Political Change

[Spokesperson 0]

1. Yes, that's why the Cubans are so eager to leave their beloved country.

2. That's bullsh*it. For example the reason many people in Germany are unemployed is not because it's required by the economic system. It's because most are inadequately qualified for the jobs currently offered by the economy. There are a lot of companies unsuccessfully searching for qualified personal. So in some branches there is actually competition for employees.

3. Alone the effort required to replace the current range of goods offered by the market with one offered by a central agency would be gigantic. That's an utopia. This whole idea is ridiculous.

1. Oh great, market economy is better just because US is richer than Cuba? Then tell my why Haiti, Mexico or any other south american country isn't as rich as the US. There are very few cubans leaving their country compared to other countries. More % of the europeans move to the US than cubans. Most boat refugees come from the US-puppet Haiti. Hundreds of thousands of mexicans walk to the US via the border. That doesn't mean market economy is better, because there's market economy on both sides!

Cuba has a much higher standard of living than any south american country. It's the only country in the world with sustainable development according to the WWF. Cubans live longer than in the US. The infant mortality rate (a measure of a country's medical standards) is lower than in the US. No malaria. And cuba is a third world country!

But in the capitalist press the only things we hear about cuba are bad while we never hear about pure capitalist dictatorships and the so called democracies in the west. When did we read about the recent elections in Cuba (tens of thousands of candidates were voted upon in the last few weeks, all over 16 got the right to vote)? The capitalist press always talks about freedom and democracy. But its criticism has in fact never been an issue about democracy, it's about their freedom and rational wants to make more profits. In Cuba their kind doesn't exist because the corporate interests and freedom of the capital conflicts with the freedom and interests of the majority, the working class, which their government represents. Capitalism is directly anti-democratic as it centers the power to a few owners.

In Russia, more than 70% think it was better during the Soviet times. They already knew this 1.5 years after the dissolution of the union when Jeltsin and his liberal friends (applauded by the west) rolled out tanks on the streets to crush the mass riots (biggest since the revolution 1917), and set fire to the parliament. They killed elected members of the parliament and hundreds, maybe thousands of other civilians. The whole Russian state is based on this illegal act and west thinks its ok. How many know about this? How many know about Cuba? How many protesters have been shot in Cuba? None! How many in the US? How many in Germany?

The western criticism against Cuba sounds like the one expressed by Prince John and his fellows against Robin Hood. Robin Hood is a thug, dictator, burglar, whatever. How many countries have actually participated in liberating colonies on other continents? Did US liberate Iraq? Did US liberate Vietnam? Did US liberate Indonesia or Chile? Did Cuba liberate Angola from apartheid South Africa, Portugal and US-backed guerillas? Yes.

2. No, the system requires unemployment. Without unemployment the companies wouldn't be able to make demands on or fire their workers as there's nobody else they can employ in his place. Right now companies can just fire somebody who complains and get another who doesn't but needs the money. That keeps the wages and inflation down. With 0% unemployement the whole economy would crash after a while. "Some branches" don't affect a whole economy.

3. There are many goods that wouldn't be needed like the 30 types of toothpaste. No advertising either (money can be put on quality instead). No deception. No cars or fridges made to go apart after a few years. I know a russian guy who has a fridge that's 30 years old and still working properly. All major companies are planned economies. Why wouldn't a state be able to plan its economy. Especially with modern computers and communications? Is improvement an utopia?

[Necromancer- 0]

Right now companies can just fire somebody who complains and get another who doesn't but needs the money.

Yea well, how about a small company that has lazy unreliable workers, which takes very expensive procedures to fire them and gets replaced with competent trustful workers? And why pay wages for 4 people to do a job if 1 is enough?

I work in a family company in a branch called "Food services". It is a hard work to keep the place up and running, let alone doing it alone. I had one worker who seemed reliable and was reasonably competent. After the test period in the contract, he reported himself repeatedly ill for weeks. As long as the worker is ill, I am obligated by law to keep paying his wages. I send him an agency that checks these people if they are really ill. They checked and reported he wasn't at home. My lawyer advised I should send him a letter that he should call that agency's docter to get him checked up.... He didn't. More time passed by.

Because of that bureaucracy I had to wait for 4 months till I was allowed to stop the payments. 4 months of salary wasted to a person who I'd rather have replaced immediately with someone who wasn't such a swine and was competent and was willing to work.

You see..

Socialism is nice and all that, but also prone to abuse. Not just the rich people abuse, also the "poor" who abuse the less poor.

The system does not require unemployment, the system requires more employed people to work and generate money to pay taxes and buy some stuff so that other people have work to produce more stuff. The wages in that sector are in par of supply and demand. The more people capable of doing job A, the less it wages. Luckily there is a minimum salary here in Europe for that.

[AfrographX 0]

Quote[/b] ]When did we read about the recent elections in Cuba (tens of thousands of candidates were voted upon in the last few weeks, all over 16 got the right to vote)? [...], the working class, which their government represents. Capitalism is directly anti-democratic as it centers the power to a few owners.

How can you talk about freedom in Cuba and praise the recent elections when there isn't even opposition to the government allowed. It's written in the Cuban constitution that freedom of speech is ok as long as you don't critizise the socialist state.

[armyclonk 0]

Quote[/b] ]1. Oh great, market economy is better just because US is richer than Cuba?

he never said that. he just said, that cubans doesn't seem to enjoy that "paradise" so much.

Quote[/b] ]No, the system requires unemployment.

that might be true. but the system only requires less then 1% unemployed. and in germany he have atm 8-9%, and that not the top, we used to have abou 13%.

one of the problems is indeed, that there are no qualified ingenieurs, IT-people etc. on the free market. the companies have

hundred of thousand free workplaces, but noone to work there.

Quote[/b] ]There are many goods that wouldn't be needed like the 30 types of toothpaste.

they are needed. because every toothpaste want to be sold. and to reach that every toothpaste have to have something that is better than in the others.

if you would only have one toothpaste there would be no need to search for something better, like chemicals that makes the tooth harder, because everyone would have to use that one and only toothpaste.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Human greed will exist forever either poor or rich on every level, as it is infinite if not controlled.

A misconception is that humanity is inherently greedy. Some anthropologists call it (tongue-in-cheek) the "selfish gene."

However, this theory doesn't take into account the many foraging, hunter-gatherer, and modern cultures where giving and sharing is a huge cultural trait, and those that hoard or don't share are ostricized.

Quote[/b] ]Alone the effort required to replace the current range of goods offered by the market with one offered by a central agency would be gigantic. That's an utopia. This whole idea is ridiculous.

Capitalism tells you you need this range of goods, when in fact you don't need them at all. You don't need a choice of 20 different toilet papers...you just need toilet paper.

In some socialist theories, production can be community controlled and not state controlled, thus production is geared toward local needs as it should be.

Socialism doesn't stifle individual entrepreneurship either. There is nothing that says individuals can not produce their own original goods to be released in the socialist econonmy. In fact, I would venture that product originality will thrive under socialism as there would be no Wal-Marts or other big corporations to drive small businesses out of existence.

Quote[/b] ]You see..

Socialism is nice and all that, but also prone to abuse. Not just the rich people abuse, also the "poor" who abuse the less poor.

And capitalism isn't abused? I would say more so, and to the detriment of a vast majority of the population. There will always be lazy people, but there will also always be people that want to and enjoy working hard, especially if they are working for more than just daily subsistence and artifical "wants and needs."

Bureaucracy is the bane of any government, which is why such incidents as you describe are best dealt with on the local community level, not the state government level. Just because some social democracies are bloated, do not think all socialism is like that. Socialism can have the most streamlined of governments, especially when most matters are handled locally.

Quote[/b] ]they are needed. because every toothpaste want to be sold. and to reach that every toothpaste have to have something that is better than in the others.

if you would only have one toothpaste there would be no need to search for something better, like chemicals that makes the tooth harder, because everyone would have to use that one and only toothpaste.

You can not have sustainable product improvement. Eventually you will reach the best possible for your needs (whitens, protects enamel, freshens breath, etc.) so then what are the other 19 brands for? They are to give you a false sense of choice, and to keep you blinded to the truth that you only need one kind of toothpaste.

Lack of product innovation in socialism is another capitalist excuse, however.

"Watch out or you all will wear gray!" or similiar warnings come from the capitalists while at the same time stiffling innovation to protect their own market share. You really think its that hard to make a green or hybrid vehicle? Here in Texas we would have a monorail running from Houston to San Antonio to Austin to Dallas right now if the oil companies didn't repeatedly kill it...against the wishes of the voters I might add who repeatedly vote for it. With capitalism, corporations have very little incentive to invest in further technology if their market share is secure. Also consider that in capitalism, monetary wants stiffle the amount of innovation of any corporation. They will not research if it impacts their bottom line.

Non-innovation in socialism is a fallacy and scare tactic by capitalists.

[Spokesperson 0]

Necromancer your story is a common cynic employer/capitalist fairy tale. The employers are set as victims while the workers are parasites. In reality the workers work for you. The relationship is opposite.

I'm not defending any liberal models that want to make the products of the slavery more equally distributed. There should be no private employers at all. The slavery should be abolished before we can talk about justice.

I'm sure the current system can be misused, but it's necessary if people are to live decent lives.

If you don't believe in the completely rational correlation betwen unemployment and inflation look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillips_curve

"The Phillips curve is a historical inverse relation and tradeoff between the rate of unemployment and the rate of inflation in an economy. Stated simply, the lower the unemployment in an economy, the higher the rate of change in wages paid to labour in that economy."

Quote[/b] ]How can you talk about freedom in Cuba and praise the recent elections when there isn't even opposition to the government allowed. It's written in the Cuban constitution that freedom of speech is ok as long as you don't critizise the socialist state.

Again, how much does the common westerner know? If the press had written about the elections you would know that no parties are allowed in the elections at all. People vote for unaligned candidates. It could be anyone. The National Assembly then votes on the governments. Fidel had around 80% last time. I don't think your constitution claim is true as there occurs protests. CNN or BBC reported last month that there was a protest with around 200 people: http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4567393.stm

Wow, that must be real oppression...

The demonstrations are usually pro-cuban though. Like this one: http://edition.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/24/elian.ruling.02/

First of may gathers millions all around cuba.

Quote[/b] ]he never said that. he just said, that cubans doesn't seem to enjoy that "paradise" so much.

Cuba like Mexico or Haiti are third world countries. Cuba is no paradise, but it's far better than its latin american capitalist neighbours. Of course cubans have left the island, but it's much more common to leave for the US in other countries nearby. One has to see the proportions and not just talk about Cuba as if it was the only country.

Quote[/b] ]that might be true. but the system only requires less then 1% unemployed. and in germany he have atm 8-9%, and that not the top, we used to have abou 13%.

one of the problems is indeed, that there are no qualified ingenieurs, IT-people etc. on the free market. the companies have

hundred of thousand free workplaces, but noone to work there.

It's different. One can't say exactly what the percentage is that makes things go bad. But generally if you have inflation you have "too little" unemployment.

Quote[/b] ]they are needed. because every toothpaste want to be sold. and to reach that every toothpaste have to have something that is better than in the others.

if you would only have one toothpaste there would be no need to search for something better, like chemicals that makes the tooth harder, because everyone would have to use that one and only toothpaste.

No that's not true. Why wouldn't things improve? Didn't soviet technology improve? (In many aspects the country even was a world-leader).

I'm not saying that I'm a proponent of the USSR or Cuba. Just that many things are better there. And we can do better in the west as we have much better starting conditions and resources to do it. If Cuba can, we can too.

[armyclonk 0]

Quote[/b] ]It's different. One can't say exactly what the percentage is that makes things go bad. But generally if you have inflation you have "too little" unemployment.

yes you can, within well-defined error bars. because this >1% are needed to replace the people who get too old or sick to work and have to quite.

Quote[/b] ]Didn't soviet technology improve?

thats because they had to face the improvement of the rest of the world.

[Spokesperson 0]

And what do you base the 1% on? Where's your numbers and analysis?

You've got 2.4% inflation in germany. Highest in two years. If there's less unemployment that inflation will rise even higher. 1% unemployment would be catastrophic to the economy.

Quote[/b] ]thats because they had to face the improvement of the rest of the world.

What do you mean? You mean that the USSR was behind? Well didn't they start unindustrialized and behind from the beginning? Is the developments in the middle ages up to 1917 the fault of the Soviet economic system? I wouldn't say so. On the contrary, USSR industrialised in less than 20 years. The biggest growth rates ever (up to this point) were seen in the USSR as well. Fighting off two fatal foreign invasions and moving from the mud and out in the space is more than good.

Since the fall of the USSR GDP has fallen to 1/3. 1/10 in some republics. Unemployment is around 10%. Crime rates are sky rocketing. Corruption is huge. Tuberculosis is higher than it was in the 50ies (with its minimum peak 1991 the year the USSR was dissolved by Jeltsin against the will of the people as expressed in a referendum). People living in the streets, people without pensions (they got to work after pension age to survive), and a medical system that only cures the ones with money. Call that improvement if you like.

[baddo 0]

I wouldn't really say that USSR was doing well...

One clear example I can give is to have a look at what happened to the areas that belonged to Finland before WW II, and which were taken by the USSR in the so-called peace treaty.

I can tell you what happened. Economical and infrastructural progress was drastically slowed, or dare I say, even went backwards in some regard! Take a look at the Karelia in both sides of the border... you will understand what I mean.

Another example is Estonia. A country which was at the same level with us before WW II. Fast-forward to the 1980's. Look at the difference! The Soviet system basically made sure that Estonia could not keep up with us in terms of economical or infrastructural development. Fortunately they have made an impressive recovery since they declared independence!

The system they were having in the USSR was clearly not working for the benefit of their people.

Before you get angry and accuse me of bashing the Russians... ON THE OTHER HAND, I think my country have to thank them for some of the things that happened in the 1800 century... after we got rid of the King of Sweden, our country turned into better in my opinion. The Swedish had been ripping us off, basically. But no more. The Russian Tsar gave us autonomy. Industrialization happened. Our economy developed significantly during those times. BUT do not let this fool you, this happened way BEFORE Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov and his friends took power in Russia (which was about the same time when we declared independence).    Also, it is my personal belief that Finland would not be today an independent state if we had not become part of the Russian Empire for some time. I have actually studied mandatory Swedish in all the schools I have been. Think about how it would have been if we were still part of Sweden...

I have to say something about the "one toothpaste" thing you are arguing about.

Don't you think that when you take away competition, progress is drastically slowed or even stopped? That is how it goes in reality. The "capitalist" part in our societies ensures that competition is hard, and that in turn means you MUST develop, you MUST bring better products to the markets or you WILL fail. THAT is working for the benefit of the people.

If you dream that there some day will be the one toothpaste which has reached the level of being the ultimate toothpaste, you are WRONG. It's never going to happen. The human race LEARNS over time, then goes on and re-iterates over the toothpaste design documents with new ideas. This learning happens mostly because the competitive setting in our economies forces people to find something better to be able to say, "my product is better than yours".

[Spokesperson 0]

Karelia was an autonomous republic and practically a country of its own. Naturally social security and defence costs more than shiny facades. Finland has been behind in the development until recently as well.

Competition doesn't work. It's an ideal state of a market. If there's need for improvement there'll be improvement and there was, in all planned economies. The fact that the eastern bloc was catching up on west shows that the economic system was a success. Up till 1971 it looked like the USSR would get ahead of the US one day. But the Cold War grew more intense and more had to be spent on the defence.

In regard to Estonia, it was part of the eastern bloc and therefore trade was limited mostly to the east. Inventions and products made by the industrialized countries in the west didn't make it to the east. And east didn't have much to offer other than raw resources due to its historical situation and development. Wealth in the western countries was and is made up by trade (which spurs production). Estonia and Karelia also had large damages to the infrastructure after WW2.

[baddo 0]

Social security?

Do you think social security has been arranged well when people travel abroad to buy food as much as they can fit into their cars?

I saw it happen with my own eyes, in addition to what I saw in the media. And I think it said a lot about the "social security" of the country where those people were coming from.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Don't you think that when you take away competition, progress is drastically slowed or even stopped? That is how it goes in reality. The "capitalist" part in our societies ensures that competition is hard, and that in turn means you MUST develop, you MUST bring better products to the markets or you WILL fail. THAT is working for the benefit of the people.

In my opinion it works both ways. Once a capitalist corporation maintains a secure market share, innovation goes down, slows, or becomes stagnant. The corporation has no incentive to make their product better since 1) you are forced to buy their product, and 2) there is no one with a superior product.

To go beyond the toothpaste look at the Microsoft/Linux debate. Microsoft represents everything wrong with capitalism where as Linux works on the best principles of socialism.

Who knows what Microsoft products would look like today had someone not gotten tired of it and made an OS based on cooperation and open-source.

Quote[/b] ]If you dream that there some day will be the one toothpaste which has reached the level of being the ultimate toothpaste, you are WRONG.

Innovation is always on going, but corporation and competition is not the sole driving force. Individuals have led to many product advances (or outright new products) as well. Airplanes came about from individual efforts, not corporations. Same with most forms of transportation today. It came from someone having an idea from their education, and going after that.

Quote[/b] ]The human race LEARNS over time, then goes on and re-iterates over the toothpaste design documents with new ideas.

No doubt, but I see nothing that says this is the exclusive domain of corporations driven toward profit based advancement.

But I stand by my comment that sustained product improvement can not be maintained. Efficiency may be improved, contents may be changed, but the basic product and its purpose remains the same.

Quote[/b] ]This learning happens mostly because the competitive setting in our economies forces people to find something better to be able to say, "my product is better than yours".

I disagree. How does this explain academic advancement then? I think this view seriously undervalues the basic need for humans to advance and become "better."

"Cooperative competition" as in academics is just as great a driving force of innovation. Consider also the broader effects of competition...reduced worker salary to drive research and profit, reduced safety or testing to get product to market before competitor (medicines for example), and likelyhood that certain workers will never be able to enjoy the product which they labor to make. Environmental damage. Population harming pollutants (see Houston residents near th channel). Governments in the pockets of corporations, working for them instead of the people they are suppose to protect.

[armyclonk 0]

Quote[/b] ]And what do you base the 1% on? Where's your numbers and analysis?

because some scandinavic states had for some time about 1% and the economie worked. if there would be less you can predict, that there's a problem because there are nobody to replace workers who quit.

Quote[/b] ]You've got 2.4% inflation in germany.

yes, because the sales taxes were resently raised from 16% to 19%. the money is used to lower the costs for the companies, so they stay in germany. the predicted inflation for august 2008 is 1.9% and the econimic growth was at about 2.6%, is atm at about 1.9% and is predicted to be minimum 2.1% for the next year. the unemployment is dropping further at 0.5+% per year. i think germany is doing well atm.

better then only under the SPD, the solcialistic party of germany... at the moment we have got a coalition of SPD and CDU, which is the christian democratic union which and the conservativ force in germany.

[Spokesperson 0]

Back then the scandinavian states did have a more controlled market. Now it's free market everywhere. And it didn't work in the long run. The inflation went high because of neoliberal free market reforms in the 90ies. And unemployment rose.

Higher taxes should intuitively lower inflation somewhat. The world economy is real bad, but goes better now than just a few years ago. However, times will change as usual. Recessions will come again.

The german social democrats are no socialists. Socialists are opposed to capitalism. SPD is a social liberal party.

[armyclonk 0]

Quote[/b] ]Back then the scandinavian states did have a more controlled market. Now it's free market everywhere. And it didn't work in the long run. The inflation went high because of neoliberal free market reforms in the 90ies. And unemployment rose.

yep, but it shows, that the system can work with about 1% unemployed.

Quote[/b] ]Higher taxes should intuitively lower inflation somewhat.

not sales taxes, they always raise the inflation.

Quote[/b] ]The german social democrats are no socialists. Socialists are opposed to capitalism. SPD is a social liberal party.

they just reaffirmed that they are democratic socialists. if it's true or not will show, but that's what they call themselfes.

[Spokesperson 0]

Well of course the system can work with 1% unemployed but not for long periods of time because the inflation will grow too fast in normal circumstances.

They've never been socialists (in the marxist sense). The only socialists you've got is Die Linke and DKP.

[armyclonk 0]

Quote[/b] ]Well of course the system can work with 1% unemployed but not for long periods of time because the inflation will grow too fast in normal circumstances.

i dont see why the inflation have to grow when you have few unemployed. can you please explain?

EDIT: ok, i looked it up. the basis is statistic. the theorie behind this is, that with less unemployed there is more demand for goods, which can't be satisfied because there isn't enough capaticy. but today the demand can't be so high. it isn't possible with all the capaticy we have for example in china.

what also opposes this theorie: the unemployed in germany are not realy poor, so it would not have a too big impact on the free market if they would be in work again .

Quote[/b] ]They've never been socialists (in the marxist sense). The only socialists you've got is Die Linke and DKP.

now, i only said what they said. of cause they dont use the marxist sense, so it most likely is right that they are not socialist in a marxist sense.

Die Linke is more or less the old left wing of the SPD. so it's true, the SPD is gone a bit to the middle. and DKP are not realy important in germany.

[Spokesperson 0]

No the basis is not statistics. There's a rational correlation between the two, therefore statistics will show that effect too.

If you look at Latvia today they've got almost no unemployment, 11% growth (highest in the EU) and 11% inflation. There's a big crisis there now, both due to the economy and due to high corruption. Pensioners begin to starve (first time since world war 2), doctors and teachers protest because all their money gets eaten up by the increased prices. Students won't afford go to the university anymore and so on. There's a build-boom in the country now so there's a lack of construction workers, which naturally lead to increased wages and higher inflation.

[armyclonk 0]

Quote[/b] ]No the basis is not statistics. There's a rational correlation between the two, therefore statistics will show that effect too.

please explain this rational correlation.

Quote[/b] ]If you look at Latvia today they've got almost no unemployment, 11% growth (highest in the EU) and 11% inflation. There's a big crisis there now, both due to the economy and due to high corruption. Pensioners begin to starve (first time since world war 2), doctors and teachers protest because all their money gets eaten up by the increased prices. Students won't afford go to the university anymore and so on. There's a build-boom in the country now so there's a lack of construction workers, which naturally lead to increased wages and higher inflation.

the problem is the nonexistent trade-infrastruktur. first they have to build this up (with the money from EU funds and the stronger economy), then there will be less inflation and more economic growth as there will be no lack of goods anymore. then they should build new universities, which they can afford with the new money, so the costs for the students fall. and so on. the problem is not the system, the problem is, that there were some mistakes done.

[Rhodite 3]

Who cares? I want to go shopping .

Who cares that you don't care..

Quit with the spamming of pointless posts of irrelevent dribble that has nothing to do with the topic.

Next transgression = a WL and a PR

[Eda Mrcoch 0]

As a person living in postcommunistic state, surrounded by people who had lived through that shit for most of their lives I do find some of the posts (namely Spokesperson's) utterly Martian.

Sorry for being personal, but where are you from?

[Spokesperson 0]

The rational correlation is that of increased wages when unemployment is low.

Why will the wages increase? Workers can demand more rights and increased wages because they won't risk getting replaced by someone else. But only within margins. The company still has to make more profit per worker. In that case there's competition about workers rather than about jobs. Demand is high, supply low. Price high. Statistics show this too.

Low unemployment means that _most_ sectors are affected by the increased wage effect. Why do increased wages in _most_ sectors cause inflation? Simply put, people like shop owners for instance, will want higher wages too (they don't want to get behind in living standards etc), so they increase their prices (and more people can afford them). So you'll have higher prices on goods as well. If this process isn't stopped somehow it will make money worthless. You'll have prices of 10 million for a TV (produced in some other country) and so on. In good economic times with high growth it's very easy to screw up.

Quote[/b] ]

the problem is the nonexistent trade-infrastruktur. first they have to build this up (with the money from EU funds and the stronger economy), then there will be less inflation and more economic growth as there will be no lack of goods anymore. then they should build new universities, which they can afford with the new money, so the costs for the students fall. and so on. the problem is not the system, the problem is, that there were some mistakes done.

Latvia has loads of trade among the baltic states, Finland and Sweden. They are fully integrated into the EU. Eastern Europe including modern Latvia (independent state for only a few decades in total) has always been behind. And I read that it would take until 2050 before they'll reach western standards. Right now their government sees no good solutions to the problem. It's not as easy as you want to make it.

Quote[/b] ]As a person living in postcommunistic state, surrounded by people who had lived through that shit for most of their lives I do find some of the posts (namely Spokesperson's) utterly Martian.

Sorry for being personal, but where are you from?

I'm an internationalist, and as such it doesn't matter where I'm from. The question you should ask is which class do you belong to?

If you say you're from a postcommunistic state and got the internet and play this game then you're likely no good representative of the people that live in your area. You're probably bourgeois and share their values/view on history.

Sure in your country people might have disliked the previous system, especially if you lived in a soviet puppet like cz or poland. Who wants to live in a puppet state? No matter the system. In most former USSR states though (that were no puppets) a majority thinks it was way better before. And people in the west begin to read this in papers and so on. It's correct that in the beginning most people were happy in the east when the USSR was dissolved. But just one or two years after people began to see and understand the consequences. Now people spit on the word liberalism and free markets. They want things back as they were but see that this is impossible. It's too late.

Some polls:

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls....ussians

58% pro October Revo. 26 Against.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls....yeltsin

Yeltsin. Pos: 15% Neg: 64%

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls...._tenure

Brezhnev. Pos 61% Neg 17%

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls....t_union

Russians Regret Collapse of Soviet Union

Yes 66% No 23%

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls...._russia

Lenin Pos: 58% Neg: 19%

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls....itively

Stalin Pos: 47% Neg: 29%

What would these % be if you asked people in west what they think russians think. And why?

[-Snafu- 78]

If you say you're from a postcommunistic state and got the internet and play this game then you're likely no good representative of the people that live in your area. You're probably bourgeois and share their values/view on history.

And you are supposed a good representative of the people? Since you got the internet and play this game you can't possibly be.

What is your ideology? Marxism? Socialism? or some other 'ism? If you remember Marxism he saw the bourgeois as the people who owned the means of production. Not someone who had luxury items.

[Spokesperson 0]

In my location most of the people in the lower class can afford computers that run this game, an internet connection and games in general.

Besides, I'm referring to a large amount of polls that cover the whole Russian population not just some computer user on flashpoint1985. My opinion is the same as theirs.

You could go to some economy site and ask people what they think. It's useless.

You're absolutely correct about the marxist definition of "bourgeoisie". (And ownership leads to possession of luxury items). But in that sentence I mean bourgeoisie (the all day term) as in "middle class". "Middle class"  depends on your standard of living. However, middle class, in marxist terms, is just the upper lower class (non-owners), thus a part of the lower (working) class. Still, this usually class unconscious part of the lower class gets privileges by the upper class and share their opinions as long as they think they gain from it.

I support all ideologies that lead to socialism and then communism, may it be marxism-leninism, left-wing radicalism. Real social democracy etc.

(Marxism (without additions) is no ideology, it's a scientific theory and philosophy).

[Black Sphere 0]

Who cares? I want to go shopping .

Who cares that you don't care..

Quit with the spamming of pointless posts of irrelevent dribble that has nothing to do with the topic.

Next transgression = a WL and a PR

Because such blokes we must leave on some other planet, and because that's the most relevat comment I ever heard lately; we're not in the information era as promised, but in the (most) consuming one (eat your children, you'll get an Euro out of it!!! ).

Transgression? Who know what this is? Figure by yourself ...

And mods, have a tact, if you don't have a time to apprehend ... be drunk at most inappropriate time as me.