervene militarily in those Warsaw Pact states that didn't behave themselves as judged from Moscow) requires that these Warsaw Pact troops be unable to stand up against the Red Army in a straight fight.


The east european socialist countires were only partly controlled by the USSR's goverment. They had a great deal of freedom to dowhat the local burocrats wanted.
Agreed. My perception is that Moscow set limits within which they were allowed to pretty much do what they wanted. Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968 and Poland in the early 1980s demonstrated what would happen if they went outside these limits and tried to form their own policies.


Anyways, do you have any specific info about how Soviet goverment kept down the development of other East European armies?
General, not specific. Examples would be the way that manufacture of Main Battle Tanks outside the Soviet Union was always of slightly older designs - Poland for instance started producing T-72 derivatives (with slightly less advanced armour than the Russian model) at a time when the Soviets were starting to make the T-80.


And by the way, what was that you saw in that booklet about Czheck army that showed it's incompetence?
I wasn't claiming incompetence, rather that about all you can tell from the photos is that their marching wasn't up to scratch. The photos from in the field are blatantly posed - there is no way an army would act like that facing real opposition and survive very long.

http://pics.livejournal.com/tiomkin/pic/0001238g
Tanks right next to each other with a handful of infantry running behind. Looks great, but there is no way you would do that in reality. The tanks have come through a very large piece of open ground (which any defender would select as their "killing area"), there are too few infantry to provide any meaningful support, and the tanks are so close together that they're a dream target for artillery.

http://pics.livejournal.com/tiomkin/pic/00013f4g
The infantry are getting out of their armoured carrier having apparently just crossed a ridge line (rather than getting out in dead ground where they won't be shot). They also appear to be carrying their full marching order straight into a firefight, rather than just their fighting order.

http://pics.livejournal.com/tiomkin/pic/00014ch8
Camouflaged gun positions, but with a blindingly obvious white road leading up to them? What the f***?

Personally, I think these shots were all set up by the local propaganda service, and don't represent in any way the reality of the army. Which is what I was trying to say in the first place.

Egorka
11-30-2007, 01:23 PM
Personally, I think these shots were all set up by the local propaganda service, and don't represent in any way the reality of the army. Which is what I was trying to say in the first place.
Exactly! :) Which makes all your reasonable points like "tanks right next to each other" and "with a blindingly obvious white road leading up to them" irrelevant, I am afraid... :)

Egorka
11-30-2007, 01:44 PM
There have been mentioned American financial help programs in this and other threads.
Having sertain respect and acknoledging positive impact on other countries that that help provided I, nonetheless, would like you to take a look at this scan from the book "Hvad-Hvem-Hvor 1964" printed in Denmark. It is a yearly facts collection catalog that is being issued every year up until these days.

I would like to show you 2 scans from that book.


The first one shows the Foreign Aid provided by the USA and USSR to other countries during the period of 1955-1959.
USA - green, USSR - red. The size of the figures represent the amout of help. As you may see the USA's help is larger, but the USSR's help is also very sizeable. I would gess Soviet aid is about 1/3 of the USA's or so.

In the low left corner the diagramm for the USA foreighn air for the period 1945 - 1962, split on military aid (brown) and civil aid (yellow).


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2092/2075305133_2a0afb3b8a_m.jpg
click to enlarge (120kb) (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2092/2075305133_c5dc35628f_o.jpg)
.
The second one is desposition of the West and East forces in the early 1960s.
In the left dowd corner you can see the balance between different forces.
The Soviets have certain overal quantitative advantage but are probably lacking in quality. And if you also remember that USA by 1964 had 5 times more nuclear charges than USSR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg), then the the balace forces will be more or less apparenet.


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2348/2076091608_e91ffefde0_m.jpg
click to enlarge (180kb) (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2348/2076091608_f984cad1ff_o.jpg)


It is not the world's best source of info but interesting nonetheless.

pdf27
11-30-2007, 02:57 PM
Exactly! :) Which makes all your reasonable points like "tanks right next to each other" and "with a blindingly obvious white road leading up to them" irrelevant, I am afraid... :)
Sorry, you misunderstand me. I was trying to show that the photos were propaganda shots to support my original contention that they were "Nice photos, even if they don't show the Czechs being able to do much more than march badly...".
What I meant by that is that they didn't provide any useful information beyond the fact that the Czech army was marching slightly out of step in one parade.

Egorka
11-30-2007, 04:24 PM
This photo album was dedicated to 30 years anyversary of the Czheck People's Army. Issued by the "Beuro for Political Propaganda" in 1975. So what else do you want? It is a retorical question... :)

pdf27
11-30-2007, 06:40 PM
Sadly I don't speak Russian and judging by the script all the comments on that page were in Russian. Bit tricky for me to figure that one out then...

Jan Fiala
12-01-2007, 06:28 AM
Czheck People's Army

Please type word "Czech" in correct form. Until 1993 our army was called Czechoslovakian People Army (Československá lidová armáda - ČSLA).

These color photos of CSLA are of course propagandistic.

Rising Sun*
12-01-2007, 07:17 AM
Tanks right next to each other with a handful of infantry running behind. Looks great, but there is no way you would do that in reality. The tanks have come through a very large piece of open ground (which any defender would select as their "killing area"), there are too few infantry to provide any meaningful support, and the tanks are so close together that they're a dream target for artillery.

Not to mention that the tanks are running straight ahead.

Easy targets.

Support? One or two rifleman per tank? Hardly worth an attack, is it?


The infantry are getting out of their armoured carrier having apparently just crossed a ridge line (rather than getting out in dead ground where they won't be shot). They also appear to be carrying their full marching order straight into a firefight, rather than just their fighting order.


There are all sorts of reasons for leaving a vehicle in a hurry, many not tactically ideal, but having spent a bit of time in the back of Saracens among other beasts that aren't that dissimilar to the vehicle above, I can say that if you can get your troop / section whatever it's called out of it in a sufficient hurry with your weapons and webbing to form a firebase to respond to a serious, well planned and well executed attack and or before your vehicle gets brewed up, you are doing well.

If you can get full marching order into a Saracen, never mind out of it in a hurry, you're a champion.

And I recall this with some clarity as a trooper in a Saracen going over a shabby rural bridge prominently signed that it was rated at about one fifth of the weight for the vehicle, while a certain officer who liked to present himself as heroic stood on the roadside, after carefully leaving the Saracen we were in before giving his heroic order to cross the bridge to add to his heroic reputation for deeds of derring do. None of which involved him risking his shrivelled little nuts.

Funny thing is, it was about that time that I resolved that if in the highly unlikely event the army was sufficiently stupid to send us to war, Captain X was going to be my first target, closely followed by Corporal Y if he didn't wake up to himself. Even funnier, much of my whole armoured unit came independently to pretty much the same view, although not always involving the same targets.

Librarian
12-04-2007, 06:19 PM
So sorry, honorable ladies and gentlemen – I have had some urgent official duties. Nevertheless – here are my replies:


Word "only" was hyperbolic, i mean five-year plans, major part of indusry were waepons, tractors(and other farm machinery and vehicles), simply heavy industry no matter the needs of market. Tatraplan was one of the best Czech post-war cars(with 603, 813 and some cars made in 50's). Other cars made in age of communists (Škoda 1000, 100, 105, 120...)were perturbative, poor quality cars...

Indeed, my dear Mr. Fiala – hyperbolic it surely was, to say it mildly. But this utterly fair answer of yours testifies that a strong devotion not to be huddled in an appealing, comfortable, and so sorrowfully widespread cocoon of intellectual hibernation is highly vivid, and that fact deserves an unrestrained public admiration. I wish you many happy returns! :D

Additionally, allow me, please, just a few tiny remarks about some common mistakes connected with Czechoslovakian production of material goods. It has to be mentioned that industrial production in your country was very well balanced and truly diversified – list of industrial products encompassed more than 76000 different commodities, starting with airplanes and concluding with crystal water glasses – with a rationally calculated aggregate supply rate of all goods.

On the subject of your conclusion with reference to the quality of Czechoslovakian post-war cars, I have to say that I am in complete agreeableness with you regarding qualities of Tatra 600 Tatraplan. However, by my personal opinion, the best car produced by renowned Tatra národní podnik – Kopřivnice is the following one:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/TatraJK2500-6.jpg

Tatra JK 2500

This magnificent prototype was made in 1956. Alas, it never came to production. What a pity for this miracle on wheels, constructed by talented engineer Mr. Julius Kubinsky, and completely capable to achieve maximum speed of 207km/h (130mph).

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/TatraJK2500-5.jpg

Tatra JK 2500 – Czechoslovakian automobile challenge for the eminent Alfa Romeo 6C 2500

And no, my dear Mr. Fiala – those other cars that have been produced in communist age were not poor quality ones – on the contrary, they were capable to do their transportation tasks reasonably well It is less known that, for example, Škoda 440 Spartak successfully and profitably entered even a choosey and conceited US market, and effectively passed all US governmental attestations.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Skoda440USA.jpg

Škoda 440 – Spartak, US commercial

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Skoda1000MBNorwegian.jpg

Škoda 1000 MB – Norwegian Trailer

Unlike Japanese and some European cars imported into US during the late sixties and early seventies, Škoda’s were not junk cars with, for example, multiple brakes failures and a rust weakened chassis, like Datsun 240 Z, or horrifying exemplars of constructive irresponsibility in the North American car production, like domestic junk-small cars – Chevy Vega and Firenza, Chrysler’s Omni and Horizon, or Ford Pinto and Bobcat. Yes, I know, my dear Mr. Fiala – Škoda was not a substitute for the Mercedes Benz, but you are too young to be acquainted with the fact that, for example, US born Ford Pinto was widely known back there in the States as Ford’s rolling Molotov Cocktail, catching fire and trapping occupants when hit from the rear. And you also don’t know that officially proven fact was that Ford knew of the danger but bowed to its accountants who figured it would cost less to stonewall each future death and burn injury then to recall and redesign the fuel tank. But don’t worry, if you wish this old fool will inform you about immortal achievements in an industry known for its dishonesty and exaggerated claims.:roll:

You don’t have to believe this, but those "commie" engineers in Mlada Boleslaw were, as a matter of fact highly original. This construction, for example, with internal code HF55-57100 RS, was pronounced the Engine of the Year in a 1000-1300ccm category by notorious Swiss auto-magazine "Automobil Revue – Revue Automobile" and employed in Skoda "1101 typ 968" coupé.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Skoda1100DOHC-92HP.jpg

Skoda HF55-57100 RS – 1100 ccm, 4 cylinder DOHC, compression ratio 12,2:1 - 92 HP

Another fine example of the Czechoslovakian designing ingenuity was this Skoda "Super Sport 1100" from 1971 - a sport coupè with liftable roof and with the engine of the "S-110R" (1107 ccm, 80 HP at 6000 RPM, maximum speed of 180 km/h).

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Skoda1107SuperSport.jpg

Skoda Super Sport 1100

Not even to mention this anticipated "BMW and Alfa-Romeo competitor", the one and only Škoda 720.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Skoda720-3.jpg

Škoda 720 (4 cylinder, 1997 ccm OHC engine, 160 HP/6000 RPM, 210Nm/5000 RPM) - Alfa z Boleslavi

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Skoda760Alfa.jpg

Škoda 720

Poor quality cars? No, my dear Mr. Fiala – just a vast quantity of uncertain information environments about Czechoslovakian cars. That’s all. ;)

And yes – please, reconsider some possibilities for the change of that unambiguous message in your signature. Although our distinguished colleagues here are most probably not familiar with the meaning of that inscription "Smrt komunistum" (Death to communists), I am sure that aforesaid proclamation is not very popular among them.

In the meantime, as always – all the best! :)

Librarian
12-04-2007, 06:32 PM
Nothing of the sort. Before collectivisation the USSR was the main exporter of agricultural production with the same problems of adequate mechanization and chemization but after collectivisation the agricultural output started to decline.

The main problem with this normative stance of yours, my dear Mr. Kato is the fact that the USSR was even larger exporter of agricultural products (primarily grain) after the collectivization. If you don’t believe this just take a look upon this diagram:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/USSRgrainexports.jpg

Grain Export, USSR
(Nove, A.: An Economic History of the USSR. Penguin Books, 1990.)

As we all know from our curriculum in Macroeconomics, if domestic aggregate demand of a given country is sufficiently suppressed due to different socio-economic reasons, mainly manifested in inadequate price-wages level, consequential misbalance in aggregate supply-aggregate demand equilibrium always will be balanceable by overseas export of domestic goods, no matter how immensely or exiguously production level of specified material goods actually is situated within the country.

So what actually happened? In 1928 Stalin began a series of five year plans to industrialiye the country. The aim of the five year plans was to build up heavy industry (steal, coal, machinery). Under the plans completely new, previously completely unregarded areas of the Soviet Union were developed. New industries such as energy, chemicals, and the production of military equipment were successfully established.

While over 1500 new factories and several new cities were built under the First Five Year Plan (1928-1932), the plan was completed at great cost to the Soviet people. To industrialize the country, the plan needed great amounts of money and equipment, which the war-devastated country did not have. The only way to obtain the necessary money and industrial machinery demanded by the plan was to increase the country’s exports of grain, timber and minerals to the West, unfortunately at a time when grain prices were very low because of the depression in the West. Now more grain would have to be exported to pay for the same quantity of equipment.

To keep up industrialization more capital was needed. To obtain it Stalin ordered more grain to be squeezed from the country. Since the end of the WW1 western per capita production of the basic starches, the "stuff of life" has risen by more than one fourth in industrialized West, it - alas! - declined in the Soviet Union, due to insufficient capital investments in agricultural production.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/USSR-GrainYield.gif

Wheat yield, Russia/USSR and North Dakota, 1885–1990.
(A Reassessment of the Soviet Industrial Revolution, Robert C. Allen)

The quickest way to do this was to nationalize the land and to move the peasants onto collective farms, where very limited amounts of modern machinery, so desperately needed for augmentation of the domestic production, were available. Consequences of this effort are observable on the previously presented graph.

This process began in the autumn of 1929. By February of 1930 all peasant households, including livestock, were collectivized. Unfortunately, collectiviyation unleashed wide and ferocious resistance. It sounds completely insane, but peasants even slaughtered their livestock and burnt their crops rather then surrender them to the state. The number of horses, for example, declined from 4.4 million in 1928 to 2.6 million by 1933. Cattle declined in the same period from 8.6 to 4.4 million. Soviet agriculture had always been short of draught animals. The production of tractors was in its infancy and could not replace completely needed animal power, besides, due to heavy operating conditions they were constantly braking down, without sufficient amount of spare parts for repairs. And to add to all these difficulties, a drought hit the country. It began in late 1931 and it was the most severe in the steppes.

The factors that have been mentioned previously contributed to the so called Great Famine of 1932-1933. However, it has to be mentioned that even in succeeding years, when modern agricultural equipment was available in greater quantities, problem of insufficient grain yield persisted.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Yieldperacre.jpg

Average Grain Yield

Western grain yield per acre has swelled from a pre-WW2 average of a little over 1200 lbs to a 1960 average of well over 2000 lbs, while Soviet yield has virtually marked time, rising from 740 to 775 lbs. Of course, proper solution was envisioned, but in early 1950’s accent was set on reconstruction of the urban and production facilities.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Agro-chemizationDDR.jpg

Effects of Agrochemization upon wheat Yield- DDR, vicinity of Malchin, Mecklenburg

Because the USSR has been unable to raise output per acre due to insufficient capital investments in irrigation and chemization, because of reinforced obligations toward rebuilding the country’s towns and villages that had been destroyed in the WW2, it tried to increase its total agricultural output by bringing more acres into use.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/USSR-VirginLandScheme.jpg

Virgin Land Scheme

However, Khrushchev’s 100-million acre “Virgin Land Scheme" (Included in the dark outlined at right) has suffered three straight droughts (another indeed brilliant example of the importance of irrigation, as a capital investment in agriculture)! These marginal lands were intended to concentrate on wheat, while the older and richer farmlands to the West were intended for more intensive, previously neglected industrial crops. That chapter of the Soviet agricultural production, however, that is a completely different story… :)

Sorry, honorable ladies ang gentlemen - another brake of the post. This is the very reason: The text that you have entered is too long (13447 characters). Please shorten it to 10000 characters long.

Oh, no problem - to be continued...:roll:

Librarian
12-04-2007, 06:33 PM
The Soviet Union had a different ideological and economic system opposing to the one of the US. So if it had really tried to copy something it would have had to begin with converting state property into private one and not vice versa.

On the contrary, my dear Mr. Kato – industrial development of the Soviet Union represents a bold example that issues of ideology and ownership are absolutely irrelevant factors in a scientifically based system of material production. :D

The most magnificent but generally unspeakable story of the XX century is the historical fact that in the first two decades of it progressive intellectuals in two completely different part of the world actually enlarged on the XIX century identification of technology and scientific rationality with the fulfillment of the immanent American and inherent communistic dream. The new century, both in Russia and America seemed to offer bold new prospects, vistas previously hidden in the pessimistic and chaotic nineties.

Such optimism was grounded in the view that the newly emerging industrial state and the corporate organization of production could be directed by man’s rationality to bring a social reformation where poverty, injustice, superstition, and class conflict would be abolished. While representatives of American Progressivism - today almost completely forgotten American social movement - disagreed with European socialists over whether Her Majesty the State, or Her Highness the Corporation represented the proper institution to organize the new, rationally based human society, they agreed that only centralized nation-wide direction under the guidance of experts could assure what Herbert Croly termed the "true promise of American life – the promise of the Allmighty Providence that we have not gathered together here in vain, just to share our misery, but to produce material abundance for ourselves".

One logical conclusion of the implications of progressivism, and scientific management of the society, found its clearest expression in the writings of an American socialist – Thorstein Bunde Veblen. Contrasting the rationality he saw in mechanical industry with the chaos and selfishness he found in finance capitalism, he became a devastating critic of business enterprise.

Veblen believed that technology was creating values counter to those of conspicuous waste, which governed the leisure classes. He preached that possessing a concern for the community’s material welfare, as well as an instinct for efficient workmanship, scientists and engineers are capable to offer hope for a better social order. Veblen concluded with a call for engineers to control the economy, to clean the political system of corruption and to make it responsive to the needs of community.
]
It sounds pretty strange, my dear Mr. Kato, but although American Progressives and Russian Bolsheviks disagreed on precisely what the national needs were, they shared the conviction that politics had become thoroughly corrupt, dominated by greedy bosses and weak, incompetent elected officials. Such man either exploited the community in their own right or were fronts for the self-interested Robber Barons of big business.

American populist school of thought intended to expand direct democratic participation in politics. Russian view was to shorten the ballot and expand the power of the executive administration. The intellectuals generally favored the latter approach.:roll:

In the reformed state they envisaged, the exercise of decision-making power would be largely removed from the corruption of policies or the mercy of fortune, and transferred to expert public servants. The experts, once and for all divorced from political vicissitudes could then freely exercise their rationality – the very basis of the efficient production. They would be able to efficiently administrate the planning activities of the state, and to bring trained intelligence to social problems in a manner that mere politicians were incapable of doing.

In the reformed state he envisaged, the exercise of the apolitical, scientific knowledge about different factors of production will produce a rapid industrial development, higher standard of living and satisfaction of human material needs.

Yes, I know, my dear Mr. Kato - all this sounds pretty strange, but fortunately we have some firm evidence that never officially recognized, but always strapping mutual affection between the USA and the USSR actually was able to triumph over those fabricated societal differences amid them. Please, just read these lines:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Sovietdevelopment1.jpg

Modern Mechanix, 1935 – Soviet Development 1

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Sovietdevelopment2.jpg

Modern Mechanix, 1935 - Soviet Development 2

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Sovietdevelopment3.jpg

Modern Mechanix, 1935 - Soviet Development 3

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Sovietdevelopment4.jpg

Modern Mechanix – Soviet Development 4

Holly Smoke, my dear Mr. Kato - the world's largest automobile plant? In the Soviet Union? In 1930? Designed and engineered by The Austin Company in Cleveland, from the US of A? Constructed under Austin engineers supervision by thousands of Russians? For which Austin was paid in solid gold? This sounds like the stuff of legend and myth - yet it is all true, and the history is indeed more remarkable than all the bits of the story passed down to us.

As part of his first Five-Year Plan to industrialize the USSR., Stalin sought to develop the Soviet auto industry, and he determined that the country needed a modern plant to produce automobiles for the Soviet Union. And yes again, my dear Mr. Kato - the model he chose was the production line of Henry Ford, the ultimate capitalist! In 1929 Ford signed an agreement to sell the Soviets plans, specifications and methods for design and production of trucks and cars and to provide vehicle parts for assembly in the first years of the plant's operation as well!

For design and construction of the plant, the Soviets turned to The Austin Company, which had just completed the Pontiac Six factory, the largest auto plant in the world at that time. Austin's task was to design and manage construction of both a factory capable of producing 140.000 vehicles a year, as well as a model socialist city (sic!) for 35.000 workers and their families - all within 18 months.

To supervise construction of the plant and workers city, Austin sent 20 engineers (several with their families!) to Nizhny Novgorod, a city on the Volga and Oka Rivers 250 miles east of Moscow. Construction began in May 1930 and was completed in November 1931 - an amazing feat for which Austin was paid $1,550,000 in gold - a payment that saw the company through the lean years of the Great Depression. The Austinites returned home, and in January 1932, the first Model A rolled off the production line.

Do you still think that undefeatable ideological and economic societal divergences are so overwhelmingly fundamental in this world of ours, my dear Mr. Kato? If so – think again. You see, previously presented historical miracles are not the unaccompanied ones! ;)

To be continued...

Librarian
12-04-2007, 06:48 PM
The goal was to prevent the possibity of "counter-revolution" and crack down nationalism. This goal was openly declared in the communist party meetings and its official documents...

Sorry, my dear Mr. Kato, but as far as I am capable to read and to understand Russian language, explicitly manifested social goal, presented in this most important party document - Programme of the RCP(B) - first published in 1930, explicitly declares this:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/RKPB-Program-Agro-aspect1.jpg

Programme of the RCP(B) toward agricultural development- page one

"After the abolition of private property in land and after the almost completed expropriation of the landowners and the promulgation of a law on the socialization of the land, which regards as preferable the large-scale farming of commonly-owned estates, the chief task of Soviet power is to discover and test in practice the most expedient and practical transitional measures to effect this."

"The main line and the guiding principle of the R.C.P. agrarian policy under these circumstances still remains the effort to rely on the proletarian and semi-proletarian elements of the countryside. They must first and foremost be organised into an independent force, they must be brought closer to the urban proletariat and wrested from the influence of the rural bourgeoisie and petty-property interests. The organisation of Poor Peasants’ Committees was one step in this direction; the organisation. of Party cells in the villages, the re-election of Soviet deputies to exclude the kulaks, the establishment of special types of trade unions for the proletarians and semi-proletarians of the country-side-all these and similar measures must be effected without fail. As far as the kulaks, the rural bourgeoisie, are concerned, the policy of the RCP is one of decisive struggle against their attempts at exploitation and the suppression of their resistance to Soviet socialist policy."

"As far as the middle peasant is concerned, the policy of the RCP is one of a cautious attitude towards him; he must not be confused with the kulak and coercive measures must not be used against him; by his class position the middle peasant can be the ally of the proletarian government during the transition to socialism, or, at least, he can remain a neutral element. Despite the unavoidable partial failures and waverings of the middle peasant, therefore, we must strive persistently to reach agreement with him, showing a solicitous attitude to all his desires and making concessions in selecting ways of carrying out socialist reforms. In this respect a prominent, place must be given to the struggle against the abuses of those representatives of Soviet power who, hypocritically taking advantage of the title of Communist, are carrying out a policy that is not communist but is a policy of the bureaucracy, of officialdom; such people must be ruthlessly banished and a stricter control established with the aid of the trade unions and by other means."

Insofar as concerns measures for the transition to communist farming, the RCP will test in practice three principal measures that have already taken shape-state farms, agricultural communes and societies (and co-operatives) for the collective tilling of the soil, care being taken to ensure their more extensive and more correct application, especially in respect of ways of developing the voluntary participation of the peasants in these new forms of cooperative farming and of the organization of the working peasantry to carry out control from below and ensure comradely discipline."

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/RKPB-Program-Agro-aspect2.jpg

Programme of the RCP(B) toward agricultural development- page two

"The RCP food policy upholds the consolidation and development of the state monopoly, and does not reject the use of co-operatives and private traders or the employees of trading firms, or the application of a system of bonuses, on the condition that it is controlled by Soviet power and serves the purpose of the better organization of the business. The partial concessions that have to be made from time to time are only due to the extreme acuteness of need and never imply a refusal to strive persistently to implement the state monopoly. It is very difficult to implement it in a country of small peasant farms, it requires lengthy work and the practical testing of a number of transitional measures that lead to the goal by various ways, i.e., that lead to the universal organization and correct functioning of producers’ and consumers’ communes that hand over all food surpluses to the state."

Finally allow me just one tiny remark. By Stalin’s own admission, the Kulaks (word Kulak means fist and refers to the richer peasants), had little to do with economic considerations. The Kulaks supplied only a fifth of the grain usually used in the soviet countryside. "Dekulakization" was primarily intended to rid the countryside of those most likely to organize and lead resistance to forced collectivization.
(Russia, Then and Now, by Phillis A. Arnold & david J. Rees, (Arnold Publishing – Springfield Missouri), 1993. – p.124.


To make some copy of the American intensive agricultural schematics, the USSR had to be a capitalist state.

Alas, not necessarily, my dear Mr. Kato. Factual production methods used in agricultural production in different countries fortunately always were, and still are completely independent from socio-political structure of those countries. Straightforward application of scientific methods and technological processes is contributing greatly to the augmentation of the net agricultural production of the world even today, regardless

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/InternationalHarvester-theAmericanW.jpg

Harvesting line of International Harvester wheat combines, Topeka, Kansas - USA

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Rostselymash-Don1500.jpg

Harvesting line of Rostselymash Don 1500 wheat combines, Pokrovskoye, Donetska Oblast, USSR

You don't believe that? No problem. For example, specific types of cheese have long been associated with definite geographic and thus socioeconomic regions. New scientific developments have enabled United States manufacturers to reproduce these specific cheeses successfully. It sounds almost incredibly, but American manufacturers have been so successful in imitating Swiss cheese (the whole secret actually was embedded in a curd lifting process from a vat, and the application of the specific micro-organisms which produce the wholes in cheese) that the Swiss producers have joined together to fight the very efficient American competition! :D

Introduction of the insulated tank trucks and railroad cars (US patent from 1952), capable to keep milk cold and to speed it safely from dairy farms to city dairy plants, resulted in a great enlargement of the "milkshed" – the area from which a city can obtain its milk, without much more costly condensation, evaporation or powdering procedures. Yet again, socio-economic structure of the given country is completely irrelevant in this case too. (Duncan, A. O: Food processing – Atlanta, Turner E. Smith and Co. – p. 133)

Effects of the Machinery upon Wheat production, for example are totally independent from the socio-economical structures as well – the invention that revolutionized the wheat industry was the reaper, invented by Cyrus McCormick in 1831. This device not only simplified harvesting, but enormously increased the area which a farmer might plant. Today the combine which includes both a reaper and a thresher, makes it possible for the proucer to work wheat areas many times the size of those prior to this invention.

As stated in a truly magnificent report of Mr. Herb Plambeck, Farm Director from the WHO Station in Des Moines, Iowa – who actually have visited USSR in 1962, all Soviet planting practices, administration of nutrients, weed elimination procedures, disease and insect management, irrigation patterns and harvesting techniques, as well as storage operationalization actually represented a slightly modified reproduction of the contiguous American patterns.

If you are interested for this highly intriguing matter, my dear Mr. Kato, I am recommending you some highly accurate and very carefully crafted pieces of painstaking quantitative and qualitative research, but in the very same time also some provocative studies about one of the most perplexing episodes in European history – the history of the development of the Soviet Agro-corporation.

Those significant scientific works were created by two highly renowned Ukrainian scientists, academic work (PhD thesis) by Mr. Volodimir Antonovich Plyotinskii: "The Agro-corporation Down of Communism" (Плютинський Володимир Антонович: Агропромислова корпорація "Зоря комунизму")

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/PlyotinskiiVolodimirAntonovich.jpg

Volodimir Antonovich Plyotinskii, PhD – double Hero of the USSR


And "Collective farm 'Peremoga' in Pokrovskii Rayon" by Mr. Ivan Grigorovich Kisenko – (Иван Григорович Кiсенко: "Колгосп 'Перемога' в Покровському районi на Днипропетровщинi").

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/IvanGrigorovichKisenko.jpg

Ivan Grigorovich Kisenko, PhD

To be continued...:roll:

Librarian
12-04-2007, 07:01 PM
Those magnificent pieces of unrestrained scientific work are still available in the Vernadsky National Library of Ukraine. Therefore if you wish we will be able to compare every single step of agricultural production in the former USSR and USA. In this very moment I am waiting for a truly magnificent book "Farm machinery and equipment" by Harris Pearson Smith (1965, Mc Graw-Hill, Inc.). And it will be here soon! :D


It is tendentious interpretation.

Sorry, my dear Mr. Kato – actually it represents only a concise summarization of numerous materials, governmental reports, scientific studies, etc.:)


Bolsheviks inherited the industrial basis of the Russian Empire. Yes, the industry of the Russian Empire wasn't the most powerful in the world but it rather closely followed the national industries of the leading countries.

Alas, not even closely, my dear mr. Kato. Here you have the more colorful presentation of the factual share of the Russian industrial production. Please, take a closer look:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/CzaristRussia-IndustrialProduction.jpg

"Russia then and now", Phyllis A. Arnold & David J. Rees. – p. 72


As to primitive peasant economy, one may object that nearly all the European states (even France and partly Germany) had peasant economies (majority of the population involved in agriculture) in the 1920s.

Alas, that was not the case, my dear Mr. Kato. Here you have the full comparative presentation of the societal stratification in the Czarist Russia:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/CzaristRussia-Societalstructure.jpg

Czarist Russia – societal structure

... in the Soviet Union...

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/SovietUnion-Societalstructure.jpg

Soviet Union – societal structure

... and official German records are presented here:

http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/pdf/eng/103_Occupational%20Breakdown_3.pdf

Please, compare those numbers. As far as I can see there is no similarity between Germany and Russia in this specific field.



The words "with hardly any outside help" are also wrong because the USSR concluded trade, economic and political agreements with all the leading countries and it wasn't economically isolated.

My dear Mr. Kato, status of the participant in the foreign trade is not identical with the status of the recipient of foreign economic aid. Recipient of foreign aid legally is a country or some other collective entity that is bestowed by different grants – natured in cash or in some other category of value - for which the recipient incurs no legal or ulterior debt toward grantor.


Any foreign statistics of AnnualIncomePerCapita and Production indicators can be generared on the basis of the Soviet statistics. Foreign institutions were simply unable to make up surveys in such a closed country like the USSR.

Well then, my dear Mr. Kato, tell me, please the names of those independent international institutions or officially competent personalities which actually supervised and controlled factual accuracy of the Tunisian governmental statistics in 1938, as well as the applied methodology in those independent multinational statistical supervision activities back there in a beautifully opened and utterly transparent state called Czarist Russia, in the Year of our Lord 1881. Those statistics are for ever and a day OK by default, aren’t they?:)

In the meantime I will tell you the names of the persons who actually supervised the factual data-accuracy of the Soviet statistical evaluations: Dr. Paul C. Rosenbloom, Professor of mathematics at the University of Minnesota, and Professor Dr. Abram Bergson and his colleagues at Columbia, Harvard, and the RAND Corporation.


But even if these figures were adequate, they are just general indicators that can't give the idea about the proporion of national wealth distributed among ordinary population and retained by the state that pay miserable sallaries, owned all the means of production and even the living premises of its citizens.

The estimation methods used by US governmental agencies always were and still are highly advanced ones, my dear Mr. Kato. The numerous facts, complexity of correlations that exist in the strategic raw data-indicators usually do not allow a man to find out something more about factual situation within a given country. However, some mathematical wonders are capable to reduce the fond of abstrusities to the dimensions that are surmountable and sufficiently accurate.

For example, a simple non-parametric technique, based on the so called Kolmogorov-Smirnov test will be able to determine if two different datasets differ significantly. The KS-test has the advantage of making no assumption about the distribution of data, so we will be obliged just to examine are the Soviet data sets susceptible to a lognormal distribution or not. Therefore – at least theoretically – veracity examination of the Soviet statistics was achievable.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/CzaristRussia-Societalgap.jpg

Czarist Russia – Income Gap

As a mater of fact, income distribution in the USSR was more equal than in the Western countries, except Sweden (N. E. Rabkina and N. M. Rimashevskaia, 1972 aned 1978, quoted in A Note on the Distribution of Earnings in the USSR under Brezhnev by Michael Ellman - ("Slavic Review", Vol. 39, No. 4 [Dec., 1980], pp. 669-671).

Despite the fact that Soviet compensation schemes varied upon experience, rank and education, and even though Soviet policies on earnings fluctuated over time, employees in the Soviet Union were more fairly compensated than their counterparts in the West. Individual wealth was limited to a small number of private housing units, cooperatives, agricultural plots, consumer durables, and savings. Please, just follow this link:

http://www.wider.unu.edu/wiid/data/SUN.htm

The subsequent graph, taken from highly intriguing study undertaken by some highly original physicist (http://www2.physics.umd.edu/~yakovenk/econophysics/) indicates that the developing earnings conditions in the modern times are not dispassionately preferable for the majority of the population. This conclusion is supported by the rise in income inequality experienced in these nations after social system alteration, and the relatively high level of the stability of income inequality that is shown in other capitalist nations.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Giniindex.gif

World distribution of Gini index, 1988 and 1993 - Adrian A. Dragulescu and Victor M. Yankovenko2002, "Statistical Mechanics of Money, Income and Wealth: A Short Survey” (AIP Conference, Proceedings - 661)

Original work is presented here:

http://www2.physics.umd.edu/~yakovenk/papers/income.pdf

Enjoy!:)

Librarian
12-04-2007, 07:11 PM
NATO had no "first strike" doctrine (unlike the Soviets...),

Sorry for my indecorous interference, honorable Mr. Man of Stoat, but that famous first strike solution actually appeared in the official US Governmental plans for the nuclear war, namely within the so called Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP), one among the most sensitive US governmental secrets. However, due to inexorable rules of the Freedom of Information Act, certain materials have been recently declassified and highly intriguing details about plans for the making of U.S. nuclear war are nowadays completely available. So here they are:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/SIOP63-1.jpg

SIOP – 63 I

The most intriguing part of this highly attention-grabbing document is part called "The availability of options for preemptive or retaliatory strikes against Soviet and Chinese targets."

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/SIOP63-2copy.jpg

SIOP – 63 II

Until very recently, the complete story was almost absolutely unknown – however, it is a completely proven one.

Original document, downloadable in the PDF format, is located here:

http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/nukevault/ebb236/index.htm

I hope that you will enjoy in this truly rare example of highly confidential, but nowadays declassified written historiographic source, honorable ladies and gentlemen!


Tanks right next to each other with a handful of infantry running behind. Looks great, but there is no way you would do that in reality.

Then why on Earth these Swedish troopers are exercising in a completely similar manner – furthermore, Swedish infanterists are positioned in front of those legendary S-tanks and Pbv 302 APCs, which are rolling and firing straight to the fore!

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/SwedishInfantryTanks1984.jpg

Strange implementation pattern of the Swedish infantry during the regular army maneuvers, vicinity of Trollhättan, 1984.

And as far as I remember, I have some strange snapshot about Canadian maneuvers from 1983 – but where to hell are they… I’ll have to make some surveillance toward those peculiar pieces!:roll:

In the meantime, honorable ladies and gentlemen – all the best! :)

pdf27
12-05-2007, 01:41 AM
Despite the fact that Soviet compensation schemes varied upon experience, rank and education, and even though Soviet policies on earnings fluctuated over time, employees in the Soviet Union were more fairly compensated than their counterparts in the West.
I suspect there may be some disagreement over the meaning of the word "fair". The Soviets tended to practice equality of outcome - i.e. pretty much no matter what you did your living standards were the same. The West tends to aspire to equality of opportunity - everyone can rise to the limits of their ability, and be rewarded accordingly. I regard the latter as preferable, not least because it provides a direct reward for working hard. One of the major problems with the Soviet system is that it fails to provide workers with a sufficient incentive to work hard.


Then why on Earth these Swedish troopers are exercising in a completely similar manner – furthermore, Swedish infanterists are positioned in front of those legendary S-tanks and Pbv 302 APCs, which are rolling and firing straight to the fore!
Looks good for the cameras? As a general rule anything that looks good for the cameras will also look good to an artillery FOO (forward observation officer) or through a gunsight.

Chevan
12-05-2007, 01:59 AM
This was a BRILLIANT dear mst Labrarian.
As always......... you really could wonder all of us every time.:)
So much rare documents and photos- it seems you have realised the entire littler historical research.
I am in delight that so higly widely educated and cultural person could so brightly express the point and tell us about things that today the manies try to falsify.
All the best.

Chevan
12-05-2007, 02:22 AM
I suspect there may be some disagreement over the meaning of the word "fair". The Soviets tended to practice equality of outcome - i.e. pretty much no matter what you did your living standards were the same.

Wrong .
Indeed in the USSR were aimed to guaranty the equal social rights for all peoples.
There were a lot of stimuluss to work better.
Also there were the special socialists competitions- where the winner got the different awards ( including the money).This system brilliantly work in industry ( especially in military field), it wasn't so effective in agricalture ( coz in reason expressed above).
The soviet science was also rather effective and could compensate the western one that had a giant investitions ( for instanse the whole soviet space program was cost just 5-10% or american - with the equal or in some fields even better resuaults).
Besides the social guaranties of FREE hight education and medical service was very importaint.
Sure the USSR had no such bright symbols of Super-Rich life, but there were never been the Homeless.
And there had no work ONLY one who did not wish to work.
Just one bright example - the both the Yeltsyn and Gorbachev were the sons of simple workers or peasants.
How many peoples in British parliament and govenments today has the simple lineage;)?

Man of Stoat
12-05-2007, 03:27 AM
There was a case of one peasant who had worked particularly hard on a collective farm who was awarded a medal. At the presentation ceremony, he asked "couldn't I have a sack of potatoes instead?" This comment was enough to land him in gulag.

Medals are no good to starving people.

Man of Stoat
12-05-2007, 03:38 AM
Equal "social rights"? Are you kidding? Party shops, preferential treatment for party members (both high and low), forced Russification of the ethnic minorities, and persecution of anybody even suspected of harbouring noncommunist sympathies or praising anything about the West.

The Soviet space program used slave labour and have appalling quality control and safety standards. No wonder it cost less.

No homeless? That's an easy one -- vagrants were picked up and charged, and ended up in the gulag as common criminals. There was an incredible housing shortage, with long waiting lists to get an apartment, the vast majority of people living in shared apartments. Although if you were a party member you went to the top of the list.

Material rewards were dependent on political activity, rather than working hard.

Stop trying to defend the indefensible.

Rising Sun*
12-05-2007, 04:34 AM
There were a lot of stimuluss to work better.
Also there were the special socialists competitions- where the winner got the different awards ( including the money).This system brilliantly work in industry ( especially in military field)

As exemplified by the brilliant Lada Niva the USSR exported to Australia? The 4WD for people who didn't want to go anywhere, because they couldn't.


Besides the social guaranties of FREE hight education and medical service was very importaint.

So there weren't special educational privileges for children of party officials, according to their parents' rank?


Sure the USSR had no such bright symbols of Super-Rich life ...

So everybody had dachas, just like the senior party officials?

The nomenklatura didn't matter, didn't even exist?


Just one bright example - the both the Yeltsyn and Gorbachev were the sons of simple workers or peasants.
How many peoples in British parliament and govenments today has the simple lineage;)?

Being simple is no obstacle to advancement in the West. Just look at George Bush. :D

Chevan
12-05-2007, 05:02 AM
Equal "social rights"? Are you kidding? Party shops, preferential treatment for party members (both high and low), forced Russification of the ethnic minorities, and persecution of anybody even suspected of harbouring noncommunist sympathies or praising anything about the West.

The Soviet space program used slave labour and have appalling quality control and safety standards. No wonder it cost less.

This is enough to conclude you know noting about that matter MoS.
The "appalling Safaty standards" of Soviet spacecraft cost LESS lives for the soviet spacemans that for AMERICAN ONES;)


No homeless? That's an easy one -- vagrants were picked up and charged, and ended up in the gulag as common criminals. There was an incredible housing shortage, with long waiting lists to get an apartment, the vast majority of people living in shared apartments. Although if you were a party member you went to the top of the list.

You mean FREE APARTMENTS that was buildd by the state - yes you right it was enough long list.
However NOBODY forbided to buy the house for you money. As my perents made 35 years ago.
And.....YOU DO not need to be a communist member to get the apartments;)


Material rewards were dependent on political activity, rather than working hard.

Who did say this buls... for you?


Stop trying to defend the indefensible.
:)
As doctor Goebbels told - then more insolent lie- then faster people believe in it.

Man of Stoat
12-05-2007, 05:17 AM
Pull the other one, you pernicious propagandist, it's got bells on it.

Chevan
12-05-2007, 05:29 AM
As exemplified by the brilliant Lada Niva the USSR exported to Australia? The 4WD for people who didn't want to go anywhere, because they couldn't.

What ?
They buy the world cheapest car for the 5-6 000 of dollars and .... they expect to go anywhere on it;)
What a naive peoples those aussians:)
BTW Lada Niva was a good car for the mid 1970 whan it was firstly developed.



So there weren't special educational privileges for children of party officials, according to their parents' rank?

No there were no special privilagies.
Their parents-boss have the more abilities to get a job for childrens- howeve they have NO advantages in the Hight education.


So everybody had dachas, just like the senior party officials?

Dachas?;)
Mate you will wonder if you would know how less dahces mean in comparition with Modern privilegies of hight rank beurocrats ( both in the East and the West) like yahts, super-car, and personal castels with guard and prostitutes.:)
This is not worthwhile to consider ;)


The nomenklatura didn't matter, didn't even exist?

They existed as eveywhere.
However they were under strong control and pressure.
They easy could be centenced for the long time for the corruption.
So they were scared and ....humble



Being simple is no obstacle to advancement in the West. Just look at George Bush. :D
Oh mate i didn't guess the Bush was born in the poorest Negroes ghetto;)
Or his father-Bush work hard on Ford Plants.
BTW in the USSR NOBODY of first Secretary of ComParty( Inspite of all previlegies) even dreamed to put his SON into his place.
This is was able ONLY in the USA;)

Chevan
12-05-2007, 05:33 AM
Pull the other one, you pernicious propagandist, it's got bells on it.
Oh now you play are insulted ;)
I didn't wish it , honestly.

Rising Sun*
12-05-2007, 06:53 AM
BTW in the USSR NOBODY of first Secretary of ComParty( Inspite of all previlegies) even dreamed to put his SON into his place.
This is was able ONLY in the USA;)

It happened in the USA because he was elected, in a free and democratic process, if we forget about Florida and his brother Jeb first time around.

Fact remains, he was elected by the people (the small proportion who can be bothered voting), as was every president before him, and is subject to scrutiny and impeachment which no Russian or Soviet president has had to deal with during the same period.

America came into existence because of, among other things, opposition to a hereditary monarchy in the 1770's. Russia, like most of Europe, was still putting the father's son into power until 1917, in ways nobody in America has ever dreamed of since America threw off the monarchical shackles about 140 years earlier.

The post-1917 Russian / Soviet system certainly got rid of inherited power, but compared with America over the same period it left a lot to be desired in the way of good government and community harmony.

Nickdfresh
12-05-2007, 07:39 AM
This is enough to conclude you know noting about that matter MoS.
The "appalling Safaty standards" of Soviet spacecraft cost LESS lives for the soviet spacemans that for AMERICAN ONES;)

First thing is: Who cares? And secondly, it's easy not to have accidents when you don't really fly much anymore and are heavily dependent on the West to maintain your programs...


You mean FREE APARTMENTS that was buildd by the state - yes you right it was enough long list.
However NOBODY forbided to buy the house for you money. As my perents made 35 years ago.
And.....YOU DO not need to be a communist member to get the apartments;)

Who did say this buls... for you?

:)
As doctor Goebbels told - then more insolent lie- then faster people believe in it.

"Free apartments?" What was the waiting list on those? About eight years? I'd rather live rent controlled and not pay too much while making a real salary based on my hard work...

And there was still a class system - there was the communist party members and then there was everybody else...

Panzerknacker
12-05-2007, 10:57 AM
A nation without social classes is an unfeasible utopia, like most of the communist doctrine.

I must said that this topic is turning definately to the wrongh direction.

pdf27
12-05-2007, 12:33 PM
I must said that this topic is turning definately to the wrongh direction.
Agreed. I reopened this topic because various members requested I did so and promised to behave like adults within it. Instead, with a few honorable exceptions like Librarian it's nothing but borderline flaming.

Calm it down and start discussing things politely, or this thread is going in the bin.

pdf27
12-05-2007, 12:51 PM
How many peoples in British parliament and govenments today has the simple lineage;)?
Gordon Brown is the son of a Presbyterian minister - equivalent to a priest, and about as simple as you get.
Tony Blair was the son of a barrister (highly paid lawyer). However, his grandfather was the illegitimate son of two travelling actors, and was raised by a shipyard worker (again, very much bottom of the pile occupations).
John Major was the son of a music hall "artiste" - again, pretty lowly.
Margaret Thatcher was the daughter of a small shopkeeper and Methodist lay preacher.
James Callaghan was the son of a Royal Navy Chief Petty Officer (equivalent Russian rank is "гла́вный старшина" apparently) whose father died when he was nine years old.
Harold Wilson was the son of a "works chemist" and a schoolteacher.
Ted Heath was the son of a carpenter and a maid (domestic servant).
Alec Douglas-Home was the son of Alec, Lord Dunglass, and was also the grandson of two Earls.

Hence, we have to go back to Alec Douglas-Home (who was in office for less than a year in 1963-64) to find a British Prime Minister who does not "has the simple lineage".
Didn't expect that reply did you?

Egorka
12-05-2007, 04:23 PM
Hat off for the Librarian! Great work!

Rising Sun*
12-06-2007, 03:24 AM
PK and pdf27

I don't see this thread as developing in the undesirable way you suggest in your posts at #92 and #93 respectively.

I may be wrong, and I'm sure he'll correct me if I am, but Chevan doesn't mind a bit of robust debate.

This thread is, after all, about 'hard facts about communism'. By definition, this is going to be contentious for the opposing sides.

There's been a lot more latitude allowed in, for example, the Falklands thread when even more contentious issues such as alleged war crimes were debated, including by none other than PK with some vigor.

Perhaps the participants in the debate could post whether they feel that it needs mods' intervention to calm it down, and the mods could base their decsions on those posts.

For my part, I don't see a problem that warrants intervention.

Digger
12-06-2007, 04:54 AM
I haven't joined this debate, but I have enjoyed it immensly. Really there is no need for mod intervention. Any such action could be construed as censorship.

digger

Egorka
12-06-2007, 05:22 PM
Keep the fun going! :)

Panzerknacker
12-06-2007, 05:44 PM
Fun ?
Hardly any fun with all the communism / russian/ ukranian/ polish/ relationships- conflicts and other discussions of that kind here.:rolleyes:

Cant we all get alone ?

Chevan
12-07-2007, 01:46 AM
It happened in the USA because he was elected, in a free and democratic process, if we forget about Florida and his brother Jeb first time around.

Elected by whom?
By the peoples? Or by the few superrich elite that owned the 60-80%% of national property and fully controll the Mass media.
Oh common mate - not me to tell you about how the Western Mass media manipulate and wash the brains for the Peoples during the election compains and befror it;)
I' ve readed in one site ( do not remember what) that the 95% of American Mass media is controlled by the one relatively small group of peoples.
Do not forget my friend - simple peoples will vote for THAT candidate who are PORTRAYED as a GOOD in mass media.
Coz the simple people usially nothing know about this man and ONLY the media could inform them about.
So the MEdia is the one who Really vote in the elections:)Well in most of cases.
Coz the media determ who is GOOD candidate and who is not.
And do not forget about Black PR against that one who do not play in their rules;)


Fact remains, he was elected by the people (the small proportion who can be bothered voting), as was every president before him, and is subject to scrutiny and impeachment which no Russian or Soviet president has had to deal with during the same period.

Well i have to remind you - that the Soviets presidents ( indeed the 1st Secretary of ComParty) clearly know what does impeachment mean:)
Coz in the 1964 the Khrushev was easy removed from a power when the Soviet elite found out the NEw LEader that could change him.
At the same time the AMerican presidents NOT all time had impeachment of its elite - but some of them were SIMPLY MURDERED like the president Kennedy.


America came into existence because of, among other things, opposition to a hereditary monarchy in the 1770's. Russia, like most of Europe, was still putting the father's son into power until 1917, in ways nobody in America has ever dreamed of since America threw off the monarchical shackles about 140 years earlier.

I/m strongly doubt that the American lack of Monarhy has a even deal with American economical rise in the 20 centure.
As i know during the entire 19 centrure the American was just a poor agrocaltural state and only after beginning of the 20 centure and especially after the beginning of the WW1 the European capitals had come into America.
The inner Eruopeans problems like wars was that Things that force to rise America over them.
If you anylase that American economical increase - yo would comclude - the most quike rise was during the World Wars. The reason is simple - during the Every Euriopean war the Europeans ordered a Giant quantuty of wearpon, food, amunition and everuthing in the America for the Hundreds TONNS of Gold. Simply coz the American continent WAS OUT of combat action.
So it was rather right to say - the worsen time was for the Europe, then better for America.:)
Its not my cynical point- this is just the facts.
If to tell about it honestly.....:)


The post-1917 Russian / Soviet system certainly got rid of inherited power, but compared with America over the same period it left a lot to be desired in the way of good government and community harmony.
Community harmony?
How do you think is the harmony in society whan someone ONCE buy the pistol or a shot-gun and going to the shop or school to shoot the peoples?
And what harmony do you tell if the american poorests even have no enought money for food.Or for the good education ( that depends their future from).
Or that ones who died coz ther relatives HAVE no money to pay for medical service.
Or there are everyone who has the Madical Insurance?

Man of Stoat
12-07-2007, 02:49 AM
More waffle...

The mass media was incredibly biased against Bush, yet he won two elections.

The rest is too incoherent to comment on...

Chevan
12-07-2007, 03:03 AM
Didn't expect that reply did you?
Oh i did not expect pdf:)
You have beat me:)
OK if you persist - lets look for those "simple people" more carefully.

.
Tony Blair was the son of a barrister (highly paid lawyer). However, his grandfather was the illegitimate son of two travelling actors, and was raised by a shipyard worker (again, very much bottom of the pile occupations).



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Blair
Blair boarded at Fettes College, a notable independent school in Edinburgh, where he met Charlie Falconer (a pupil at the rival Edinburgh Academy), whom he later appointed Lord Chancellor. ......
Tony Blair's wife, Cherie Booth QCAfter Fettes, Blair spent a year in London, where he attempted to find fame as a rock music promoter, before going up to the University of Oxford to read jurisprudence at St John's College.

So the prestuge elite school in Edinburgh and jurisprudence in Oxford university was thing that cost more than you probably earn for 10 years:)
Nice simple Tony like you or me, right?


John Major was the son of a music hall "artiste" - again, pretty lowly.

Agree about John Major. He was a man who finished the common school.


Margaret Thatcher was the daughter of a small shopkeeper and Methodist lay preacher.

A small shopkeeper daughter that finished the Oxford :)


Hence, we have to go back to Alec Douglas-Home (who was in office for less than a year in 1963-64) to find a British Prime Minister who does not "has the simple lineage".
And what about rest 730 mens of House of Lords who untill the 1999 inherited its places?
Were they "simple" as you and me?:)

Chevan
12-07-2007, 03:14 AM
The mass media was incredibly biased against Bush, yet he won two elections.
More waffle...
But at that time press incredibly support him in a war agains Terror during last election in the 2004.
they still supported his "operation iraq freedom" as action against who" treat for the american safety".
Besides IT WAS A MEDIA who inspired the Simple americans the thought about "little victorious war in Iraq" in the 2003 and simply lie about MDW in Saddam hands in aim to increase the Anti-iraqi and Anti-muslim domestic feeling.
It so interesting - while the MEdia called for the war in 2003- it was all OK.
And every one was wanted to kill the Evil arabs:)The American military corporations were so happy to get the new giants incomes.
But now - who is scapegoat?
The President Bush?


The rest is too incoherent to comment on...
That's right:)

Rising Sun*
12-07-2007, 03:56 AM
But now - who is scapegoat?
The President Bush?

That's right:)

And what's wrong with that?

Who started the whole sorry episode?

The press didn't give orders to invade Iraq, or spend ages trying to dredge up any evidence it could find about weapons of mass deception.

Firefly
12-07-2007, 04:12 AM
I couldnt help but wonder about Chevans statement about only the priveledged being in Government here in the UK.

Just for him, here is a link to the UK members of parliament, their websites and their Biographies. I think you will find the information interesting.

http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hciolists/alms.cfm

As an aside, I think your misconception about going to Oxford or Cambridge is a bit off as anyone in the UK can attend these places regardless of wealth or privelidge.

pdf27
12-07-2007, 04:39 AM
So the prestuge elite school in Edinburgh and jurisprudence in Oxford university was thing that cost more than you probably earn for 10 years:)
Nice simple Tony like you or me, right?
At the time he went to Oxford the tuition was free and all students were provided with a grant to cover living expenses. Admission was purely on merit - the brightest people got in, with a few exceptions (being a member of the royal family usually means they make an extra place for you - the current Prince of Wales is a good example).
I'll happily grant you that he went to an upper class type school. However, my point was that Tony Blair's PARENTS were from "common stock" - his father was the child of a shipbuilder, and went on to become a barrister (highly paid lawyer).


A small shopkeeper daughter that finished the Oxford :)
Chevan, you seem to have some idea that Oxford and Cambridge are very exclusive places that don't let anyone not from the right family in. I've been there (I spent four years reading Engineering at Peterhouse, Cambridge) so know from personal experience that's utter rubbish. The colleges are all very rich indeed (Peterhouse for instance owns property worth something like $ 1 Billion) and exist for the purpose of educating people. Thus, if they ever come across a poor student who is bright enough to go, they will somehow find the money to keep them there. I know this for a fact because it applied to several of my friends.
Right now the biggest obstacle to poor people going to Cambridge is attitudes like yours that say "I'll never be allowed in" - so they never apply. In reality someone from a poor background is more likely to get in than someone from a rich background with the same qualifications, because the college will realise that they have had to work harder to achieve the same result so give them extra leeway. Again, I know about this because it happened to at least one of my friends.


And what about rest 730 mens of House of Lords who untill the 1999 inherited its places?
Were they "simple" as you and me?:)
The House of Lords is rather anti-democratic (now that the Hereditary Peers have left, the only ones left are those appointed by the government of the day who stay in it for life - they are usually former politicians or people who have given a lot of money to a political party). However, it can't actually make any laws - it can just make it harder for the government to pass new laws by slowing them down for a year or two if it thinks they are a bad idea. Personally, I think this is generally quite a good thing - politicians come up with far too many bad laws, so getting rid of or slowing them down is usually a good thing.

Man of Stoat
12-07-2007, 05:10 AM
I went to Oxford, and my father is a teacher. He went to Oxford as a postgrad, and his father was a fireman.

Communist joke: when was the first Russian election? When God created Eve, placed her in front of Adam, and said "choose your wife".

Also, I don't know what the American media you were watching around 2004, but with one notable exception it was quite clear that the main news organisations wanted Kerry to win. Reconcile that with the theory that the media chooses the president (as if individual voters don't have free will...)

Rising Sun*
12-07-2007, 05:20 AM
As an aside, I think your misconception about going to Oxford or Cambridge is a bit off as anyone in the UK can attend these places regardless of wealth or privelidge.

Not always a good thing.

They let Australians in.

And Bill Clinton, of U.S. presidential fame, attended Oxford, as a Rhodes Scholar.

The former and current colonies collided when Australia's arch feminist, and prize export sour bitch and self-promoter, Germaine Greer gave a lecture at Oxford. She said that the female orgasm was a form of gender tyranny, and was vastly overrated.

Clinton,then a student, said, variously reported but along the lines:

“About that overrated orgasm, M'aam. Would you like to give a Southern boy a chance to convince you otherwise?”

Rising Sun*
12-07-2007, 05:57 AM
I'll happily grant you that he went to an upper class type school. However, my point was that Tony Blair's PARENTS were from "common stock" - his father was the child of a shipbuilder, and went on to become a barrister (highly paid lawyer).

Not necessarily highly paid.

A barrister is merely the occupational term for a professional court advocate.

Some of modest ability make a lot of money by doing commercial work, others of great ability make relatively modest incomes by doing criminal work.

In England, and in other English speaking countries, the barristers' best tradition has long been one of defending individual rights against the ceaseless assaults of the state.

Compared with, say, the show trials under Stalin and Hitler, there hasn't been a similarly disgraceful period in English speaking countries where court advocates and the judiciary have become tools of the dictatorship. At least not since the Star Chamber several centuries ago.

That's not to say that there haven't been some appalling instances of state oppression in the courts in English speaking countries and some disgraceful failures by defence barristers, even in modern times.

pdf27
12-07-2007, 07:30 AM
Not always a good thing.
They let Australians in.
I don't know, some excel in their chosen fields. Bob Hawke for example...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/00/BobHawkeYardofale.jpg/452px-BobHawkeYardofale.jpg

I'm sure MoS knows the Turf better than I do, but it seemed rather a nice pub when I dropped in a few years back.

Rising Sun*
12-07-2007, 08:27 AM
I don't know, some excel in their chosen fields. Bob Hawke for example...

That's undoubtedly Hawke's (the silver budgie's) view of himself.

Apart from downing a yard of ale quick smart, his greatest achievement as a Labor prime minister was to keep wages down for a decade so that the lowest paid workers still haven't recovered. He's the best post-war conservative prime minister Australia ever had. ***** that he is.

pdf27
12-07-2007, 09:02 AM
Apart from downing a yard of ale quick smart, his greatest achievement as a Labor prime minister was to keep wages down for a decade so that the lowest paid workers still haven't recovered. He's the best post-war conservative prime minister Australia ever had. ***** that he is.
I'm sorry, you misunderstand me. I was implying that drinking was their chosen field (for all Australians, not just a certain former Prime Minister) :mrgreen:

Digger
12-07-2007, 03:07 PM
I'm sorry, you misunderstand me. I was implying that drinking was their chosen field (for all Australians, not just a certain former Prime Minister) :mrgreen:

that's probably true, though beer consumption has been in decline for years, whilst the consumption of plonk has been steadily increasing. Yes we are a nation of piss pots, but not in the way you think.

Bob Hawke was one of our many post war PM's who would be better consigned to the scrap heap of history. A legend in his own mind Hawke had humble beginnings and rose through the ranks of the trade union movement, eventually becoming Australia's most powerful unionist, leader of the ACTU. From here he began his career of ****ing everything he touched.

As Prime Monster of Australia he proved to be nothing more than a chardonnay swilling socialist who sold the Australian worker and the economy down the drain for several million bucks.

Hawke, like his mates Keating, Whitlam and opponents Fraser and Howard should be classified as a traitor and shot.:D

digger

Rising Sun*
12-07-2007, 04:42 PM
I'm sorry, you misunderstand me. I was implying that drinking was their chosen field (for all Australians, not just a certain former Prime Minister) :mrgreen:

That's all right then. :D

I don't mind being accused of being a piss pot, because I am, but I do mind Hawke being accused of excelling as a Prime Minister, because he didn't.

The only thing he excelled at was being a treacherous, self-promoting, show pony arsehole who sucked up to the crooked capitalists like there was no tomorrow, where he definitely excelled.

Rising Sun*
12-07-2007, 04:52 PM
As Prime Monster of Australia he proved to be nothing more than a chardonnay swilling socialist who sold the Australian worker and the economy down the drain for several million bucks.

Hawke was a socialist? :shock::shock::shock:

I must have missed that five seconds in his career. ;)

I thought Hawke was a trojan horse for shifty capitalist turds like Peter Abeles. Sorry, Sir Peter Abeles. Or, to borrow the old army saying, Sir, spelt Cur.

On the basis of people I know, Hawke encouraged more resignations from the Labor Party, by true Labor people, than all other Labor leaders combined.

Nickdfresh
12-07-2007, 06:38 PM
Not always a good thing.

They let Australians in.

And Bill Clinton, of U.S. presidential fame, attended Oxford, as a Rhodes Scholar.

The former and current colonies collided when Australia's arch feminist, and prize export sour bitch and self-promoter, Germaine Greer gave a lecture at Oxford. She said that the female orgasm was a form of gender tyranny, and was vastly overrated.

Clinton,then a student, said, variously reported but along the lines:

“About that overrated orgasm, M'aam. Would you like to give a Southern boy a chance to convince you otherwise?”

LMFAO!!:D Who knew Sheila feminists were so up tight? Around this time, Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin would have been engaged in a contest as to who could sleep with the most members of the National Organization of Women...:D

Chevan
12-09-2007, 07:27 AM
Hey gentlements i see you going out of topic.
Back on it please.
We tells about communists previligies , righ.
If some of you tells that the education in Oxford is so accessible and easy to get.
So i have a few question to englishmans- how many money cost the years of studiing in Oxford in, for instance juridical department?
And sec- who much average salary in Briatin today?

Rising Sun*
12-09-2007, 07:35 AM
Hey gentlements i see you going out of topic.
Back on it please.
We tells about communists previligies , righ.
If some of you tells that the education in Oxford is so accessible and easy to get.
So i have a few question to englishmans- how many money cost the years of studiing in Oxford in, for instance juridical department?
And sec- who much average salary in Briatin today?

Yep!

That's definitely bringing it back on topic. ;)

What's the point of comparing apples with oranges?

Compare medical doctors in the USSR with those in the West. There's no comparison.

Compare military political commisars in the USSR with those in the West. It can't be done, because there weren't any in the West.

pdf27
12-09-2007, 07:51 AM
So i have a few question to englishmans- how many money cost the years of studiing in Oxford in, for instance juridical department?
And sec- who much average salary in Briatin today?
I can't answer for Oxford, but being as I went to Cambridge I'll give it a stab.

Tuition fees when I went were approximately £1,000/year for all subjects, and my living expenses were approximately £3000/year. There are very cheap loans available to all to cover this.
Tuition fees are increasing to up to £3,000/year (see link (http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/paymentbydegrees/tuition_fees.asp)), but this is not paid for up front but as a low interest loan payable once you start earning above a certain level (IIRC it's something like 5% of any income above £19,000/year).

I figure that four years at Cambridge cost me something like £18,000. My starting salary was £21,000 which is probably a bit below average (engineers in the UK aren't very well paid compared to some other professions).
It should also be noted that to date (I left 3 years ago) I've only paid back about £3,000 of the cost of university - at the current rate I'll be nearly 60 by the time I finish paying for it!

Chevan
12-09-2007, 07:55 AM
Compare medical doctors in the USSR with those in the West. There's no comparison.

Why .
Lets compare the level of average medical service in the western hospitals for poor with the Soviets ones.During for instance 1970-yy


Compare military political commisars in the USSR with those in the West. It can't be done, because there weren't any in the West.
Again why.
Do not forget that the SS-officers were widelly used during the WW2 in the Western Europe to "improve" the moral of troops:)
And institute of political comisars were liqudated in the Soviet Army right after the war.

Rising Sun*
12-09-2007, 08:08 AM
Why .
Lets compare the level of average medical service in the western hospitals for poor with the Soviets ones.During for instance 1970-yy

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9406EFD81239F932A25753C1A9679482 60&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=all


Do not forget that the SS-officers were widelly used during the WW2 in the Western Europe to "improve" the moral of troops:)

And the equivalent in the US and British armies is ... ?



And institute of political comisars were liqudated in the Soviet Army right after the war.

It's that readiness to liquidate people that worries me.

Chevan
12-09-2007, 08:21 AM
I figure that four years at Cambridge cost me something like £18,000. My starting salary was £21,000 which is probably a bit below average (engineers in the UK aren't very well paid compared to some other professions).
It should also be noted that to date (I left 3 years ago) I've only paid back about £3,000 of the cost of university - at the current rate I'll be nearly 60 by the time I finish paying for it!

Very well
So you have payed for 3-years studien cost roughtly equal for your year salary, right?
But in the USSR the hight eduction was free.
My school friends brother has finished the Moscow Aviation institute(one of the best in whole USSR) in the 1992 , emigrated in USA and easy was assumed for work in Boing corporation.
Coz his educational level was very high even according the vestern standards.
And i wish to notice that during the entiring studying he got the grant ( about 50 rubles per month) that was enough for good feeding in institutes dining-room.
So in the USSR the condition for eduction was very good.
Well except the philosophy and political education- that was limited by the Comunist ideology:)

Chevan
12-09-2007, 08:28 AM
one distinguishing feature of an advanced society has traditionally been a high and rising level of public health. By this criterion, the Soviet Union was rapidly progressing for the first 50 years of its existence. However, recent studies by Western scholars indicate that the quality of Soviet health care has deteriorated dramatically in the past 15 years

Not soviet union but the crisis in Russia- this is a great difference from the Soviet Union.


And the equivalent in the US and British armies is ... ?

And why was the equvalent need for the british/us army ?
Was the territory britain or USA occuped by the cruel enemy forces?


It's that readiness to liquidate people that worries me.
Not people but institute:)
And most of political commissars were simply dismiss or assumed again as the Political officers in the Soviet Army;)( the very importain post btw)

pdf27
12-09-2007, 08:47 AM
Very well
So you have payed for 3-years studien cost roughtly equal for your year salary, right?
Four years education, not three, but otherwise that's accurate.


But in the USSR the hight eduction was free.
No, it wasn't - it was paid for out of general taxation. Is it fair that everybody should pay for my education when I'm the main one to benefit from it?
I agree that it is imperative that nobody should be prevented from going through university by the cost, but I'm not keen for the population as a whole to pay for something they don't benefit from.


My school friends brother has finished the Moscow Aviation institute(one of the best in whole USSR) in the 1992 , emigrated in USA and easy was assumed for work in Boing corporation.
Coz his educational level was very high even according the vestern standards.
Yeah, some of the education under the Soviets was very good indeed - particularly in mathematical subjects (which aero engineering definately is - fiercely so). They've slipped a bit since the end of Communism though, largely I suspect because they can't afford to out-bid western universities for the best lecturers.


And i wish to notice that during the entiring studying he got the grant ( about 50 rubles per month) that was enough for good feeding in institutes dining-room.
So in the USSR the condition for eduction was very good.
Yeah, similar things happened in the UK until quite recently - when my dad went through university it was all paid for. Funnily enough, the current crop of politicians who are increasing the cost to students of higher education are the very ones who benefited most from student grants and free education in the 1960s...


Well except the philosophy and political education- that was limited by the Comunist ideology:)
Latterly at least - in the 1930s IIRC even plant genetics research was blighted by political interference!

pdf27
12-09-2007, 08:51 AM
And why was the equvalent need for the british/us army ?
Was the territory britain or USA occuped by the cruel enemy forces?
Absolutely. Why, as recently as 1066 Britain was invaded and occupied by the dastardly French!

Seriously, there are plently of examples from modern history where countries fighting back a deeply unpleasant occupying power didn't feel the need for political officers. Perhaps the most obvious example are France and Belgium during WW2.

Furthermore, the Soviets kept them on even after they were at peace again, indicating that their reason for being was rather more fundamental than simply enemy occupation.

Chevan
12-09-2007, 09:13 AM
No, it wasn't - it was paid for out of general taxation. Is it fair that everybody should pay for my education when I'm the main one to benefit from it?

True - if you going to leave your cauntry after the finishing of institute.
Like the some of dastard jews made in USSR when emigrated in Israel:);)
Indeed the society at all benefit it.
Coz the quantity of the high-education students are directly influe to the all aspects of economy.
Of course the Reality was not so good. In practice the children of the communists boss have the much more chances to make a quick carier.( as everywhere in the world)
Anyway this was very progressive and good to get free ANY education that you want for a beginning.


Yeah, some of the education under the Soviets was very good indeed - particularly in mathematical subjects (which aero engineering definately is - fiercely so).
Not just mathemaical , but any natural science was developed in the USSR enough good.
The nuclear physysts, military engeeners were highly professional.


Yeah, similar things happened in the UK until quite recently - when my dad went through university it was all paid for. Funnily enough, the current crop of politicians who are increasing the cost to students of higher education are the very ones who benefited most from student grants and free education in the 1960s...

Sure they need to increase the paid.
Today in Russia they also constantly spread the bus...t about that this is nessesary for the rising the educatiuonal level.
But we see that the level continiously decrease.

pdf27
12-09-2007, 09:34 AM
Not just mathemaical , but any natural science was developed in the USSR enough good.
The nuclear physysts, military engeeners were highly professional
Sorry, you misunderstand me. All engineering and physics subjects require a lot of maths, so can be described as "mathematical" subjects.

Chevan
12-09-2007, 09:39 AM
Absolutely. Why, as recently as 1066 Britain was invaded and occupied by the dastardly French!

This would never happend if the Edward the Confessor introduce the Istitute of comissars for the Saxon army.:D


Seriously, there are plently of examples from modern history where countries fighting back a deeply unpleasant occupying power didn't feel the need for political officers. Perhaps the most obvious example are France and Belgium during WW2.

...oh now i do understand why both France and Belgium lost each battle with GErmans :)
They had no the political oficers - but GErmans had it;)


Furthermore, the Soviets kept them on even after they were at peace again, indicating that their reason for being was rather more fundamental than simply enemy occupation.
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B0%D1%80_% 28%D0%B2_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B E%D0%BC_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B4 %D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B8%29
The Political commisars were abolished finaly in the 19 october 1942 ( i.e. befor the Stalingrad battle). Since it was called as "Zampolit" - political deputy of chief.
BTW the first political comissras were invented in revolutionary France during the beginning of 19 centure. -this were the people in army who controlled the political loyality of the troops.

Chevan
12-09-2007, 09:40 AM
Sorry, you misunderstand me. All engineering and physics subjects require a lot of maths, so can be described as "mathematical" subjects.

Well i/m agree but it rather right to call it as Natural subjects, it is not?

Chevan
12-09-2007, 10:12 AM
And the equivalent in the US and British armies is ... ?

almost forget..
In the American army during War for Independence there were a special officers who care about political loyality of american soldiers.

Man of Stoat
12-09-2007, 11:28 AM
Nice to see you manage to get an anti-Semitic remark in a discussion about university tuition. That must have taken quite some effort...:roll:

Well done.

Chevan
12-09-2007, 12:11 PM
Nice to see you manage to get an anti-Semitic remark in a discussion about university tuition. That must have taken quite some effort...:roll:

Well done.
There is nothing anti-semitic in my post. Just a bit of sarcasm;)
pdf wrote that the state should not pay for YOUR education.This is fully right in the west.
However it was not so in the USSR.
There if you have got the hight education you should work for this state.
Or please return back the money.
This was quite fair- if you get the free education.The State should profit of you education.
But the jews have the exclusive right to emigrate( although very limited) . They getting the good hight education, and them go to abroad.
So from the point of State - this was wrong coz they simply steal the money that were spend for their education.

Nickdfresh
12-09-2007, 01:32 PM
almost forget..
In the American army during War for Independence there were a special officers who care about political loyality of american soldiers.

No. They were nothing like the Soviet political officers. In fact, I've never heard anything of the kind. There were certain pamphlet writers like Thomas Paine, but the American officers of the period were just mimicking the British Army system and mostly led an untrained rabble until Von Steuben instilled Prussian ethic of discipline and tactics...In fact, much of the fighting on the American side was done by state militias, which barely had any qualified officer leadership at all. And if they did have political officers, then the practice was wholly ineffective since the Continental (US) Army won only a few major battles and they were mostly concerned with survival. In fact, there was a period of crisis in which most of the Continental Army could have essentially "quit" since most of the enlistments ended at the same exact time, but Gen. Washington is said to have given one of his greatest addresses. Great leadership need not be "political," and is indeed superior when it in not expressly political in a partisan sense...

After the Revolution, the US Army was nearly abolished until it was decided that somebody needed to garrison small forts, serve as a training cadre for a larger wartime mobilization, and that military officers were needed so that a class of civil engineers could be trained and kept on a steady US gov't payroll. This was pretty much the US Army's mission, when not at war, for most of decades until shortly after WWII

Rising Sun*
12-10-2007, 05:00 AM
Nice to see you manage to get an anti-Semitic remark in a discussion about university tuition. That must have taken quite some effort...

Nah, it's effortless.

Chevan could do it in his sleep. :D

Rising Sun*
12-10-2007, 05:12 AM
However it was not so in the USSR.
There if you have got the hight education you should work for this state.
Or please return back the money.


If the workers' paradise provided free education to all and sundry, why should anyone have to pay for something that was given away for free just because they took it somewhere the state couldn't use it?

If that principle was to be applied to all Soviet citizens, they'd have to pay for being in gulags where they couldn't use their education and then go back to gulags because they couldn't pay their debt to the state and then build up a bigger debt for their free education and go back to the gulag, ad infinitum

In no time, you'd have gulags full of university educated intellectuals who weren't using their minds the way the state wanted when it educated them.

Ooops. That's sort of what happened, isn't it?

Chevan
12-10-2007, 06:39 AM
If the workers' paradise provided free education to all and sundry, why should anyone have to pay for something that was given away for free just because they took it somewhere the state couldn't use it?

it wasn't "pay for anything".
The state was aimed to give the FREE hight education to the peoples- nothing more.


If that principle was to be applied to all Soviet citizens, they'd have to pay for being in gulags where they couldn't use their education and then go back to gulags because they couldn't pay their debt to the state and then build up a bigger debt for their free education and go back to the gulag, ad infinitum

Again RS Gulag was dismiss by the Khrushev after the 1953:)


In no time, you'd have gulags full of university educated intellectuals who weren't using their minds the way the state wanted when it educated them.

Oh mate you even do not guess how effective the "educated intellectuals" were working in a special Gulag prisons for the ingeneers ans scientists during the war:)
DO you read the Solgenitsyn " In the first circle"?
He carefully wrote about one of "Sharashka" where the prisoners-ingineers worked for the different defence projects.
Even the father of Soviet Rocketry - Sergey Korolev working in Sharashka.

Man of Stoat
12-10-2007, 07:21 AM
There was a National Geographic article back in the early 90s which visited some of the last of the Soviet political prisoners just before the end of communism, and it was alive and well. Okay, so it wasn't the mammoth slave labour organisation it had been under Stalin, but it was still there.

Rising Sun*
12-10-2007, 07:36 AM
DO you read the Solgenitsyn " In the first circle"?


No, but I read Cancer Ward, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, and The Gulag Archipelago a long time ago.

They didn't give the impression that gulags were engaged primarily in rocket science, voluntary or involuntary.

Egorka
12-10-2007, 02:09 PM
Could help posting it in addition to the link to the Chezh army book...

The soviet Red Army officer shouts: Kill them all!!! And they will kill everyone from Bagdad to Paris... :D

http://www.ljplus.ru/img4/k/o/kommari/01-_12_.jpg

And here are more pictures of the enslaved and turned into robot soviet people... (http://kommari.livejournal.com/302317.html)

Panzerknacker
12-10-2007, 02:47 PM
The free education is not the prerrogative of the comunism ideals, the socialism and/or national-democracy (like Argentina) applied in some countries also give the free education and it could include also free health cares....without the "side effects" of communism.

So...who want comunism aniway?

Egorka
12-10-2007, 05:17 PM
Latterly at least - in the 1930s IIRC even plant genetics research was blighted by political interference!

The genetic and cybernetic were declared to be "the hores of capitalism". False science, you know. You see we have to watch out for West trying to plant some faulty ideas int oour heads. We kind of burnt our finger on the Communism thing...

I can tell you even more. For several years until 1933 or so the subject History was excluded from the curriculum. The rationale behind was that history teaches about the past. That past belongs to the sociaety with wrong (bad) social system. Hense there is no need to learn about all those wrong things since we are building a new world. Crazy stuff, huh?

BTW, it is largerly due to Stalin that this line of thinking was dropped. ;) I mean it. It is true.


I figure that four years at Cambridge cost me something like £18,000. ...
- at the current rate I'll be nearly 60 by the time I finish paying for it!
So what will be the price at the end of the payment?
I recon in 30 year with 5% it turns into 35000. And in reality it will be of course higher.

Egorka
12-10-2007, 05:33 PM
Life expectancy stats: http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=106576&postcount=153

Rising Sun*
12-11-2007, 04:18 AM
I can tell you even more. For several years until 1933 or so the subject History was excluded from the curriculum. The rationale behind was that history teaches about the past. That past belongs to the sociaety with wrong (bad) social system. Hense there is no need to learn about all those wrong things since we are building a new world. Crazy stuff, huh?

The opposite has been true here for the past 11 years under a neo-con government of benighted troglodytes.

That government, which thankfully was thrown out a few weeks ago, wanted to impose its own, i.e. its own neo-con party's, view of history on the national primary and secondary curriculums.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/howard-rewrites-history-curriculum/2007/10/11/1191696043599.html

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/05/1062549021882.html

Control of history, whether by refusing to acknowledge it or making it conform with their views, is as much at the heart of fascism as communism. The last thing any of them want is the truth.

Egorka
12-11-2007, 03:48 PM
Control of history, whether by refusing to acknowledge it or making it conform with their views, is as much at the heart of fascism as communism. The last thing any of them want is the truth.
You see, I actually do not think that the removal of History from curriculum was ment to control what people learned. The control was happening later when the subject was restored and still going on. And not only in Russia. ;)

But the reallity was in fact worse than that. Those bolshevics sincerely thought that they do not need history. And if you try to get into their mind you will see that it was logical within the frame of their worldview.

That is why I (following some other smart, in my mind poeple.) give Stalin credit for at least getting away from the Bolshevik's path.

Chevan
12-12-2007, 12:26 AM
The free education is not the prerrogative of the comunism ideals, the socialism and/or national-democracy (like Argentina) applied in some countries also give the free education and it could include also free health cares....without the "side effects" of communism.

So...who want comunism aniway?

Well, true. Not just Soviet socialism was amed to the free education and equal social rights but also and National-Socialism:)
But i do rather doubt they have no its OWN "side effect":)

Egorka
12-12-2007, 02:01 AM
Chevan,

The Scandinavian countries also have free education system. At least in Denmark fo sure.
In Danmark, for example, they have this notion that can be translated as "Welfare Society" or "Welfare state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state)". It is in fact very similar to the ideals of socialism that we had in USSR: free medical care, free education, free elder care and so on. And they try to stick to it as much as they can keeping the capitalist economy going.

As it has been mentioned the word "free" has to be understood properly. Meaning that it has to be payed one way or an other. In case of denmark it is payed after people get jobs and start paying taxes. In case of Denmark it can easily reach 60%. :) I am not kidding.

Chevan
12-12-2007, 03:00 AM
No, but I read Cancer Ward, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, and The Gulag Archipelago a long time ago.

They didn't give the impression that gulags were engaged primarily in rocket science, voluntary or involuntary.
Becouse you did not read his "In Circle First"
Solgenitsyn was prisoned firstly in 1945 into the Special prison" Sharashka" where worked as a Mathematic ( his primary profession).
Howevere soon he was removed to the usial Gulag camp- coz he conflicted with prison administration.
In the GULAG the conditions were much worsen - he was forced to work as a usial prisoners.
The One Day of Life of Ivan Denisovich is one of his bright nowel.
I/m remember i ve read it for the first time - it was a shock.
However today was proved that manies epicodes from this nowel were invented and never had place in camp where he was.
Plus the many his "facts" was proved to be falsificied ( or more softly- invented) by him.
For instance he was asserting the Stalin run away from the Moscow in the 1941- lates opened documents proves this fact as wrong.
His next mistake was a his famouse figures of prisoners 20 mln - is also more then fantastical.
Nevertheless his book were very interersting for reading coz he was first autor how has wrote about GULAG.
His books were the first about this subject - and in the beginning of 1990 when the people have sincerely belived him, nobody want to doubt in what he wrote.
Today the situation is bit complicated - there a lot of materials o historians and p[eoples who were in GULAG who study this matter and the critically analyse the many eposodes of that book.
For instance one of the interesting critical analysis that i found is here (just in russian)
http://lib.aldebaran.ru/author/almazov_v/almazov_v_suka_ty_pozornaya/almazov_v_suka_ty_pozornaya__1.html
The former Zekas ( prisoners) of GULAG discussed the book of Solgenitsyn "Arhipelag GULAG"
This is very interesting for reading.
If you are interesting i could transtalte for you some of more fun threads:)

Egorka
12-12-2007, 05:33 AM
In addition to what Chevan said about Solgenitsyn.
I think his books were needed for his time. But from the today's perspective we can see they are not presice. But again at the time they were writen no statistics and such was avaialble so he used the best sources he could find. Which means mainly rumors and people talks. Unfortunately the impressions (including 20 million figure) that the book left on the minds of the people.

Plus there is an extra dimention about Solgenitsyn that should be considered as well.
Here is translation from the book "Russia 20th century. 1939 - 1964" by Valentin Kozhinov (1930 - 2001),
the chapter "Moscow - Rzhev - Berlin (http://kozhinov.voskres.ru/hist2/glava3.htm)".



These are the well know words said by Solzhenitsin in his "Letter to the leaders of the Soviet Union" (1973) which call to get rid of the ideology unnatural for Russia:

"Stalin from the first days of the war did not count on that roten ideoligical foundation and smartly got rid of it and took the old Russian flag - partly even the Orthodox Christian banner - and we won! (only closer to the end and after the war this communist ideology was again taken out of closet)"
But the things were more complex than that. Stalin displayed that "old Russian flag" very cautiously, in small dozes and did not in reality get rid of the "revolutionary" mindset. It is just enough to mention his speech on 6th of November 1941 where shortly before the victory in the battle for Moscow he put equality sign between "old" Russia and the Nazi Germany!

But an other thing is even more vivid. Self Aleksandr Isaevich [Solzhenitsin] during the war, i.e. 30 years before his "Letter to the leaders of SOviet Union", was openly and seriously unpleased by that very taking out of the "old Russian flag". Because according to his own words "there was time in my youth... when there was such a strong ideological influence that I am being a student and reading Marks, Engels and LEnin thought that I opened great truth... with this mindset I went to the war in 1941."

highly interesting and enlightening the memoirs of his first wife - N.A.Reshetnikova - about the conversations between them in May 1944 (the accuracy of this memoirs is confirmed by Solzhenitsin's own words and by the transcripts of his "trial" in 1945).


«He sais that he sees meaning of all his life in the service to the world revolution. He is not happy with al lthat is going on today. The alliance with Britain and USA (i.e. with capitalistic countires - V.Kozhinov). The Comintern has been dismissed. The national anthem has been changed. In the army the uniform has been changed to resemble the old Russian one. He advised me to buy the book by Marks, Engels and LEnin. It could happened that they may disappear from the shops and the libraries. For all that we would have to fight after the war. And he is ready for that fight.»
But Solzhenitsin did not wait until the end of the war. In the time when all the letter were strictly censored, he accused Stalin of drifting away from Leninism. On the 9th of February 1945 he was arrested and in his papers a portrait of Trotsky was found (he thoght of him as of true Lenin follower)! Later as we know the writer accepted that Stalin was "correct" and even, we have to say, overestimated Stalin's patriotism. Stalin has not been against the ideology, which was expressed in the letter by Solzhenitsin writen by him on the verge of entereing into East Prussia, shortly before his arrest:

"We stand on the borders of 1941. On the border beteen the patriotic war and the revolutionary war." - i.e. the war that was ment in his mind to make Europe communistic, or at least part of Europe...

Rising Sun*
12-12-2007, 07:58 AM
Egorka & Chevan

I don't know what your view is of what the Western view of the USSR and communism was in the past, but there was a great deal of (in my view badly misplaced) sympathy and support for both during all the phases of the Cold War, amid much opposition from the formal elements of most Western governments.

People like Solzhenitsyn gave the conservatives the ammunition they needed to show how communists ran bestial regimes.

Conversely, all the pro-socialist intellectuals, students, etc during the same period in the 1960s-70's were the ones who actually read Solshenitsyn's books from start to finish, and got excited about them, and grew those PITA jaw / chin beards that they modelled on their idea of him, which still infest our universities, along with, thank god, increasingly rare Che Guevara impressions by people who are two generations removed from him and have no idea what a miserable psychopath he was. None of them ever started a movement to stop abuses in the GULAGs, let alone stop people in South America being killed to achieve the communist dream there, although the same people who didn't oppose GULAGs and communist killings in South America, and South Vietnam, vigorously opposed killings by the fascist regimes in those places.

But when it came down to it, none of them ever fought anywhere. Growing suitably impressive beards and other appearances of solidarity with whomever they were being solid with, who were killing whover they were opposed to, mattered more.

Somehow Solzhenitsyn's chronicles of what life was like under communism encouraged a lot of lefties in the West to think it was a great idea and, at the same time, energised them to be concerned about human rights, because he was treated so bady by the regime they wished to see instituted in the West.

Sure, it doesn't make sense, but those people never do.

It was the same sort of mentality that saw a modest poet like Yevgeny Yevtushenko lionised in the West. He could have written the sort of shit that Lawrence Ferlinghetti wrote (and he sometimes did - I say this as someone who followed their so-called poetry at the time and now wonder what particular part of my brain was badly wired then) but jumbled up the words to make it even less impressive, and he still would have been a hero in the West. To people sympathetic to communisim and, perhaps, to the USSR, while supporting a few individuals who opposed and had been oppressed by both communism and the USSR.

As the Americans say: Go figure.

Panzerknacker
12-12-2007, 09:10 AM
Well, true. Not just Soviet socialism was amed to the free education and equal social rights but also and National-Socialism:)
But i do rather doubt they have no its OWN "side effect"


USA, France, UK, Canada, Spain, and a very long etc, provided his citizens of free education, none of those is national socialism country.

The University (College) in Argentina is also free as the healt care and we are not national socialist, so your argument is pretty much Preponderous ( thank you Man of Stoat for teaching me that word ;)) , but probably you now already.

pdf27
12-12-2007, 11:44 AM
So what will be the price at the end of the payment?
I recon in 30 year with 5% it turns into 35000. And in reality it will be of course higher.
Interest is charged at the same rate as the rate of inflation (currently about 2.4% in the UK), so the purchasing power of the money I pay back is the same as that of the money I borrowed. Were I to put the money I borrowed in a bank account I'd actually make a profit.

Egorka
12-12-2007, 04:28 PM
Interest is charged at the same rate as the rate of inflation (currently about 2.4% in the UK), so the purchasing power of the money I pay back is the same as that of the money I borrowed. Were I to put the money I borrowed in a bank account I'd actually make a profit.
Sounds OK.

pdf27
12-12-2007, 04:36 PM
Sounds OK.
Yeah, I actually think it's about as close as you're going to get to a fair system. There were students protesting about it when it was first introduced, but that's like everyone else complains when told they aren't going to get free money any more.

The cost of teaching my degree was subsidised to the extent of about £60,000 or so anyway (I paid £1000/year, tuition fees for overseas students (i.e. not subsidised by the government) plus college fee adds up to about £16,000/year (http://www.cam.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/international/costs.html)). Tuition fees for overseas students will tend to reflect the real cost of teaching a degree by the way - they aren't designed to make a profit.

Chevan
12-13-2007, 01:36 AM
Egorka & Chevan

People like Solzhenitsyn gave the conservatives the ammunition they needed to show how communists ran bestial regimes.

That's the whole problem RS with him.
He was just USED of the west to protray for you the "bestal regime".
Solzenitsyn did not write how the Communism positively helped for the success Straggle of Working class for 8-hours working day, social rights and ets.
How it forced the Capitalist increase the life level its worker in fear of "evill communism".
You will laught may be , but Solzenitsys primary critic at the STalin was for the "go away from Lenins and Marx principles"
Actually, he was prisoned for the first time for that he wrote that to his friend in letter.:)
So indeed he was a MORE communist and bolshevic in that period then many of people around him:)
Later when he emigrated in the West during Cold war- he was ill of n Idea of Ortodoxy Union of all slav states - the form of New Soviet block indeed.
The was a honest when he told that he was AWARDED by the Nobel Prize for the Politic.
He actually was used but the all of rusofobs agains russia ( that have no deal with and exist form ancient Tsar russia times) - we all clearly saw it as when after downfall of communism - the west still move the Nato forward, placed the new bases and nuclear rockets ,support all of separatists in here.
You will laught again- but the American discrimination and limitation in export of certain goods of STILL exist for the Russia.

Chevan
12-13-2007, 01:40 AM
USA, France, UK, Canada, Spain, and a very long etc, provided his citizens of free education, none of those is national socialism country.

Oh common.
You mean the state and privite grants and found who provide the FEW students the paid for education?
How many percent of people could use it in the list of states that you have wrote?
1 or may be 2% ALL OF STUDENTS?
This has nothing familiar that was in the Soviet Union- the guaranty of TOTAL FREE education.

Chevan
12-13-2007, 02:00 AM
Chevan,

The Scandinavian countries also have free education system. At least in Denmark fo sure.
In Danmark, for example, they have this notion that can be translated as "Welfare Society" or "Welfare state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state)". It is in fact very similar to the ideals of socialism that we had in USSR: free medical care, free education, free elder care and so on. And they try to stick to it as much as they can keeping the capitalist economy going.

As it has been mentioned the word "free" has to be understood properly. Meaning that it has to be payed one way or an other. In case of denmark it is payed after people get jobs and start paying taxes. In case of Denmark it can easily reach 60%. :) I am not kidding.
No you are kidding:);)
I could believe in 25-30 well may be 40% taxepays ,but not in 60%:)
If seriously - what wrong wth that mate.
You live in happy welfare state- this is a great.
You worry about taxes- you better calculate how many money could SAVE the usial family in Denmark for Studeing of the for instance three children- and you will be really wonder.
Today the many families in the west and east europe did not want to have the children ( in most cases just single) MOSLTY DUE the experience of good education.You could pay 30% of taxe and feel good:)
May be the someone Scandinavian Abramovich could not buy the one more ****ing british football club - but does it matter of worry for you?:D
You live in a state that did not starts the Space aircrafts, did not have the Lagest world Army that spends a handreds billion dollars for the "Installing of democraty" all over world, and that did not have the Super-rich-bastard capitalist oligarh who getting enjoy of demonstration of ther power and superiority over the simple people.
But you live in the state that could give all of you children the GUARANTY of good education and medical service- do you even realise how should you be happy:)
Make your children be happy:)

Rising Sun*
12-13-2007, 03:29 AM
Solzenitsyn did not write how the Communism positively helped for the success Straggle of Working class for 8-hours working day

Not here, mate.

We had it in 1856, over a decade before Marx even published the first volume of Das Kapital. It was a world first. The commos got the idea from us, along with the idea of the workers' paradise. :D


On 21 April 1856, following negotiations between building tradesmen and contractors and with the approval of the colonial government, an eight hour day was introduced into the building trades in Melbourne.

Two employers, with substantial contracts for public buildings at the Western Market and Parliament House, resisted the new working hours agreement. In response to their intransigency, the stonemasons lead a protest march from University of Melbourne to Parliament House, calling out workers at building sites on the way. Within a fortnight the contractors had given way.

Melbourne's building workers, generally without loss of pay or other conditions, had gained an unprecedented widespread and sustainable victory. Their achievement established a national and international standard to which working people everywhere could aspire. It was widely celebrated as a world first and formed the basis of Australia's reputation as a 'workingman's paradise'.
http://eherald.alp.org.au/articles/0406/maghistory12-01.php

There's still a monument in my city, Melbourne, to achieving the 8 hour day. Because of its great significance to the labour movement here, it's often a rallying point for important labour causes and demonstrations. There's a couple of images of it on the right here http://www.takver.com/wharfie/melb04.htm
I'm somewhere in that crowd. I'm surprised that my handsome face doesn't stand out. :D

Close up of the top of the monument. 888 refers to the demand for eight hours labour, eight hours recreation, eight hours rest

http://www.vthc.org.au/storage/images/eight_hour_day_globe.jpg

More info here.
http://www.vthc.org.au/index.cfm?Category=131&section=2&contentid=2189&viewmode=content

Man of Stoat
12-13-2007, 03:43 AM
You have some very twisted views... "How it forced the Capitalist increase the life level its worker in fear of "evill communism"."? WTF?

How is it in any way moral that somebody else has a right to more of my money than I do? a "happy welfare state"? where people who don't want to work don't have to, and those that work have to pay for them? where billions of pounds are poured into a bottomless health care system which is significantly worse than the insurance based schemes in nearby countries? and for education, have you seen the ridiculous things you can study at university these days? So no, you have no GUARANTEE of either a good education or a good medical service.

As for your idea of saving money, let's do some simple maths:

Let's say the usual family earned €60.000 gross. 60% of this is 36.000.
Let's also say that university fees are 20.000 per year. Three children is unrealistic, let's make it two (it's more likely 1.4). Each child studies for three years, so that is 120.000 in total. This equates to 3.3 years worth of taxes, yet they will be paying these taxes over their whole working life, and on their pension.

Let's put this another way. A family earns 60.000, and pays 60% tax. This means that they are paying 3000 per month in tax (that's just income-tax, not including sales tax which is 25% in Denmark). This also means that, is both members of the working couple earn the same,1 of them is working solely to pay tax. What's on this earth justifies such an "average" family paying €3000 a month of their income into a bottomless pit? What are they get in return?

Let's look further: over their working lives they will pay 1.26 million in tax. In return, they will get 120.000 in university education for their kids, say 420.000 in health care (based on a family insurance policy costing €1000 a month which is probably 3 times too high than in reality), say approximately 130.000 in school education for their kids. This leaves 590.000 to pay for occasional road maintenance not covered by Council tax, defence, police, chavs and politicians. If we take a more realistic value of a health insurance policy, we are left with 870.000. this latter figure equates to about 25.000 per year, or 70% of the tax paid. So you are getting "value" for something around 30% of that 60% tax that you pay, the rest goes into the big bottomless money pit.

Doesn't look like good value to me...

Rising Sun*
12-13-2007, 04:22 AM
Oh common.
You mean the state and privite grants and found who provide the FEW students the paid for education?
How many percent of people could use it in the list of states that you have wrote?
1 or may be 2% ALL OF STUDENTS?
This has nothing familiar that was in the Soviet Union- the guaranty of TOTAL FREE education.

Not every Soviet citizen went to university.

It was still based on ability, wasn't it?

We had a totally free education system here, including university, for about 15 years from the early seventies until the late eighties. It was introduced by a nominally socialist (Labor Party) government and ended by another one, nominally of the same brand but much less socialist. Before that, the conservative government opened up a lot of opportunities for people to get into university on merit based scholarships. Which, frankly, was a better system, because you had to prove your ability before you got the university place rather than believing you were entitled to it as a birthright, no matter how dumb you were. (Maybe I'm biased, because I got in on a scholarship on the merit based system, as did my father in a much harder time when there were very few scholarships.)

The reason we moved to part payment by students in the late eighties was because the universities expanded to accommodate all the students kept in secondary school by the nominally socialist government to keep the unemployment figures down, because the governmet was busy buggering the economy so that unskilled and semi-skilled jobs were being exported to cheap labour countries and early school leavers didn't have any jobs to go.

The cost of running the universities to fiddle with the employment rates became an increasingly heavy burden on the national budget so students had to pay for government stupidity in creating the belief that any idiot could get into university, and allowing it to happen.

The end result is that you now need a university degree for a lot of basic clerical type jobs that you would have got thirty years ago with four or five years of secondary education. So you start work about four or five years later, during which time you're not only unproductive but a drain on the community through living allowance schemes.

And the system has been dumbed down to accommodate people who shouldn't be in universities, not to mention full fee paying students who can buy a degree if they have enough money and a modicum of academic ability, which wasn't shown in their pre-university marks otherwise they would have got a government funded place with a much lower student contribution.

Man of Stoat
12-13-2007, 04:42 AM
That's basically what happened in Britain as well.

Either you keep university exclusive on the basis of academic achievement and fully fund it, recognising that the people that pass through university will benefit the economy enormously by the increased taxes they will pay (paying for their education many times over) and the contributions they will make to economic growth through applying their education; or you make it one great free-for-all fuster cluck of non-degrees required to get the most menial of clerical jobs and have students pay for it either upfront or through loans/deferred payment.

Unfortunately, they have chosen the latter route.

My ideal model is:

20% of the school leaving population gets fully funded places, grants, and so on based exclusively on merit. No means testing, no discriminating in favour of the Labour voting demographic: purely on merit.And these are for proper, "hard" subjects, not textile design or underwater basket weaving.
anyone else who wants to go is free to do so, but pays for it (either upfront or loans or deferred, or whatever. I don't want to argue the details, because frankly university is not for this demographic and they should have done something more practical. If you consider yourself a "late Bloomer" academically, and 18 or 19 is pretty damn late, then you can consider whether it is worth the investment that you will have to make personally to get that degree).

" celebrity studies" at Luton University on grades of two E's is a waste of everybody's time, effort, and money, and R. S. is quite right to point out that it is done to keep young people off the unemployment figures as long as possible.

Rising Sun*
12-13-2007, 04:56 AM
So you are getting "value" for something around 30% of that 60% tax that you pay, the rest goes into the big bottomless money pit

What's your point?

That governments should give value for money?

Think what would happen to the economy if all those little public service piglets were suddenly shaken off the gorged public tit.

It'd be a nightmare, all those useless, unemployable people wandering the streets, causing trouble.

I mean, what would happen if soldiers, real working soldiers, were given control of equipment standards?

They wouldn't get the great service they do now from the competent and dedicated public servants and public servant type military officials, as revealed by these testimonials.

There's a degree of journalistic sensationalism in these articles, but the grunts' complaints they record have been a theme for many years.

(Check the bold red in the first item. Code for: Or they don't get back into Oz.)


Faulty gear puts troops at riskCameron Stewart and Michael McKinnon
The Australian February 11, 2006

THE safety of Australian troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, including the elite SAS force, has been compromised by defective body armour, combat jackets and helmets, according to damning Defence Department documents.

The faults include combat jackets that glow in the dark, giving enemies an easy target, and body armour that cracks easily.

The helmets issued to soldiers have harnesses that are "worn, rusted and damaged" and are shaped in a way that makes it "impossible to sight a live claymore (landmine) in the prone position" while wearing them.

The documents reveal that the safety of SAS members -- on deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan -- has been compromised by body armour that does not match the grey colour of their wetsuits for underwater operations.

In one case, a protective vest called Ultima issued to soldiers was so faulty its use was "suspended immediately" for troops at home. But those in the field were forced to wear the vest until a replacement became available.

"The operational use of the armour is to be suspended as soon as practicable," the reports say.

The Defence documents were obtained by The Weekend Australian under Freedom of Information laws following a successful challenge in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

They contain a comprehensive log of defects, reported by troops at home and overseas, in combat armour, combat jackets, helmets, combat packs and boots.

The reports reveal that faulty equipment is a more serious and widespread problem than has been admitted by the Government, at times jeopardising the operations and safety of troops.

A Defence spokesman yesterday defended the performance of the Defence Materiel Organisation, the agency that buys combat gear, saying it had followed "strict government procurement guidelines".

"Army is committed to continual development and improvement of combat clothing and personal equipment," he said.

The documents warn that the new combat jackets issued to troops not only failed to offer camouflage protection but were "highly visible". "It appears as a bright glowing beacon when observed through night-fighting equipment," the reports say.

They reveal that no combat jackets fit women. "Females are forced to wear a jacket several sizes too big to accommodate hips. This leads to sleeves completely covering hands."

The jackets were highly flammable and collected such an amount of "dirt, sticks and *****les" in the field that they would be "unsuitable for operations overseas, due to the likelihood of AQIS (Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service) requiring complete removal of all plant matter".

The documents say the combat body armour used by troops in Iraq was faulty, with the plastic clips used to fasten the vest to the torso "continually fracturing and breaking". And the ballistic body plates designed to stop small arms fire were subject to cracking at the front and the back.

The reports warn that the helmets used by the SAS were poorly designed because, during night assaults with aerial fire, soldiers were forced to use tape to attach strobe lights to the helmets to aid target identification.

"This affects operational performance and safety," they say.

Soldiers on home duties complained that the older army helmets were "severely dented" and trapped the heat, potentially causing overheating.

There were serious problems with field combat packs, blamed for "causing multiple back injuries" and for being too small for operations in East Timor.

Soldiers reported that poorly designed combat boots led to large blisters, with one soldier saying: "It takes a good deal ofmy blood to soak into the leather to make them more comfortable."

Opposition defence spokesman Robert McClelland said last night the Government must explain why troops were so ill-equipped.

"The Howard Government's defence spending priorities have become outrageously skewed when they are willing to have a billion-dollar open chequebook for Iraq while our dedicated serving men and women are equipped with badly designed clothing and faulty gear."


Enemy is in Canberra, say Diggers
Michael McKinnon and Cameron Stewart
The Australian February 13, 2006

BLOOD-filled boots and sodden jackets infested with maggots force thousands of Australian soldiers a year to buy their own military equipment.

Some soldiers with combat experience in Afghanistan and Iraq say an enemy exists in the Defence Department's Russell Office in Canberra -- the bureaucrats who buy the flawed and faulty equipment.

Military equipment supplier Crossfire, based at Braidwood, near Canberra, meets some of the demand from soldiers who say they are "disgusted and demoralised" by poor equipment issued by the Defence Department.

Speaking from a military show in Las Vegas, Crossfire manager Peter Marshall said his company was a big contractor to the Defence Department, with "substantial sales directly to units and to individual soldiers".

"I have spoken to thousands of soldiers who all say they cannot operate at full efficiency because of poor equipment. This failure places their lives at risk," he said.

"There are major problems with retention, and I know soldiers who have reluctantly left the army because they are fed up with a system that doesn't value them as soldiers.

"A soldier's kit -- the backpack, boots, helmets and other equipment -- is their workplace."

Mr Marshall said the problem was not with the whole department but with its combat clothing office, which had failed to seek private-sector advice, produced flawed designs and run inappropriate tendering processes.

A senior army officer, with experience in the area, called yesterday for the combat clothing office to be scrapped.

The officer, who wished to remain anonymous, said some soldiers believed bureaucrats were as much an enemy as insurgents in Iraq.

"The Defence Department's combat clothing area designs equipment in-house. We don't do that with fighter planes -- instead we check and compare the best private industry has to offer," the officer said.

"Soldiers get the equipment, put it in the cupboard and buy their own.

"We cannot believe the generals and the Defence Minister would allow this to continue if they really knew the truth."

Rising Sun*
12-13-2007, 04:57 AM
Billions lost in Defence black hole
Katharine Murphy, Canberra
The Australian December 27, 2006

DAYS after the Defence Department launched an inquiry into fears that criminals have gained access to army shoulder-fired rocket launchers, the Auditor-General has found it cannot adequately account for inventory and "repairable items" worth $3.9 billion.

An annual investigation of government agencies by the Australian National Audit Office concludes that Defence has breached federal financial management controls.

The Auditor-General, Ian McPhee, also criticised the $8.7 billion Defence Materiel Organisation, the body responsible for managing defence equipment.

The audit office found the DMO had opened and operated foreign bank accounts without official approval and had "inadvertently" allowed one such account to go into the red.

The DMO had also "artificially fixed" the exchange rate when buying equipment for Australian troops overseas, a practice that caused the value of projects to be "misstated".

The value of one such project, the Australian light armoured vehicle capability, was overstated by $23 million.

The project was subsequently transferred from the DMO back to the Defence Department. The practice has since ceased.

The ongoing problems with Defence accounts follow two recent controversies involving the possible theft of specialist military equipment.

Defence Minister Brendan Nelson last week called in ASIO and the secretive Defence Security Authority to carry out a security audit, after concerns that criminals may have gained access to shoulder-fired 66-millimetre rocket launchers from army stores.

The audit office's conclusions on defence accounts are contained in its yearly review of the financial statements of government businesses and agencies, which was released just before Christmas.

The auditor says Defence has made some important improvements in its record-keeping and accountability during the past year.

But the audit office warns that despite recent improvement, which has seen Defence accounts cleared as "true and fair" apart from the inventories of general and repairable items, there is still much that should be done.

"Notwithstanding the significant reduction in uncertainty over some Defence balances in 2005-06, there remains significant uncertainty in relation to the two material line items within the Defence financial statements," it says.

The audit office says Defence will need to maintain its current commitment to improving accountability in order to secure a clean bill of health.
.....

Man of Stoat
12-13-2007, 05:32 AM
Looks like the colony is doing it just about as well as the mother country then...

Interesting factoid: it costs roughly the same to send a child to a state school as it does to send a child to a middle-of-the-road private day school in Britain. The results, however, are striking: the private school will have significantly better facilities, better discipline, better teaching, and better results. Why? Because of the approximately 7000 pounds a year per child, the private school sees all of it, whereas the local education authority siphons a whole lot of that off into its unnecessary bureaucracy.

You have a sort of voucher system in Australia, don't you? Whereby a portion of the money that would have been spent from the public coffers on a state school for your child can be paid to a private school instead? Sweden, of all places, operates such a system, and I can see no downside to it.

Rising Sun*
12-13-2007, 05:43 AM
" celebrity studies" at Luton University on grades of two E's is a waste of everybody's time, effort, and money, and R. S. is quite right to point out that it is done to keep young people off the unemployment figures as long as possible.

And, Ta Da!, what's missing from the whole picture?

Technical education.

Went to buggery in the seventies and since, because it was class discirimination to consign kids to technical schools when everybody is equal and shouldn't be denied university education.

Got thrown out with well-meaning (Was it Oscar Wilde? Sam Johnson? who said something like "He said the worst you can say of any man. He meant well."?) egalitarian ideas, that everybody is equal.

Wrong. Everybody is born nominally equal. And entitled to equal consideration and rights, nominally. Everybody is not capable of equal achievement.

So we saw technical colleges that awarded certificates and diplomas boost themselve into colleges of advanced education that awarded diplomas and degrees and then into universities which awarded degrees, in such academically challenging subjects as Gendering Communication which, hardly surprsingly, has no prerequisites (apart, probably, from being a fat arse sheila in overalls who lets her hair grow wild everywhere except on her close cropped head - it makes sense to them).


Prerequisite(s) Nil.

Content This unit of study will enable students to engage with some of the gendered and engendering relations of communication by addressing the central question: How do different forms of communication reproduce and/or create different ideas of being male and female? There will be an ongoing emphasis on the intersections of gender with intercultural differences. The unit is organised around four broad themes: interpersonal, workplace, development, and media communication. http://wcf.vu.edu.au/Handbook/index.cfm?ViewAZSubjectsList=ViewAZSubjectsList&HandBookID=7&Level1ID=13&Level2ID=63&Level3ID=324&CFID=823705&CFTOKEN=18280538

Yep. That looks like just the sort of subject that'd be full of the intellectual rigorous assessment of empirical evidence and careful research that modern universities exist to teach. What's more, at item 54 in the link, it comes up as postgraduate! I'd love to see the prequisites for an undergraduate version. Passed kindergarten drawing in crayons and butcher's paper?

And just to show what a pedantic ***** I can be, and how useless those so-called academics are, 'engendering' makes no sense in that quote. 'Engage with ... engendering relations of communication' WTF does that mean? And WTF does the rest of that subject description mean?

Sweet FA.

Like so much of the bullshit that passes nowadays for university education.

Meanwhile the technical institutes still turn out carpenters who can build houses and plumbers who can plumb houses, and so on. And the technical institutes get bugger all money from our government or industry, which are forever bemoaning the lack of skilled tradesmen, because it suits both to avoid the cost of training and bring them in from China etc through slavelords who rent them out to industry at huge rates while they're living ten to a room in some shitty house.

So the government moans about the technical skills shortage while doing nothing to alleviate it with local skills, while pouring money into engendering communications that are beyond comprehension.

If any of it makes sense, please explain.

Man of Stoat
12-13-2007, 06:43 AM
I'm having a random flick through the course offerings at British universities, and some of them are just ridiculous:

Architectural glass,3 years BA
stained-glass restoration and conversation,3 years BA
green space management,3 years MSC
Pop music performance,3 years BMus
of course gender studies,3 years BA

and that was just the ones that jumped out at me under "G."

Have a browse of this: http://search.ucas.co.uk/cgi-bin/hsrun/search/search/StateId/Rp1x8GEd_HQF3HZ0tViLYxU-RXrFq-4LJm/HAHTpage/search.HsKeywordSearch.run?letter=A

Rising Sun*
12-13-2007, 06:56 AM
Looks like the colony is doing it just about as well as the mother country then...

I hope not, or Britain is rooted.


Interesting factoid: it costs roughly the same to send a child to a state school as it does to send a child to a middle-of-the-road private day school in Britain. The results, however, are striking: the private school will have significantly better facilities, better discipline, better teaching, and better results. Why? Because of the approximately 7000 pounds a year per child, the private school sees all of it, whereas the local education authority siphons a whole lot of that off into its unnecessary bureaucracy.

I think it has a lot more to do with the sort of parents who send their kids to schools like that.

Don't know what you call them up there, but we call them bogans. Archetype is a dole bludging no-hoper with flannel check shirt and stretch jeans, never had a job, left school about year 8 or 9, lives in parents' publicly funded house and aims for own, heard of contraception but couldn't be bothered with it, ****s everything it can, and breeds indiscriminately from the age of thirteen onwards. And that's only the women, because it seems like a good deal to be paid for it when they never got paid for nuthin before wen dey was doin nuthin at skule, dude.

Exceptions are, and there are many, those who are born into that and do the common parent thing of wanting their children to have what they didn't, and to do better than them.

You can get government schools in crappy areas who get a group of parents like that running it and they do wonders, with the help of some great teachers. Here's a school that tries to avoid young mothers turning into no-hopers http://www.abc.net.au/plumpton/stories/s791244.htm

My experience as a parent who's funded a couple of private schools is that, like government schools, it depends upon the school, and even the teachers a kid gets in a school. Crap schools have good years in lucky succession, and vice versa. My house would be in much better condition if I hadn't wasted a lot of my money on a private school for my son, staffed largely by refugees from the public system who couldn't handle anything that didn't salute a flagpole or any other symbol of authority. I never understood why they thought it was time to bring the parents in if the kid wasn't doing his homework but we didn't think we had to bring the teachers in about issues at home. Why is it the parents' problem if Johnny isn't doing the homework the teachers want him to do at home but it's not the teachers' problem if Johnny isn't eating what his parents want him to eat at school? Our parent interview in the naughty room was, in every instance, an admission of failure by the teachers, but they tried to put it onto the parents. Not impressed.


You have a sort of voucher system in Australia, don't you? Whereby a portion of the money that would have been spent from the public coffers on a state school for your child can be paid to a private school instead? Sweden, of all places, operates such a system, and I can see no downside to it.

Not in my state, nor I think in other states. We have a system of federal government grants to private and government schools in each state, but there's a lot of debate about whether the allocation is fair. Here's one summary http://www.theage.com.au/news/education-news/to-fee-or-be-free-that-is-the-question/2007/02/09/1170524304560.html
Personally, it amazes me how private schools are always crying poor but buying up everything in their area at huge prices. No doubt funded by the endless building funds to which their pupils' parents are expected to contribute, more or less at gunpoint in some cases, on top of fees that'd bankrupt most people.

The voucher system has been proposed regularly, but its only proponents are those who want to get direct personal funding to use to defray private school fees. Here's a conservative's view of it. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,22771407-7583,00.html?from=public_rss

Man of Stoat
12-13-2007, 07:02 AM
When my kids are of homework age, and don't want to do their homework, I will make it my problem to get them to do it purely because I want what's best for them. This is thinking ahead somewhat, since the first one is due in a couple of weeks... screaming thing here we come!

Education doesn't stop at the school gate, and parents have a duty to encourage children to make use of the educational facilities made available to them, and that includes homework.

Egorka
12-13-2007, 07:15 AM
When my kids are of homework age, and don't want to do their homework, I will make it my problem to get them to do it purely because I want what's best for them. This is thinking ahead somewhat, since the first one is due in a couple of weeks... screaming thing here we come!

Education doesn't stop at the school gate, and parents have a duty to encourage children to make use of the educational facilities made available to them, and that includes homework.

First one... he-he-he... You are about to be surprised, my frined!
I have been blessed three times already.

Rising Sun*
12-13-2007, 07:19 AM
I'm having a random flick through the course offerings at British universities, and some of them are just ridiculous:

Architectural glass,3 years BA
stained-glass restoration and conversation,3 years BA
green space management,3 years MSC
Pop music performance,3 years BMus
of course gender studies,3 years BA

and that was just the ones that jumped out at me under "G."

Have a browse of this: http://search.ucas.co.uk/cgi-bin/hsrun/search/search/StateId/Rp1x8GEd_HQF3HZ0tViLYxU-RXrFq-4LJm/HAHTpage/search.HsKeywordSearch.run?letter=A

Try this.


Bachelor of Arts
(Outdoor Education)
The course prepares students for
teaching and leading in fields relevant to
outdoor education including adventure
guiding and environmental education.
Students participate in 140 days of
outdoor field work during the course.
Core fieldwork units include:
Bushwalking
Paddling
Rock climbing
Naturalist studies
The theoretical aspects of
the program include:
Environmental science studies
Outdoor education concepts drawn from psychology, education,
eco-psychology, environmental
ethics and eco-philosophy.Careers in Outdoor Education
Teaching in school based programs
Outdoor or environmental education
centres such as the Bogong Outdoor
Education Centre. (Currently 8
of 11 employees are La Trobe
Outdoor Education graduates).
Freelance outdoor instructors
http://www.latrobe.edu.au/education/downloads/brochures/BAOutEd(Bgo)2007.pdf

eco-psychology? WTF is that? When you can hear the trees talking to you, in a leafy call for help? Or vice versa?

environmental ethics? Please dispose of your rubbish thoughtfully? Bears shouldn't shit in the woods?

eco-philosophy? Yes. Wittgenstein was big on this, as was Hegel, but Aristotle wasn't the full bottle.

Rising Sun*
12-13-2007, 07:24 AM
First one... he-he-he... You are about to be surprised, my frined!

Oh, yes.


I have been blessed three times already.

When they hit their teens, it seems less like blessed and more like cursed. :D

Rising Sun*
12-13-2007, 07:45 AM
When my kids are of homework age, and don't want to do their homework, I will make it my problem to get them to do it purely because I want what's best for them.

Why is homework best for them?

Why do schools run from nine to three or so, and then send kids home to do two hours homework when the rest of us work nine to five?

And expect parents to supervise homework after we've worked nine to five, often a lot more, and the teachers haven't?

What other supposedly professional body requires untrained people to supervise the work that professionals do? Have you ever heard of a radiologist sending patients home to do their own X rays, or a teacher getting an illiterate moron (apart from another teacher) to correct students' work?

Where is the evidence that doing homework helps kids' education?

Name ten teachers you know who love setting and correcting homework.

As for the "It's training for work, because when you're working for a living you'll have to do after hours work" argument, show how any of these people do their normal primary work at home, after they've finished for the day:

Restaurant waiter

Biscuit cutter on production line

Airline pilot

Public service payroll clerk

Motorbike courier

Bricklayer

Train driver

This comes from one of the large band of parents who've learnt that 90% of household conflict comes from trying to get your kids to do homework that nobody in the house gives a shit about, and that doesn't matter in the end even to the teachers.

Man of Stoat
12-13-2007, 08:04 AM
Many good questions, however you are talking to someone who did his homework at school...

The point of homework is reinforcing, and committing to long-term memory, things learned during school hours. I certainly found it useful, particularly as it freed up lesson time for proper teaching rather than doing exercises.

If it was genuinely a waste of time, and proven to be so, it wouldn't be set, would it?

pdf27
12-13-2007, 08:10 AM
eco-psychology? WTF is that? When you can hear the trees talking to you, in a leafy call for help? Or vice versa?
Conning Greenpeace types into giving you lots of extra money!


environmental ethics? Please dispose of your rubbish thoughtfully?
Pretty much, I suspect. These things are occasionally useful to give you a template by which you can assess new ideas and work your way through the marketing bull****. If you understand the conceptual framework upon which all the various regulations are based, you will be able to adapt to new ones more easily.

Rising Sun*
12-13-2007, 03:18 PM
Many good questions, however you are talking to someone who did his homework at school...

I didn't, and it freed up a lot more of my valuable time. :D


If it was genuinely a waste of time, and proven to be so, it wouldn't be set, would it?

Yes, it would. The problem isn't that it's proven to be a waste of time but, like so much in education, there's nothing to prove that it's worthwhile, apart from custom and belief.


Kohn takes many of the things we assume about homework and shreds them, showing over and over how little research there is to back up all the accepted theories. . . . [He] chip[s] away at the conventional thinking that homework improves achievement, that homework improves grades, that homework builds character and all the other things we've heard about it since we were doing it . . . Worse, [it] may have the adverse effect of dulling a child's interest in learning altogether. http://www.alfiekohn.org/books/hm.htm

Chevan
12-17-2007, 01:36 AM
You have some very twisted views... "How it forced the Capitalist increase the life level its worker in fear of "evill communism"."? WTF?

Oh common.
I hope you will not deny the fact that the capitalists were forced to give the additional concessions for western workers and trade-unions.
And do not forget that after the collaps of the USSR the comon world tend is that THEY DO NOT want to do it any more.:)
As the resault: the Richest goes more rich , the poorest- more poor.
Is it not so -do you want to say?


How is it in any way moral that somebody else has a right to more of my money than I do? a "happy welfare state"? where people who don't want to work don't have to, and those that work have to pay for them? where billions of pounds are poured into a bottomless health care system which is significantly worse than the insurance based schemes in nearby countries? and for education, have you seen the ridiculous things you can study at university these days? So no, you have no GUARANTEE of either a good education or a good medical service.

As for your idea of saving money, let's do some simple maths:

Let's say the usual family earned €60.000 gross. 60% of this is 36.000.
Let's also say that university fees are 20.000 per year. Three children is unrealistic, let's make it two (it's more likely 1.4). Each child studies for three years, so that is 120.000 in total. This equates to 3.3 years worth of taxes, yet they will be paying these taxes over their whole working life, and on their pension.

Let's put this another way. A family earns 60.000, and pays 60% tax. This means that they are paying 3000 per month in tax (that's just income-tax, not including sales tax which is 25% in Denmark). This also means that, is both members of the working couple earn the same,1 of them is working solely to pay tax. What's on this earth justifies such an "average" family paying €3000 a month of their income into a bottomless pit? What are they get in return?

Really simple mathematic:)
I do not know where the 60% of tax come from
But i offer you the other way of math.
More simple:)
Lest consider as the constant the 20 000 the coast of GOOD hight education per year. i.e about 100 000 for 5 years in SUM.
And the same figure 20 000 - the average earned pay for the every WORKING man.
Lets calculate what summ the any one need to get the hight education for ONE of ther child.
As we know the avarage time of active working life is roughtly 40 years, right ( since 20 untill 60).
During his life his earned about 20 000* 40 years = 800 000, right.
So he need to pay about 1/8 part of his total profit for the getting the HIGHT EDUCATION for one of his child.
I.e. the ONE average family needs about 12,5% of his total income to cover the pay for hight education for TWO of thier children.
But as you said the average family HAS 1.4 child, besides NOT ALL OF THEM wish to get the hight education - right?I think if 30% of them wish - this is very good, but OK lets 50% of them dream about hight education for their children.
So you need :
1.4 (usial children per family) /(2 children per family that we considered) * 50% (who want the high education) * 12.5 %( tax per family that have 2 childrens as we have counted) = 4,3%
So if you pay the ADDITIONAL 5% OF TAX to the tax that you usially pay for the state - this is a real cost for the GUARANTED HIGHT EDUCATION FOR EVERYBODY WHO WANT IT
Is it enough simple math for you?
and ...
Does it too many for he guaranty that ALL of YOUR children will get the GOOD EDUCATION?


Let's look further: over their working lives they will pay 1.26 million in tax. In return, they will get 120.000 in university education for their kids, say 420.000 in health care (based on a family insurance policy costing €1000 a month which is probably 3 times too high than in reality), say approximately 130.000 in school education for their kids. This leaves 590.000 to pay for occasional road maintenance not covered by Council tax, defence, police, chavs and politicians. If we take a more realistic value of a health insurance policy, we are left with 870.000. this latter figure equates to about 25.000 per year, or 70% of the tax paid. So you are getting "value" for something around 30% of that 60% tax that you pay, the rest goes into the big bottomless money pit.

bottomless money pit?
it seems you even did not guess about whole problem with it?
the GUARANTED free education could solve the principle problem of the west - to INCREACE ITS OWN POPULATION and improve the demography of society.
Coz instead of 1.4 children per family ( due to the expensive education) the awerage western family coud "produce" the 2-3 if they WILL SURE about GUARANTY of FREE good education and medical service.
So instead of the million of cheap half-criminal emigrants ready for any work that the capitalist so like to use - you could reach the increace of own population that will enough educated and could succesfully fight for their rights and finaly beat the capitalist:)
So this is rather a DEMAGOGY and propoganda to say that the FREE education is VERY EXPENSIVE for the state- coz the ELITE do not need the additional competition that could threat for ther ***.
In practice in many cases the spoilt children of Superichest who has anything in ther life that they could even dreamed - goes to the prestige departments( like the finantial, juridical and foreign affairs) of Garward, Yel and Oxfords to make a fool coz they even do not need to study something;)
From other hans a lot of people who lost their health working hard during all of their life - in dream that their children will live a bit better than they.


Doesn't look like good value to me...
Well if the nation healt, education and demography is not a good value for you:)
I could understand the capitalist- they need a money.So they prefer better the crowd of cheap emigrants, or to invest the money abroad in Asia and China.
Are you one of them?;)
P.S. and something more about bottomless money pit?
Do you accidentally know how many billion of dollars have stealed the sadly know company Halliberton from the American Armyes budget in Iraq?
And this is in the state - that "counts any cent".
Does this money pit worry you so much as the cost of equal social right?

Chevan
12-17-2007, 01:41 AM
Not here, mate.

We had it in 1856, over a decade before Marx even published the first volume of Das Kapital. It was a world first. The commos got the idea from us, along with the idea of the workers' paradise. :D



OK maybe it was heppend not here mate.
But in rest of the western world the social-democratic movenment fight for the working class guaranties enough succesfull, was it not?
And capitalist was forced to direct the part of thier super-profits to improve the conditions and guaranties for workers.

Kato
12-17-2007, 12:28 PM
Posted by Chevan

it seems you even did not guess about whole problem with it?
the GUARANTED free education could solve the principle problem of the west - to INCREACE ITS OWN POPULATION and improve the demography of society.
Coz instead of 1.4 children per family ( due to the expensive education) the awerage western family coud "produce" the 2-3 if they WILL SURE about GUARANTY of FREE good education and medical service.

The majority of Western countries guarantees free education for their citizens. What's more there are opporunities for foreign students to get free education there.

Statistics testifies that the level of education and high living standards in a state are usually reversely proportional to birth rates.

I think demographic problems in white countries and some others like Japan are mainly caused by modern ways of life and work, career obsession among females etc.

Chevan
12-18-2007, 12:21 AM
The majority of Western countries guarantees free education for their citizens. What's more there are opporunities for foreign students to get free education there.

May be you mean the free AVERAGE education but this is wrong for the high.
Coz even the members of our forum have to use credits to pay for hight education ,as pdf did .


Statistics testifies that the level of education and high living standards in a state are usually reversely proportional to birth rates.

I think demographic problems in white countries and some others like Japan are mainly caused by modern ways of life and work, career obsession among females etc.

Well i/m agree.
The demography problem caused not just expensive education of life but also and human prejudices.
However both those reasons are VERY related. The common tend for all of western states today is the increasing of the cost of living- so many people simply did not wish to "lose the additional money" for bringing up children.The most likely way of thinking of the famaly that had just SINGLE child is "The cost of living is so much that ONE children is enough for our budget"