Russia Vs. America: Here we go again kids!!

[angelofdeath]

^^^ you got it pretty right there, christo

 

to say that the 'communist' states are/were not communist is like if i would make no concession to the US being capitalist because it has corporate welfare, socialist healthcare schemes like medicare, social security, regulations, tariffs, etc. its like me saying that capitalism does not exist in this country because there is a state. 'real capitalism' i guess would be market anarchy, but suffice it to say we are capitalist enough to be called 'capitalist' and they are communist enough to be called communist.

 

and it is hilarious to me to hear a communist say that i have no understanding of economics.

[smooth bruce]

Ok, sorry, I misunderstood you. Abolishment of the state, they would argue that they did that. The party was the people in their eyes. They would still argue that the party are the people because they are elected delegates that come from the provinces and unions that work for the country, not personal interest.

 

No, there was a state and there was no serious electing going on anywhere.

 

Democratic control of workplace, they'd argue that they had this too. In some places they probably did as per reality and others they'd say that the orders that came from the party concerning agricultural and industrial methods were a product of the democratic process of electing party officials.

 

Lenin destroyed all socialist elements of the society within weeks including things like workers councils.

 

It's all in the perspective. We all know that reality is far different, but then politics is always removed from reality and is always different through other people's eyes.

 

The mainstream of the Marxist movement considered Lenin's takeover as counter revolutionary. People like Bertrand Russel, and many modern historians, consider it a coup.

 

Russia was never a communist society, ever.

 

 

 

 

 

^^^ you got it pretty right there, christo

 

to say that the 'communist' states are/were not communist is like if i would make no concession to the US being capitalist

 

No it isn't like that.

 

It was never a communist system.

 

because it has corporate welfare, socialist healthcare schemes like medicare, social security, regulations, tariffs, etc.

 

Socialist elements, small and pathetic as they are particularly for the US are firstly won through about 150+ years of class struggle and secondly bare no relation to the fact that it is a capitalist system.

 

its like me saying that capitalism does not exist in this country because there is a state. 'real capitalism' i guess would be market anarchy,

 

The global economy and the US are advanced capitalism. The state is not exclusive.

 

but suffice it to say we are capitalist enough to be called 'capitalist' and they are communist

enough to be called communist.

 

No they are not. They are communist enough to be called communist because both the USSR and the US liked to consider it communism, but it wasn't.

 

and it is hilarious to me to hear a communist say that i have no understanding of economics.

 

I'm not a communist, stupid assumption, and you obviously don't.

 

'centralized planning must fail therefore all socialist based ideas fail' yeah that is a real sound understanding of economics, except maybe if you venture outside a economics/commerce degree.

[christo-f]

Dude, who the fuck is talking about Russia??!!

 

When discussing communism in this thread I think it's pretty clear I've been talking about China!

 

I know SFA about the Russian revolution.

 

I've also got to say that your method of discussing issues leaves a shit tin to be desired. You need to DISCUSS more and tell people less. Stuff like, "No, there was a state.." is a lot easier to accept/discuss things if you say; "no, I disagree that there was no state because the .... acted as a state when they....." etc. etc.

[smooth bruce]

Dude, who the fuck is talking about Russia??!!

 

When discussing communism in this thread I think it's pretty clear I've been talking about China!

 

I know SFA about the Russian revolution.

 

Sorry. Russia happened first I tend to automatically make it the point of reference. I assume its what the other guy is talking about still.

 

Same shit still, state, socialist elements destroyed, state takes control of production, etc.

 

They can have the name communist all they like but if we are serious then a reasonable measuring stick would be Karl Marx theories and Marxist theories.

[smooth bruce]

 

I've also got to say that your method of discussing issues leaves a shit tin to be desired. You need to DISCUSS more and tell people less. Stuff like, "No, there was a state.." is a lot easier to accept/discuss things if you say; "no, I disagree that there was no state because the .... acted as a state when they....." etc. etc.

 

 

It is a bad habit but it is also fairly redundant shit we are talking about

 

A discussion I guess would be healthier but that would involve caring about trying to change the persons opinion or being open to changing your own and seeing as we are all just names on the internet it doesn't really matter that much. Plus like I have said it is redundant shit, you will find that a course on modern theories of the state will tell you the exact same shit.

[christo-f]

I would have said that Marx/Engles was the most rigid measuring stick possible!

 

As I said earlier, I don't think life/countries will ever fit any economic/ideological model perfectly, I can't think of any that have yet. But I do know that China having no private ownership, communal living etc., they came pretty damned close when looking at country wide operational perspective. They had a state of sorts but as they were concerned, they were just the people who were the most dedicated and loyal to the cause, they were still "the people" in their eyes (of course not in practice though). China still sees their single party system as a multi-party democracy. There are about 8 other parties than the CCP that are "consulted" on policy and are part of the democratic process (as it is, the cppcc is happening down the road from me right now) and all parts of the Chinese system are "elected" into their positions.

 

Now, on paper, all of this is actually true, just like the US, England, Australia and so on are democracies. However, in real life you have to have millions to run for Pres. in the US, corporation and rich individuals have greater political communication in all three countries and after the 2000 election, the US has some questions it needs to ask itself about free and fair elections.

 

I think using the strictest measures for Communism would be the Manifesto, etc. Marxism is the pinnacle of Communism, not the compromise with reality that I would look for.

[christo-f]

It is a bad habit but it is also fairly redundant shit we are talking about

 

A discussion I guess would be healthier but that would involve caring about trying to change the persons opinion or being open to changing your own and seeing as we are all just names on the internet it doesn't really matter that much. Plus like I have said it is redundant shit, you will find that a course on modern theories of the state will tell you the exact same shit.

Redundant, yes. Interesting and informative, maybe. I'm always happy to listen to people's thoughts that challenge my own though.

 

Anyway, It will be interesting to see what kind of influence that Putin keeps and how Medvedev will act now there is a change in positions in Russia.

[angelofdeath]

*mental note: when debating anarchocommies, no longer refer to communist countries as communist countries, but simply refer to them all as totalitarian collectivist cesspools.

 

socialism has no method of calculation, therefore it must always fail. just like 'what goes up, must come down'

 

to deny this fact is not to face reality.

[Spitfire15]

This has been going on for awhile. You fucking people need to step your game up and get on the ball.

[MayorMeanBeans]

i think stereotype alluded to this, but i'm going to put it out there- there is no resumption of a cold war race. both sides have politically advantageous reasons for saying so, but there is a lot more going on under the surface-

 

as to why there isn't one-

 

- i read recently somewhere that russia spends about 1/20 the amount the us military does. additionally, russia's main sector of growth has been energy, which is in a conflict-bubble of sorts. once iraq/turkey/iran calm down (which, of course, is a major IF), the US will proceed to stockpile capabilities while Russia loses revenue due to lower energy prices. call me an optimist, but when i read that oil prices are highest ever, i'm inclined to believe this is not a permanent development. casek you sounded as if you believed the russians over the US regarding the satellite affair, and i don't think one should underestimate the backwardness of the russian military relative to the us. this is another reason of the rise of bureaucratic authoritarians vis a vis putin, this perceived inferiority of capabilities.

 

- i dont mean to be stereotyping russians, but life for most of the population kind of sucks. without being dr. phil, putin pronouncing russia as a key player onthe world stage is a diversionary tactic, distracts the poor while giving them an outlet for their frustrations. Putin then 'protects' them from external threats which in turn are responsible for their grievances (putin et al are protecting you from the ravages of unchecked democracy and capitalism). i do believe that there is legitimate discontent within russia at the intl structure, but there is a lot more bark than bite, given that a lot of it is geared towards Russia's domestic politics. a more extreme example would be mugabe saying that the us and britain are responsible for hyperinflation.

 

- The US can use Russia as a reason why it sucks at international diplomacy. it has been unable to muster strong international support against iran. this is RUssia's 'interventionist, activist' predispositions. it was Russia's fault for the oil for food scandal in iraq (despite the fact that the oil for food scandal was really capitalism at its core, unchecked by political distortions such as embargoes). russia is the scapegoat for the fact that the us does not have moral authority on the intl scene (surprising?!)...

 

so this is my case for their being no resumption of the coldwar. i hear the part of the nuclear weapons, and i think nato would be smart to allow russian observers of the system (im assuming that someone in ukraine or poland would probably pass on the information on the missile system eventually anyway), so might as well give it to them and gain the intl political capital, thereby weakening russia diplomatically, maybe getting more pressure on iran.

[christo-f]

- i read recently somewhere that russia spends about 1/20 the amount the us military does. additionally, russia's main sector of growth has been energy, which is in a conflict-bubble of sorts. once iraq/turkey/iran calm down (which, of course, is a major IF), the US will proceed to stockpile capabilities while Russia loses revenue due to lower energy prices. call me an optimist, but when i read that oil prices are highest ever, i'm inclined to believe this is not a permanent development. casek you sounded as if you believed the russians over the US regarding the satellite affair, and i don't think one should underestimate the backwardness of the russian military relative to the us. this is another reason of the rise of bureaucratic authoritarians vis a vis putin, this perceived inferiority of capabilities.

Concerning oil prices, maybe. But Russia also controls a large amount of Gas supply. As said above, Russia supplies 25% of Europe's Gas and all of Ukraine's. Therefore, this is not that relative to oil because oil is used in many different ways where as Gas is primarily used in energy generation which the northern climates need every year for up to 6 months at a time. Secondly, Russia does make a lot of high tech weapons that do balance against US capabilities. Of course, the US is still the dominant manufacturer/military nation, however, the Bears when equipped with cruise missiles are just as potent a weapon as the B52 when it comes to strategic weapons use. Also, the Sukhoi company makes fighter jets that can rival the best of US fighter jets (they supply india and in recent exercises Indian pilots have out maneuvered and "downed" Us fighters). Also, the Russian subs are still potent vessels and as we can see, China has recently reverse engineered these subs to be able to make their own. These are the subs that in 2006 surfaced within missile range of the USS Kitty Hawk. The Russians are still a military power that may not be able to defeat the US but can still cause them a good deal of trouble. Admittedly, as written above, Russia's economic base is being slowly usurped by China, so this may change.

 

Thirdly, as recently seen in Estonia, the Russians can also launch relatively sophisticated large scale cyber attacks. This demonstrates the evolution of attack capabilities and a willingness to remain close to the forefront of technology used to deter/destroy/ unsettle opponent's military and command capabilities. The Russians aint done yet.

 

- i dont mean to be stereotyping russians, but life for most of the population kind of sucks. without being dr. phil, putin pronouncing russia as a key player onthe world stage is a diversionary tactic, distracts the poor while giving them an outlet for their frustrations. Putin then 'protects' them from external threats which in turn are responsible for their grievances (putin et al are protecting you from the ravages of unchecked democracy and capitalism). i do believe that there is legitimate discontent within russia at the intl structure, but there is a lot more bark than bite, given that a lot of it is geared towards Russia's domestic politics. a more extreme example would be mugabe saying that the us and britain are responsible for hyperinflation.

Agreed.

 

 

so this is my case for their being no resumption of the coldwar. i hear the part of the nuclear weapons, and i think nato would be smart to allow russian observers of the system (im assuming that someone in ukraine or poland would probably pass on the information on the missile system eventually anyway), so might as well give it to them and gain the intl political capital, thereby weakening russia diplomatically, maybe getting more pressure on iran.

What do you think about the argument that the BMDS is also about gaining bases in the Eastern European countries, as written above? Also, MIRV and missile saturation pretty much discounts the missile shield anyway, so maybe it's not the worry that they are making it out to be and supports the argument that it's about bases and not zero-sum missile games.

[Stereotype V.0002]

Also, the Sukhoi company makes fighter jets that can rival the best of US fighter jets (they supply india and in recent exercises Indian pilots have out maneuvered and "downed" Us fighters).

 

How recent? If you are talking about the one a few years ago, they were su30s vs f16s right? The f35 is on its way to replacing the f16s, so we may still have the jump on them. We have some f22s as well.

[christo-f]

Stereotype, I'll have to do some research before I answer your question with credibility.

 

 

Matters afoot:

 

Russia has publicly stated that Abkhazia will secede if Georgia joins NATO. This is a line drawn in the sand to the West and is the two powers stating their positions.

 

Secondly, Moldova has attempted to declare their neutrality. They are caught between the West hungrily eyeing Eastern Europe and the spoils of the Cold War victory, Romanian hardliners that believe that Moldova is a break-away province and Russia that is looking to reconsolidate its regional power base.

 

Russia and Belarus are in discussion concerning joint defences. This is Russia securing one of their allies with a security dependency. This takes away any chance or motivation to look towards NATO membership and also solidifies a strong Russian allies on the northern border of the recalcitrant Ukraine. If Russia can secure Moldova, which they probably will, this will create "hostile" Russian army hosting countries on three sides of Ukraine. That is significant pressure on a vital strategic interest of Russia.

 

Things are moving relatively quickly now and I'd assume all the old Cold War warriors that had been mothballed after the new Islamo-fascist threat showed its face have all been dusted off and are starting to reasert themselves in Washington and Europe. This may result in changes or strengthening of strategic assets such as ICBM's, SSBM's, LR bomber fleets and old school intel operatives and their styles of practice.