Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2012/12/06 20:18:56
Subject: I accidentally 30 million people. Is this a dangrous political system?
Kovnik Obama wrote:Marx ended up endorsing the idea of a violent revolution as the only mean to End history (of class conflict).
Marx endorsed that idea to start that process. He then planned on using the Dictatorship of the Proletariat to facilitate future Communist generations. I wasn't talking about his ideas on how to get the ball rolling, merely how to implement a wider societal change.
Kovnik Obama wrote:The communist society is principally defined by the fact that people freely associate and are free to pursue their own aims, something which isn't likely to happen in 3rd world countries.
No, communist society is principally defined by there being a classless society, where the means of production are owned by the state. In all honesty, I do not recall reading that in the [/i]Communist Manifesto[i].
Kovnik Obama wrote:The Bolchevik Revolution wasn't the Communist Revolution.
Never said it was, and never made that comparison. I thinks you are implying a bit to much. Give me more credit then that! I may have been absent from the OTF for a while, but I am still at least moderately capable!
DR:80+S(GT)G++M++B-I++Pwmhd05#+D+++A+++/sWD-R++T(Ot)DM+ How is it they live in such harmony - the billions of stars - when most men can barely go a minute without declaring war in their minds about someone they know.
- St. Thomas Aquinas
Warhammer 40K:
Alpha Legion - 15,000 pts For the Emperor!
WAAAGH! Skullhooka - 14,000 pts
Biel Tan Strikeforce - 11,000 pts
"The Eldar get no attention because the average male does not like confetti blasters, shimmer shields or sparkle lasers."
-Illeix
2012/12/06 20:19:47
Subject: I accidentally 30 million people. Is this a dangrous political system?
p_gray99 wrote: Roman democrasy largely failed, and it had a biased system anyway. Plus, since even Churchill stated that democracy's a bad system, you simply can't say it's perfect without being delusional. Communism, if it works, is.
The Romans did not have a Democracy. They had a Republic.
It was largely based on money and how well you were in favor with the sitting members of the Senate. The Senate was basically a semi-fluid group of nobles that made the laws.
The only check and balance the system had, as well as input, was how well the publics opinion of you was. If they liked you, you would do well because the other Senators wouldn't dare oppose you. For fear of Riots against them.
It was how loud the public screamed at you and if they were nice screams or screams of hatred.
They had a democracy. Everyone had a vote towards who ruled them, a bit like the democracies of today. Those that were more influential had a more powerful vote, arguably like the democracies of today. Everyone could be the leader if they did well enough, as shown by Cicero. Arguably it was a system very similar to ours, and it fell apart.
Clean up your post, OP. I have no idea what you're asking, or what the point of this thread is.
Communism, just like socialism, sounds great, but only in theory. It's assumed that leaders won't be corrupt and fall into capitalism, but that's far from the reality. On the flip-side, communism might have actually become something if Stalin had been killed early on, and the work force had remained intact. Socialism might have stayed true to its ideas if Hitler had never risen to power or made deals with capitalists, like Krupp Steel (which would have been impossible).
2012/12/06 20:28:39
Subject: I accidentally 30 million people. Is this a dangrous political system?
Indeed, the question of this thread isn't clear.
Sure communism has killed people, so has democracy
Sure communism has put people in concentration camps, so has democracy.
Communism evolved away from Marx's original ideal, I doubt he would support it as it appears in the world today. Similar to how I doubt the founding fathers would be comfortable with the power of the executive branch or the influence of corporations in the democratic process
And the USA is a Federal Republic not a democracy
www.mi40k.com for pickup games and tournaments
3000+
2012/12/06 20:30:02
Subject: I accidentally 30 million people. Is this a dangrous political system?
Hmm. Even the subject is a little unclear, or at least mistyped. And anyway, any political system is dangerous if used incorrectly, which I'd say is the only way Communism has been used so far.
Actually Democracy had a pretty good track record. The Greeks did pretty well with it, they were just conquored by non-democratic enemies.
Democracy didn't mean the same thing back then. The Freedom of an Ancient would seem like slavery to us.
Yeah so?
That was kinda the point.
Democracy as we practice it today, as invented by the founding fathers of the US, has a pretty good track record.
Communisim, or at least those pretending to be Communists, didn't last but a handful of decades.
Democracy can mean a crapload of things, it's a very open to interpretation term. Ghadafi called his government 'democratic'. The point being that you cannot point to Ancient democracies and say that Democracy has a good track record, like you initially did.
I agree with you that modern democracies, related or not to constitutional republicanism, have a good track record.
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.
2012/12/06 20:46:21
Subject: I accidentally 30 million people. Is this a dangrous political system?
Actually Democracy had a pretty good track record. The Greeks did pretty well with it, they were just conquored by non-democratic enemies.
Democracy didn't mean the same thing back then. The Freedom of an Ancient would seem like slavery to us.
Yeah so?
That was kinda the point.
Democracy as we practice it today, as invented by the founding fathers of the US, has a pretty good track record.
Communisim, or at least those pretending to be Communists, didn't last but a handful of decades.
Democracy can mean a crapload of things, it's a very open to interpretation term. Ghadafi called his government 'democratic'. The point being that you cannot point to Ancient democracies and say that Democracy has a good track record, like you initially did.
I agree with you that modern democracies, related or not to constitutional republicanism, have a good track record.
I suppose you are correct. They were fairly different from modern democracies on the practical level.
Out of curiosity, how would people rate the Monarchy as a means of government? By Monarchy I mean an Absolute Monarchy.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
JEB_Stuart wrote: No, communist society is principally defined by there being a classless society, where the means of production are owned by the state. In all honesty, I do not recall reading that in the [/i]Communist Manifesto[i].
The German Ideology, 1. Feuerbach, p 62 - 64. "Communism isn't either a state to be created, nor an ideal on which reality must be fixed. We call communism the real mouvement which abolish the current state" [...]
"as long as there is a scission between the individual interest and the collective interest, as long as activity isn't voluntarily divided" [...] ''he is dominated'' - My translation, so please be lenient
Of course you are correct with the abolishment of private property thing. But on of the main caracteristics that's often overlooked is that the communist society is supposed to be one in which it is easy to 'relocate' yourself.
''as soon as work is divided (unvoluntarily) each has an exclusive sphere of activity determinated [...] he is hunter, fisherman, gatherer or critic, and he must remain so if he doesn't want to lose his means of existence ; while in the communist society, where no one has an attributed sphere of activity, but can specialise himself freely in whatever branch he likes, society rules on the means of production, which makes me free of doing something today and tomorrow another thing, to hunt the morning and fish the evening...'' - p.63
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.
2012/12/06 21:00:32
Subject: I accidentally 30 million people. Is this a dangrous political system?
The US was actually the first country to try it on a national scale, and its worked so far. But of course we did have to modify the Greek version of pure democracy so it would be possable to use it on a national scale.
I do believe you mean the British.Who had the Americans beat by about fifty years.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/06 21:00:42
JEB_Stuart wrote: No, communist society is principally defined by there being a classless society, where the means of production are owned by the state. In all honesty, I do not recall reading that in the [/i]Communist Manifesto[i].
The German Ideology, 1. Feuerbach, p 62 - 64. "Communism isn't either a state to be created, nor an ideal on which reality must be fixed. We call communism the real mouvement which abolish the current state" [...]
"as long as there is a scission between the individual interest and the collective interest, as long as activity isn't voluntarily divided" [...] ''he is dominated'' - My translation, so please be lenient
Of course you are correct with the abolishment of private property thing. But on of the main caracteristics that's often overlooked is that the communist society is supposed to be one in which it is easy to 'relocate' yourself.
''as soon as work is divided (unvoluntarily) each has an exclusive sphere of activity determinated [...] he is hunter, fisherman, gatherer or critic, and he must remain so if he doesn't want to lose his means of existence ; while in the communist society, where no one has an attributed sphere of activity, but can specialise himself freely in whatever branch he likes, society rules on the means of production, which makes me free of doing something today and tomorrow another thing, to hunt the morning and fish the evening...'' - p.63
The issue with that(bolded) is that given the free choice, people will generally pick an easy or enjoyable profession. Which, after everyone has picked their chosen profession, is likely to result in a society that cannot function.
I doubt many people would choose farming, mining, or other more necessary jobs when they could be an entertainer, painter, or a sports commentator.
We would have an overabundance of some professions and a shortage of others, with the shortchanged ones likely being vital industries.
It only works on small scale hunter gatherer societies and with simple examples, but with a complex society it utterly falls apart.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Grey Templar wrote: Out of curiosity, how would people rate the Monarchy as a means of government? By Monarchy I mean an Absolute Monarchy.
Depends on which people. Monarchy is great at public relations, considering how stupid a system it is.
I suppose you are correct. They were fairly different from modern democracies on the practical level.
Benjamin Constant wrote Of the freedom of the Ancient, compared to that of the Moderns if you are interested on the subject. I think Rousseau also wrote on the subject in Social Contract. Lots of people were calling to a return to Ancient politics with the Reform, which prompted a lot of authors to write about how misinformed that idea was...
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.
2012/12/06 21:09:51
Subject: Re:I accidentally 30 million people. Is this a dangrous political system?
Grey Templar wrote: Out of curiosity, how would people rate the Monarchy as a means of government? By Monarchy I mean an Absolute Monarchy.
Depends on which people. Monarchy is great at public relations, considering how stupid a system it is.
I suppose you are correct. They were fairly different from modern democracies on the practical level.
Benjamin Constant wrote Of the freedom of the Ancient, compared to that of the Moderns if you are interested on the subject. I think Rousseau also wrote on the subject in Social Contract. Lots of people were calling to a return to Ancient politics with the Reform, which prompted a lot of authors to write about how misinformed that idea was...
I am guessing it was more of a practical difference then an ideological one.
In ancient greece the only citizens were land owning men, so a small portion of the actual population. Which was part of the reason it worked as well as it did.
And as I recall our own Citizenship requirements were very similar to that for a little while.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/12/06 21:15:49
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
The issue with that(bolded) is that given the free choice, people will generally pick an easy or enjoyable profession. Which, after everyone has picked their chosen profession, is likely to result in a society that cannot function.
I doubt many people would choose farming, mining, or other more necessary jobs when they could be an entertainer, painter, or a sports commentator.
We would have an overabundance of some professions and a shortage of others, with the shortchanged ones likely being vital industries.
It only works on small scale hunter gatherer societies and with simple examples, but with a complex society it utterly falls apart.
Marx (as usual) takes things a bit too far in my opinion, but I think what is described here, as a ''voluntary division of work'', we find in our societies as an easy access to education (possibly a free access to education).
We must keep in mind that the system in which Marx evolved was utterly different from our own. 6 days a Week, 14 hours shift in the plant didn't leave much time for education.
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.
2012/12/06 21:19:54
Subject: I accidentally 30 million people. Is this a dangrous political system?
Grey Templar wrote: It only works on small scale hunter gatherer societies and with simple examples, but with a complex society it utterly falls apart.
Or highly advanced societies. If you have large-scale automated industry it doesn't matter if people don't want to do those jobs. Who cares if few people want to be a farmer instead of an artist, all you need is one "farmer" overseeing a massive robot farm, and by "overseeing" I mean "occasionally looking at a computer screen to make sure nothing has screwed up and spending most of their time being an artist". Same with mining, factory work, etc. Automate it all, and all that's left for people to do is entertainment.
And of course at that point communism becomes inevitable, as capitalism collapses under the fact that nobody needs money to obtain anything anymore.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/06 21:20:32
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2012/12/06 21:20:22
Subject: I accidentally 30 million people. Is this a dangrous political system?
The issue with that(bolded) is that given the free choice, people will generally pick an easy or enjoyable profession. Which, after everyone has picked their chosen profession, is likely to result in a society that cannot function.
I doubt many people would choose farming, mining, or other more necessary jobs when they could be an entertainer, painter, or a sports commentator.
We would have an overabundance of some professions and a shortage of others, with the shortchanged ones likely being vital industries.
It only works on small scale hunter gatherer societies and with simple examples, but with a complex society it utterly falls apart.
Marx (as usual) takes things a bit too far in my opinion, but I think what is described here, as a ''voluntary division of work'', we find in our societies as an easy access to education (possibly a free access to education).
We must keep in mind that the system in which Marx evolved was utterly different from our own. 6 days a Week, 14 hours shift in the plant didn't leave much time for education.
Indeed, which means you must read the Manifesto as the ramblings of an ideological bitter old man.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
It has only occured in 3rd world countries with low literacy rates and a devastated economy. Also, Vietnam would of been a success if the US did not intervene.
That's odd I've always thought of Poland, Germany, and Czechoslovakia as both first world and literate. Wierd.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
2012/12/06 21:28:51
Subject: I accidentally 30 million people. Is this a dangrous political system?
I am guessing it was more of a practical difference then an ideological one.
In ancient greece the only citizens were land owning men, so a small portion of the actual population. Which was part of the reason it worked as well as it did.
And as I recall our own Citizenship requirements were very similar to that for a little while.
Ancient Freedom meant that at some point you had a chance of being a part of the governmental system. Usually by draw, in all things going from the military command to being a judge. Very poor citizens could always become jury, for which they received a small compensation (the equivalent of a meal, I think).
In comparison to Modern freedom, it didn't mean much. You were entirely defenceless against a decision from the government, you had no Rights whatsoever.
And for the requirements, Napoleon's popularity was in good part due to his promise to reform the requirements for voting rights. At the time, you had two (beyond, obviously, being a man) ; ownership of land and ownership of riches, with the amount set very very high. The reform he promised was never passed.
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.
2012/12/06 21:30:26
Subject: I accidentally 30 million people. Is this a dangrous political system?
The US was actually the first country to try it on a national scale, and its worked so far. But of course we did have to modify the Greek version of pure democracy so it would be possable to use it on a national scale.
The US is not a democracy- our President is not selected by the unwashed masses, but by the electoral college. Our founding fathers did not trust the people to correctly choose their leaders.
Klawz-Ramming is a subset of citrus fruit?
Gwar- "And everyone wants a bigger Spleen!"
Mercurial wrote:
I admire your aplomb and instate you as Baron of the Seas and Lord Marshall of Privateers.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Star Trek also said we'd have X-Wings by now. We all see how that prediction turned out.
Orkeosaurus, on homophobia, the nature of homosexuality, and the greatness of George Takei.
English doesn't borrow from other languages. It follows them down dark alleyways and mugs them for loose grammar.
2012/12/06 21:31:00
Subject: I accidentally 30 million people. Is this a dangrous political system?
It has only occured in 3rd world countries with low literacy rates and a devastated economy. Also, Vietnam would of been a success if the US did not intervene.
That's odd I've always thought of Poland, Germany, and Czechoslovakia as both first world and literate. Wierd.
Poland has been rather economically poor for awhile, as has Czechoslovakia. And both, plus East Germany, were part of Soviet Russia, it wasn't a revolution like happened in Russia. It was a foreign invasion that foisted the Communist way on them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/06 21:31:32
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Indeed, which means you must read the Manifesto as the ramblings of an ideological bitter old man.
I don't really think so, I think Marx was very sensible to the horrors of the economical system in which he grew up. At the time, there were no governmental agency responsible for workers, so when legislation was passed in favour of the workers, the industrials easily found ways to circumvent them.
I think overall that Marx would today write an entirely different book, and while he might be critical of certain aspect of our society, I'm fairly certain that he would prefer ours to that thing which was Communist Russia
The US was actually the first country to try it on a national scale, and its worked so far. But of course we did have to modify the Greek version of pure democracy so it would be possable to use it on a national scale.
The US is not a democracy- our President is not selected by the unwashed masses, but by the electoral college. Our founding fathers did not trust the people to correctly choose their leaders.
Limiting the influence of the people on the actual workings of politics is as integral to modern democracies as allowing them to participate in it.
It's the difference between the general will and the most popular individual will.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/06 21:43:08
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.
2012/12/06 21:56:19
Subject: I accidentally 30 million people. Is this a dangrous political system?
So far in this thread I have seen a few instances of communism and socialism seemingly switching places, and the usual argument that a republic is not a democracy.
Just another day of Americans talking politics.
2012/12/06 22:08:58
Subject: I accidentally 30 million people. Is this a dangrous political system?
Grey Templar wrote:Out of curiosity, how would people rate the Monarchy as a means of government? By Monarchy I mean an Absolute Monarchy.
I know this wasn't directed at me, but I just have to interject. Personally, I am a strong believer that Constitutional Monarchy is really the ideal form of government. It balances experience, and a lack of a special interest driven government, with representation for the people. Now absolute monarchy does sound appealing, i.e. the benevolent dictator type ruler, but I don't trust people in general. I can trust an individual person I know well, but never people. The one thing I do trust is for them to inevitably compromise their ideals for the sake of expediency, and then watch it start to tumble down that proverbial slippery slope.
Kovnik Obama wrote:
JEB_Stuart wrote: No, communist society is principally defined by there being a classless society, where the means of production are owned by the state. In all honesty, I do not recall reading that in the [/i]Communist Manifesto.
The German Ideology, 1. Feuerbach, p 62 - 64. "Communism isn't either a state to be created, nor an ideal on which reality must be fixed. We call communism the real mouvement which abolish the current state" [...]
"as long as there is a scission between the individual interest and the collective interest, as long as activity isn't voluntarily divided" [...] ''he is dominated'' - My translation, so please be lenient
Of course you are correct with the abolishment of private property thing. But on of the main caracteristics that's often overlooked is that the communist society is supposed to be one in which it is easy to 'relocate' yourself.
''as soon as work is divided (unvoluntarily) each has an exclusive sphere of activity determinated [...] he is hunter, fisherman, gatherer or critic, and he must remain so if he doesn't want to lose his means of existence ; while in the communist society, where no one has an attributed sphere of activity, but can specialise himself freely in whatever branch he likes, society rules on the means of production, which makes me free of doing something today and tomorrow another thing, to hunt the morning and fish the evening...'' - p.63
Ah, then I apologize for a very real misunderstanding in what you meant. I thought you meant complete freedom to do what you wanted as in [i]anything. I didn't realize you meant freedom to move around and pick your profession (which, for example, you can do and have always been able to legally, in the US). I understand more clearly what you meant now, and am happy to concede the point in that Marx sought that as the ideal. Others have dealt with the reality of this subject on this thread, so I won't beat a dead horse, no matter how droll I might be.
It has only occured in 3rd world countries with low literacy rates and a devastated economy. Also, Vietnam would of been a success if the US did not intervene.
That's odd I've always thought of Poland, Germany, and Czechoslovakia as both first world and literate. Wierd.
Well now they do. Of course literacy has been a thing for them for some time now, but after the WWII their economies were in the pisser, so that is why I specifically didn't use them as examples.
Gitzbitah wrote:The US is not a democracy- our President is not selected by the unwashed masses, but by the electoral college. Our founding fathers did not trust the people to correctly choose their leaders.
And lets be honest...they were right.
DR:80+S(GT)G++M++B-I++Pwmhd05#+D+++A+++/sWD-R++T(Ot)DM+ How is it they live in such harmony - the billions of stars - when most men can barely go a minute without declaring war in their minds about someone they know.
- St. Thomas Aquinas
Warhammer 40K:
Alpha Legion - 15,000 pts For the Emperor!
WAAAGH! Skullhooka - 14,000 pts
Biel Tan Strikeforce - 11,000 pts
"The Eldar get no attention because the average male does not like confetti blasters, shimmer shields or sparkle lasers."
-Illeix
2012/12/06 23:03:10
Subject: Re:I accidentally 30 million people. Is this a dangrous political system?
Peregrine wrote: Communism is a failure. It only killed 30 million people, which is just shameful. Any decent political and economic system would have been able to kill at least 60 million people, if not more. Now capitalism, that has potential. Where communism encourages you to be lazy and accept your government benefits, capitalism and ruthless pursuit of profit encourages conflict and the development of bigger and better weapons. We must remove oppressive government regulation of capitalism and allow corporate rule and the inevitable bloody eternal war! Industrialized killing! Profitable nuclear weapons!
BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! DOLLARS FOR THE DOLLAR THRONE!
(Given the OP, not much chance of constructive discussion here.)
I'm not against Communism as one would generally conceive, but I question whether it's a good idea to keep trying it.
As a discussion grows in length, the probability of a comparison to Matt Ward or Gray Knights approaches one.
Communism, just like socialism, sounds great, but only in theory. It's assumed that leaders won't be corrupt and fall into capitalism, but that's far from the reality. On the flip-side, communism might have actually become something if Stalin had been killed early on, and the work force had remained intact.
Stalin was always going to be bad news. What really soured the Soviet version of Communisim was its very difficult formative years. A messy civil war, external wars, foreign intervention and international isolisation laid the foundations of the repressive and brutal Soviet years, If the October revolution was more widespread and had enough support to fully control the country (admittedly this would never have happened) I wonder how modern history would have turned out?
RegalPhantom wrote: If your fluff doesn't fit, change your fluff until it does
The prefect example of someone missing the point.
Do not underestimate the Squats. They survived for millenia cut off from the Imperium and assailed on all sides. Their determination and resilience is an example to us all.
-Leman Russ, Meditations on Imperial Command book XVI (AKA the RT era White Dwarf Commpendium).
Its just a shame that they couldn't fight off Andy Chambers.
Warzone Plog
2012/12/07 00:19:32
Subject: I accidentally 30 million people. Is this a dangrous political system?
Communism, just like socialism, sounds great, but only in theory. It's assumed that leaders won't be corrupt and fall into capitalism, but that's far from the reality. On the flip-side, communism might have actually become something if Stalin had been killed early on, and the work force had remained intact.
Stalin was always going to be bad news. What really soured the Soviet version of Communisim was its very difficult formative years. A messy civil war, external wars, foreign intervention and international isolisation laid the foundations of the repressive and brutal Soviet years, If the October revolution was more widespread and had enough support to fully control the country (admittedly this would never have happened) I wonder how modern history would have turned out?
One could say that Russia was always bad news for politics, no matter what. If the Revolution had actually won over France, it would have been an entirely different beast.
[...] for conflict is the great teacher, and pain, the perfect educator.
2012/12/07 01:09:49
Subject: I accidentally 30 million people. Is this a dangrous political system?
Communism, just like socialism, sounds great, but only in theory. It's assumed that leaders won't be corrupt and fall into capitalism, but that's far from the reality. On the flip-side, communism might have actually become something if Stalin had been killed early on, and the work force had remained intact.
Stalin was always going to be bad news. What really soured the Soviet version of Communisim was its very difficult formative years. A messy civil war, external wars, foreign intervention and international isolisation laid the foundations of the repressive and brutal Soviet years, If the October revolution was more widespread and had enough support to fully control the country (admittedly this would never have happened) I wonder how modern history would have turned out?
One could say that Russia was always bad news for politics, no matter what. If the Revolution had actually won over France, it would have been an entirely different beast.
Well French + Revolution didn't work out so well in the previous century so one could argue that it was for the best.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Alpha Legion - 15,000 pts For the Emperor!
WAAAGH! Skullhooka - 14,000 pts
Biel Tan Strikeforce - 11,000 pts
