Academic Discussion... and Debate: Communism

[Bokks]

When NASA was first formed and began te space program, they soon realized that zero-gravity conditions would make ball-point biro pens a mere toy, as gravity feeds the ink into the tip so it will write on paper. Not allowing their then rooky astronauts to not have anything with which they could scribble down notes or the odd doodle (sadly, sudoku's were not yet around) NASA scientists would spend the next four years and 2 million dollars to develope what is today commonly refered to as the space pen, a pen that, due to a pressurized ink cartridge, can not only continue to write in zero gravity conditions, but will write upside-down in gavity conditions, as well as in sub-zero temperatures, under water and on virtually any surface known to man.

The Russians, when they started their own space program, used the pencil.

Now, this comical anecdote shows a far reaching, deep seeded cultural division that earmarks the differences between the former Soviet Union and the United States. Among other things, this difference is the very reason why the Cold War was fought, and yesterday I came to the realization that this is exactly why the Soviet Union fell, "without a shot being fired" as they say (since apparently Korea, Afghanistan and Vietnam don't count as "hot" spots in the "Cold" War)

Just to throw a little bit of the VV at you, in 1917 Russia was the largest country with the poorest, worst equiped, most poorly managed military in the world. By 1936, the then Soviet country had grown to havr the largest army, most well equipped, greatest organised, as well as the largest, most technologically advanced air force and navy. Then Hitler renegged on his pact with Stalin and pushed into a Soviet Russia that he had just professed his fondness for, annihilating the superior air force and navy before it coulod ever take off or set out, and decimating the superior arsenal and equipment, which is why the Russia that is remembered in WWII is not a fast moving, well armed Russia but a Russia that was forced the give half of her soldiers a gun, and half five bullets, with the assumption that when the person next to you dies you could take whatever it was he had and actually do some fighting. This required that half of all Russian soldiers--give or take--would have to die just so that fighting would comence, and this gave rise the the horrific battles that earmarked the Eastern Front.

But even then, within five years, Russia had rebounded, and was not only fighting back and conquering the Germans but was also fighting and conquering the northern islands of the Japanese, islands that they still hold today.

After the war, the United States was the first to develope nuclear weaponry, but Russia was soon to follow suite. By 1967, give or take, the United States had roughly a 25% lead on the Russians as to how much firepower they could bring to bear should a war be fought, by 1987, gve or take, the Russians has a 100% lead, easily doubling the firepower that their American rivals had in stock, which was why the American president Ronald Reagan was so adament about restructuring American school systems and the working economy, obsessed with closing that frightening gap.

Clearly, the communist system was actually more efficient than the capitalist, with Soviet scientists often times running circles around what American and NATO scientists could do. Yet by 1991 the Soviet Union was dying, and later that year it completely fell, spelling doom for the "Realist" school of political analytical thought, which said that the USSR was never stronger.They were right, and yet still the Soviet Union fell.

So why?

Because of the pens! Or rather, what the pens symbolize. Progress for the sake of progress is a key stone in the American capitalist arch. Conversely, the Russians were much better at a burst form of progression, making them much better at a ten year span of advancement and conflict, which is why it was soviet satillites that first pierced the ionosphere into outer space, a russian dog that first made it into the zero gravity freefall, and an astronaut with the CCCP star emblazened on his flak jacket that first circumnavigated the globe at 2,790 miles (or whatever the orbital shelf is located at). Americans may have first landed on the moon, but Russians saw it first. But the Soviet Union would not have to win a ten year fight, or a twenty year fight. The Cold War lasted for 50 years, and it was 50 years of progress for the sake of progress that led comrade Gorbechev to institute the "developement" systems of Glastnost and Parastroika, in effect democratizing the soviet system and throwing a white and blue into their red flag. With these institutional changes, the soviet system and in its death throws, and sure enough within two years it was dead and buried, with Boris Yeltzin elected to be president of the Russian people (vodka sales, of course, wuld skyrocket) which is what has led me to throw this discussion into the wind: what of China? Just as Russia, China is at a point where it has never seemed stronger, and yet it is in the beginning stages of creating a (small) mercantile middle class. But China lives in an age of computers when Russia did not. Will this effect Chinese stability?

I think, personally, that China's brand of communism is far different than the Russian. even when the two powers were political neighbors there was the infamous Sino-Soviet split that made the two greater enemies of eachother than they were of even the US. 90% of China's population lives in the "backwater", scarsely even aware that they no longer pay homage to the Emperor at Peking. Soviet Russia was dismantled by itself, but China seems to have an incomparable strength with it's own management, making China's stability seemingly assured.

And let us not forget Vietnam, the communist country shows a great deal of progress that few ever thought possible.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[Joker85]

When NASA was first formed and began te space program, they soon realized that zero-gravity conditions would make ball-point biro pens a mere toy, as gravity feeds the ink into the tip so it will write on paper. Not allowing their then rooky astronauts to not have anything with which they could scribble down notes or the odd doodle (sadly, sudoku's were not yet around) NASA scientists would spend the next four years and 2 million dollars to develope what is today commonly refered to as the space pen, a pen that, due to a pressurized ink cartridge, can not only continue to write in zero gravity conditions, but will write upside-down in gavity conditions, as well as in sub-zero temperatures, under water and on virtually any surface known to man.

The Russians, when they started their own space program, used the pencil.

There exists a common urban legend claiming that because a standard ballpoint pen would not work in zero gravity, NASA spent $11 million developing the zero-g capable Space Pen, with the humorous note that the Russian space agency opted to simply use pencils.[1] In fact, NASA programs have used pencils (for example a 1965 order of mechanical pencils[1]) but because of the danger that a broken-off pencil tip poses in zero gravity and the high flammability of both the graphite and wood present in pencils[1] a better solution was needed.

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

[Bokks]

Quote:
There exists a common urban legend claiming that because a standard ballpoint pen would not work in zero gravity, NASA spent $11 million developing the zero-g capable Space Pen, with the humorous note that the Russian space agency opted to simply use pencils.[1] In fact, NASA programs have used pencils (for example a 1965 order of mechanical pencils[1]) but because of the danger that a broken-off pencil tip poses in zero gravity and the high flammability of both the graphite and wood present in pencils[1] a better solution was needed.

Darn you!!!
That aside, however, there are other greatly tangible cases in which Americans may have done some sort of seemingly rediculous venture when the Soviets did nothing. There's also the fact that Soviet scientists were probably even more efficient than American scientists, but there was a cultural stigma to scientific research and progress, thereby making scientists into a criminal class unless they were absolutely needed. Under Stalin, for example, scientists developed the most advanced aircraft in the world, only to be largely executed after the completion of their work, called upon again after the entire airforce was destroyed only to again be imprisoned and executed after another job well done. Whereas the steady progress of American scientists and the capitalist system really proves that slow and steady wins the race. Though this doesn't entirely compare to China, the similarities are worth to be pointed out.

[Hound of Ulster]

The funny thing about both the Soviet Union/Russia and China is that, with all of the talkof 'revolution' etc, not that much changed except the symbols and the names of those calling the shots

Random facts: Stalin's main inspiration for governing was Peter the Great, not Lenin. Mao's template was the First Emperor.

[Bokks]

The funny thing about both the Soviet Union/Russia and China is that, with all of the talkof 'revolution' etc, not that much changed except the symbols and the names of those calling the shots

Random facts: Stalin's main inspiration for governing was Peter the Great, not Lenin. Mao's template was the First Emperor.

Oh yeah, seriously. In the really isolated parts of China it's specuslated that people don't even know there was a revolution. Those who are affected the most are the ones who live in the cities, closest to the imperious leader and capitol. And they say there is no class system...

[Captain Blackadder]

Darn you!!!
That aside, however, there are other greatly tangible cases in which Americans may have done some sort of seemingly rediculous venture when the Soviets did nothing. There's also the fact that Soviet scientists were probably even more efficient than American scientists, but there was a cultural stigma to scientific research and progress, thereby making scientists into a criminal class unless they were absolutely needed. Under Stalin, for example, scientists developed the most advanced aircraft in the world, only to be largely executed after the completion of their work, called upon again after the entire airforce was destroyed only to again be imprisoned and executed after another job well done. Whereas the steady progress of American scientists and the capitalist system really proves that slow and steady wins the race. Though this doesn't entirely compare to China, the similarities are worth to be pointed out.

Yeah well Stalin didn't kill all the scientists. A funny aside to this is when the soviet nuke went off perfectly all the scientists were rewarded based on what would have happened if it failed. The ones who would have been killed got hero of the soviet union whilst those who would have been imprisoned got order of lenin.

[Hound of Ulster]

that doesn't surprise me in the slightest...

[ivan_the_terrible]

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

Thats nothing. Wait till you see the multi-million-dollar toilet plunger NASA developed to address the toilet issue at the international space station.

[Dromikaites]

The Soviet Union collapsed because it didn't have a strong economy to back it in the arms race. Whatever scientific breakthroughs were made, they were kept secret and used only for military purposes which in turn meant there was zero financial return on the resources spent on research.

The agriculture was extremely inefficient. They had tractors and harvesters and whatever machinery was needed but some 30-40% of the crops were lost while transporting it from the field to the silos or in the field (falling through the cracks of the bins, lost in the harvesters, etc) or from the silos to the food-processing factories. As a result the Soviet Union had to import agricultural products from the West.

The industry was also highly inefficient and in its civilian branch the concern for quality was very low. There wasn't actually any real motivation to improve anything as long as everybody was guaranteed a job while higher pay (because the communists did reward the inventors and the more productive employees with both money and medals) simply meant the opportunity to buy more of the generally crappy products.

The Chinese are communists only in name, because communism means state ownership over the main means of production (=states owns all the companies and only small businesses might be tolerated). Communism without the collective ownership of the main means of production is similar to Christianity without Jesus or Islam without the Quran.

[Hound of Ulster]

I would even make the argument that China is now a fascist state. It has the charactistics of one, like hand-in-glove governing by both business and government, ardent nationalism, and a very expansionist foregin policy (see Tibet, Taiwan and the Spratly Islands)

[Exarch]

I would even make the argument that China is now a fascist state. It has the charactistics of one, like hand-in-glove governing by both business and government, ardent nationalism, and a very expansionist foregin policy (see Tibet, Taiwan and the Spratly Islands)

fascist states tend to have an ideology-racial in nature-this, i do not see with modern china.
i do, however, see a semblance of this fascism in modern america tho which is quite disturbing.
like hand-in-glove governing by both business and government, ardent nationalism, and a very expansionsit foreign policy-see iraq and iran and even south america.

[FirstManOnTheMoon]

The Soviet Union collapsed because it didn't have a strong economy to back it in the arms race. Whatever scientific breakthroughs were made, they were kept secret and used only for military purposes which in turn meant there was zero financial return on the resources spent on research.

The agriculture was extremely inefficient. They had tractors and harvesters and whatever machinery was needed but some 30-40% of the crops were lost while transporting it from the field to the silos or in the field (falling through the cracks of the bins, lost in the harvesters, etc) or from the silos to the food-processing factories. As a result the Soviet Union had to import agricultural products from the West.

The industry was also highly inefficient and in its civilian branch the concern for quality was very low. There wasn't actually any real motivation to improve anything as long as everybody was guaranteed a job while higher pay (because the communists did reward the inventors and the more productive employees with both money and medals) simply meant the opportunity to buy more of the generally crappy products.

The Chinese are communists only in name, because communism means state ownership over the main means of production (=states owns all the companies and only small businesses might be tolerated). Communism without the collective ownership of the main means of production is similar to Christianity without Jesus or Islam without the Quran.

Quite an educating post. I never knew the Soviet Union imported agricultural products from the West... For some strange reason I thought it was exporting agricultural products... Also, I never knew that 30% of the crops could "fall through the cracks"

wikipedia: "Organized on a large scale and relatively highly mechanized, the Soviet Union was one of the world's leading producers of cereals"

Oh and about the inefficient industry:
"Within about 50 years, the nation evolved from an agrarian society and became one of the world's three top manufacturers of a large number of capital goods, heavy industrial products and weaponry."

The problem with the Soviet economy was not inefficiency, or lack of machinery, but the inability of the government to predict demand - which led to shortages in some consumer goods and luxuries.

[Dromikaites]

Quite an educating post. I never knew the Soviet Union imported agricultural products from the West... For some strange reason I thought it was exporting agricultural products... Also, I never knew that 30% of the crops could "fall through the cracks"

wikipedia: "Organized on a large scale and relatively highly mechanized, the Soviet Union was one of the world's leading producers of cereals"

He, he, Google is your friend: use it and you'll find out the world's leading producer of wheat was importing between 15 to 35 million metric tons of wheat yearly. Do you have any idea what that amount represents compared to the alleged wheat production of USSR?! Or to the total world trade of wheat? Since the statistics of USSR are notoriously unreliable (having lived in a communist country myself I know a thing or two about what and how the communist reported to the outside world ) I'll quote only the percentage of USSR's wheat imports from the total world trade: 25%.

So if you compare the total USSR wheat imports to the reported USSR wheat production and the average consumption of wheat per capita in the countries with European-style diet the only logical explanation for such high import figures is at least 30% of the crops were lost from the moment of harvesting to the moment of processing.

Oh and about the inefficient industry:
"Within about 50 years, the nation evolved from an agrarian society and became one of the world's three top manufacturers of a large number of capital goods, heavy industrial products and weaponry."

Sure they did, but efficiency is about the ratio between the effort and the results. The Soviet industry was producing weaponry and capital goods, but at costs several times higher than the West.

The problem with the Soviet economy was not inefficiency, or lack of machinery, but the inability of the government to predict demand - which led to shortages in some consumer goods and luxuries.

The failure to correctly predict the demand was the least of the Soviet problems and one which could be corrected at any time through the import of consumer goods or luxury items.

The main problem was the whole industry was too costly to run because of poor management skills, lack of the motivation of the workforce and the fact the scientific breakthroughs were very rarely applied in the civilian sector. While the Japanese were putting their microprocessors into the industrial robots, cars and washing machines the Soviets were using them only to guide missiles.

You know, if you happen to be a Russian offended by what I say about the flourishing economy of the glorious Soviet Union it would not hurt you to do a little fact & figures analysis before debunking my "myths". I would venture to suggest elementary things like comparing the import statistics to the total world trade and such.

[FirstManOnTheMoon]

He, he, Google is your friend: use it and you'll find out the world's leading producer of wheat was importing between 15 to 35 million metric tons of wheat yearly. Do you have any idea what that amount represents compared to the alleged wheat production of USSR?! Or to the total world trade of wheat? Since the statistics of USSR are notoriously unreliable (having lived in a communist country myself I know a thing or two about what and how the communist reported to the outside world ) I'll quote only the percentage of USSR's wheat imports from the total world trade: 25%.

So if you compare the total USSR wheat imports to the reported USSR wheat production and the average consumption of wheat per capita in the countries with European-style diet the only logical explanation for such high import figures is at least 30% of the crops were lost from the moment of harvesting to the moment of processing.

Sure they did, but efficiency is about the ratio between the effort and the results. The Soviet industry was producing weaponry and capital goods, but at costs several times higher than the West.

The failure to correctly predict the demand was the least of the Soviet problems and one which could be corrected at any time through the import of consumer goods or luxury items.

The main problem was the whole industry was too costly to run because of poor management skills, lack of the motivation of the workforce and the fact the scientific breakthroughs were very rarely applied in the civilian sector. While the Japanese were putting their microprocessors into the industrial robots, cars and washing machines the Soviets were using them only to guide missiles.

You know, if you happen to be a Russian offended by what I say about the flourishing economy of the glorious Soviet Union it would not hurt you to do a little fact & figures analysis before debunking my "myths". I would venture to suggest elementary things like comparing the import statistics to the total world trade and such.

I am not offended in the least; I just can't find information that would suggest that you're right. I will accept what you say only after you show me proof for it.

There's no way that Soviet grain imports could be a quarter of the total world grain imports when Soviet trade had only a 4% stake in the gross national product. That's both imports and exports.

Also, I find it hard to believe that one of the world's largest grain exporters would actually import wheat. Only during extremely poor harvests was there a need to import food.

Also, about efficiency, an interesting alternate view:

"
These claims of "inefficiency" have, however, been criticised by at least one Western economist. It has been asserted that statistics based on value rather than volume of production give one view of reality, as public-sector food was heavily subsidised and sold at much lower prices than private-sector produce. In addition, the 2–3% of arable land allotted as private plots does not include the large area allocated to the peasants as pasturage for their private livestock; combined with land used to produce grain for fodder, the pasturage and the private plots total almost 20% of all Soviet farmland. [2] It has also been claimed that private farming also turns out to be relatively inefficient, taking roughly 40% of all agricultural labour to produce only 26% of all output by value. Finally, such claims tend to discuss only a small number of consumer products and do not take into account the fact that the kolkhozy and sovkhozy produced mainly grain, cotton, flax, forage, seed, and other non-consumer goods with a relatively low value per unit area.
Economist Joseph E. Medley of the University of Southern Maine, US, while admitting to some inefficiency in Soviet agriculture, denounces the "myths" of failure propounded by Western critics. [2] He believes it to be ideological in nature and emphasises "[t]he possibility that socialized agriculture may be able to make valuable contributions to improving human welfare"."

[Dromikaites]

I am not offended in the least; I just can't find information that would suggest that you're right. I will accept what you say only after you show me proof for it.

Try this for a start. JSTOR is an online library of academic works (you don't need access to the whole article, the relevant information is on the first page). Here is another article from JSTOR on the topic.

There's no way that Soviet grain imports could be a quarter of the total world grain imports when Soviet trade had only a 4% stake in the gross national product. That's both imports and exports.

Of course it can. Wheat is a cheap commodity. USSR was exporting more expensive commodities like oil, rare materials, diamonds, capital goods (to the COMECOM members, Africa, Middle East), weapons and even some high-value-added things like photo cameras and lenses to the West.

But don't take my word for it. Look up the two articles and some additional info like this one. (you have there the evolution of the level of production, prices, surface cultivated with wheat worldwide since 1960).

Also, I find it hard to believe that one of the world's largest grain exporters would actually import wheat. Only during extremely poor harvests was there a need to import food.

USSR was forced to export wheat every time it had some sort of surplus because it was short of hard currency. For the same reason they were exporting oil to the West at the height of the Cold War.

This pressure to export the maximum possible every time there was a decent crop resulted in low reserves if any (nobody actually knows except for the precious few individuals in Russia who have access to this type of information which was and probably still is classified). Given the Soviet population was lower than the American one the only explanation for the massive Soviet imports must be manifold:
- "doctored" production statistics;
- low if any grain reserves;
- waste.

Also, about efficiency, an interesting alternate view:

"
These claims of "inefficiency" have, however, been criticised by at least one Western economist. It has been asserted that statistics based on value rather than volume of production give one view of reality, as public-sector food was heavily subsidised and sold at much lower prices than private-sector produce. In addition, the 2–3% of arable land allotted as private plots does not include the large area allocated to the peasants as pasturage for their private livestock; combined with land used to produce grain for fodder, the pasturage and the private plots total almost 20% of all Soviet farmland. [2] It has also been claimed that private farming also turns out to be relatively inefficient, taking roughly 40% of all agricultural labour to produce only 26% of all output by value. Finally, such claims tend to discuss only a small number of consumer products and do not take into account the fact that the kolkhozy and sovkhozy produced mainly grain, cotton, flax, forage, seed, and other non-consumer goods with a relatively low value per unit area.
Economist Joseph E. Medley of the University of Southern Maine, US, while admitting to some inefficiency in Soviet agriculture, denounces the "myths" of failure propounded by Western critics. [2] He believes it to be ideological in nature and emphasises "[t]he possibility that socialized agriculture may be able to make valuable contributions to improving human welfare"."

You do realize that the statistics from the Soviet era are totally unreliable, don't you? They way all the communist countries played with the numbers was leading to ridiculous (or tragic - depends on how one looks at it) situations with the economy planners. Since not everybody had clearance to the real data, a lot of the planning was done based on the official figures. This way factories were built with little raw materials to process and with practically non-existent demand for the output.

So that professor is assuming whatever statistics he had access to were correctly describing the situation. I am very skeptical about it having myself being dragged on the fields (like many other high school students at the time) to help with harvesting the crops. What we were gathering and what got reported was differing by 70%. The party activists "managing" us were scared to report they haven't reached the planned goals so they've resorted to "pencil acrobatics".

[Chlodwig I.]

there is no big diffrence in the set up of communist state and a fascist state

[Valentin the II]

there is no big diffrence in the set up of communist state and a fascist state

For the billions time: Comunism has absolutley nothing in comon with Fascism.

[Chlodwig I.]

For the billions time: Comunism has absolutley nothing in comon with Fascism.

Compare USSR or the other Warsaw States with Nazi Germany and Facist Italy
and you will find more similarities then diffrences

Very wrong: communism (and actually nazism as well) are class-free societies, fascism is still based on classes.

communism
class-free?
:hmmm:
Politicans and Military = Class 1
Workers, Employees etc. = Class 2

[Dromikaites]

communism
class-free?
:hmmm:
Politicans and Military = Class 1
Workers, Employees etc. = Class 2

Well, you need to pay attention to the communist terminology: the members of the military and the politicians were not a social class. Maybe a social category (a subdivision of a class). The only two social classes in a communist country were the workers and the peasants.

[Chlodwig I.]

Subclass or class?
so politicans and military are not a class?
then every form of government is class less
even 19century free market economies

communism was not class free
the high politicans and high military
had more rights and more power and more priviliges
then workers or peasants etc.

if it smells like fish, looks like fish and tastes like fish
then most times it is fish