Communism

[Arūnas]

Everyone else - proletarians
Vassals (Top Professionals) - председателе (chairman)
Merchants (Top bureaucrats) - чиновники

etc.

[KirillMazur]

This is not false, but communism didn't improve it one bit, just made everyone poorer and less free. No, thanks.

You confuse nationally oriented communism (communism of a sovereign state on cooperative principles, in fact - a regulatory superstructure over capitalism) and a kind of globalism, with beneficiaries who are outside the country. You should not judge the whole idea by the last years of the USSR and the socialist camp, with the dictatorship of the Party, when the people could no longer influence the processes in the country in the slightest degree, as in democracies now. Socialism in the USSR followed an experimental path that no one had followed before us, and of course there were mistakes, for example, difficulties in the transition from wartime to a peaceful period and the self-reproduction of high-quality sovereign elites.
The first steps cannot be successful in everything, but from your point of view, now we are moving along the optimal path of development and nothing needs to be changed. Your children will answer this question, if, of course, you can ever afford them.

[Finnish Swede]

You confuse nationally oriented communism (communism of a sovereign state on cooperative principles, in fact - a regulatory superstructure over capitalism) and a kind of globalism, with beneficiaries who are outside the country. You should not judge the whole idea by the last years of the USSR and the socialist camp, with the dictatorship of the Party, when the people could no longer influence the processes in the country in the slightest degree, as in democracies now. Socialism in the USSR followed an experimental path that no one had followed before us, and of course there were mistakes, for example, difficulties in the transition from wartime to a peaceful period and the self-reproduction of high-quality sovereign elites.
The first steps cannot be successful in everything, but from your point of view, now we are moving along the optimal path of development and nothing needs to be changed. Your children will answer this question, if, of course, you can ever afford them.

First step? You think that Russians can be really successful? Ever? I have doubts.

Why?

Because you miss one critical skill (and that has nothing to do with system but all with people).

Giving and and especially taking critical feedback.

No western countries (or especially Japan, South Korea etc.) would have developed to the present stages if those nations could not admit their mistakes (looking critically what has been done) and after that ... try to prove next time. You miss this.
One can not learn if there is nothing to learn. The person who has more power (position) is always right even as he would be totally wrong/mistaken. And it ends that.

[ixulescu]

You confuse nationally oriented communism (communism of a sovereign state on cooperative principles, in fact - a regulatory superstructure over capitalism) and a kind of globalism, with beneficiaries who are outside the country. You should not judge the whole idea by the last years of the USSR and the socialist camp, with the dictatorship of the Party, when the people could no longer influence the processes in the country in the slightest degree, as in democracies now. Socialism in the USSR followed an experimental path that no one had followed before us, and of course there were mistakes, for example, difficulties in the transition from wartime to a peaceful period and the self-reproduction of high-quality sovereign elites.
The first steps cannot be successful in everything, but from your point of view, now we are moving along the optimal path of development and nothing needs to be changed. Your children will answer this question, if, of course, you can ever afford them.

You forgot that Romanians, such as myself, were the beneficiaries of nationalist communism. It sucked dick.

[KirillMazur]

First step? You think that Russians can be really successful? Ever? I have doubts.

I love expert opinions on my country from foreign shepherds and milkmaids. Both about military and economic potential.
Everything can be described in one sentence - "The country cannot develop successfully without a contribution to human capital, to human resources."
It depends on them whether the state will be able to reach a new level of development, how quickly and efficiently the national economy will develop, and whether the state will be independent in the international arena.
Social policy is that contribution of the state to human resources.
When the government understands this, the country is growing at a tremendous pace, when it does not understand (or does not want to understand), it stagnates. Periods of understanding and misunderstanding replace each other.

You forgot that Romanians, such as myself, were the beneficiaries of nationalist communism. It sucked dick.

What makes you think that your country is not sucking dick now? Measured GDP in dollars () while wearing a medical mask? Maybe sucking someone's dick - is this the fate of that territory?

[Finnish Swede]

KirillMazur: Nobody question your potential. I did not either. I have called you excellent chess players.

But potential will not help alone, if attitudes and culture of people makes ''barriers''. The barriers which slower or even eliminate possible development.

[ixulescu]

What makes you think that your country is not sucking dick now? Measured GDP in dollars () while wearing a medical mask? Maybe sucking someone's dick - is this the fate of that territory?

Romanians are several times wealthier than in the 80s. That's just a fact, money in the bank. Living in Romania still sucks, but less so.

Btw Romanians don't care about masks and vaccines and had probably the least severe anti-covid measures in Europe. Still less free than in the US though, and I live in a dumb blue state.

[KirillMazur]

Romanians are several times wealthier than in the 80s. That's just a fact, money in the bank. Living in Romania still sucks, but less so.

Russia, too, has gotten richer (on paper), but I am more concerned about the increasing egregious inequality and social stratification by income in the current system. The one who has become very rich, fenced off with a three-meter fence from his beggars (former) brothers and hires security. I would prefer to give half of my income to public consumption funds so that my children live in a safe, owned by everyone space without fences, cameras and guards. Maybe I'm idealist but here are enough such people.

[KirillMazur]

Representatives of the world financial international and their accomplices feel some kind of animal hatred for Stalin. We emphasize - to the dead for more than half a century, Stalin. For what? Because he built the first country of socialism in history and showed mankind an alternative way of development, more effective than the way of the West - Yes, this is definitely a reason for hatred.
For the fact that, according to his plans and under his leadership, the country, an agrarian country sentenced to death, created a modern industry for 10 years, which took the developed countries of the West from 50 to 100 years to create. Already 4 years after the start of industrialization, Stalin recited in a monotonous voice what had been done:
“We did not have ferrous metallurgy, the basis for the industrialization of the country. We have it now.
We didn't have a tractor industry. We have it now.
We didn't have an auto industry. We have it now.
We didn't have a machine tool industry. We have it now.
We did not have a serious and modern chemical industry. We have it now.
We did not have a real and serious industry for the production of modern agricultural machinery. We have it now.
We didn't have an aviation industry. We have it now.
In terms of the production of electrical energy, we were in the very last place. Now we have moved to one of the first places.
In terms of the production of oil products and coal, we were in the last place. Now we have moved to one of the first places.
We had only one single coal and metallurgical base - in Ukraine, which we could hardly cope with. We have achieved that not only raised this base, but also created a new coal and metallurgical base - in the East, which is the pride of our country.
We had only one single base for the textile industry - in the North of our country. We have achieved that in the near future we will have two new bases of the textile industry - in Central Asia and in Western Siberia.
And we have not only created these huge new industries, but we have created them on a scale and size that make the scale and size of European industry look pale in comparsion."
From Stalin's speech at the joint plenum in January 1933

---

In the spring of 1950, the USSR Government issued a Decree on the abolition of the determination of the ruble exchange rate in relation to foreign currencies on the basis of the dollar and its transfer to a more stable gold base, in accordance with the gold content of the ruble, which became a precedent that threatens in the future the foundations of a predatory system based on printing of the unsecured non-backed dollar:
"The Council of Ministers of the USSR decided:
1. To stop, from March 1, 1950, the determination of the ruble exchange rate against foreign currencies on the basis of the dollar and to transfer to a more stable gold basis, in accordance with the gold content of the ruble.
2. Establish the gold content of the ruble 0.222168 grams of pure gold
3. Set the purchase price of the State Bank for gold at 4 rubles 45 kopeek per 1 gram of pure gold from March 1, 1950.
4. Determine from March 1, 1950 the exchange rate in relation to foreign currencies, based on the gold content of the ruble, set in paragraph 2: 4 rubles per one American dollar instead of the existing 5 rubles 30 kopeek and 11 rubles 20 kopeek for one sterling pound instead of the existing 14 rubles 84 kopeek.
Instruct the USSR State Bank to change the ruble exchange rate in relation to other foreign currencies accordingly. In the event of further changes in the gold content of foreign currencies or changes in their rates, the USSR State Bank shall set the ruble exchange rate in relation to foreign currencies, taking into account these changes".

If other countries followed the example of the USSR, the position of the United States, the world's largest parasite, would become extremely dangerous. However, two years later, an attempt was made to deliver a second blow to the financial system, which the United States was trying to establish around the world, using the Marshall Plan and binding the world's economies to the dollar. And if it succeeded, it would be the beginning of the end of the "new world order" that is being created. More than half a century ago, in 1952, an international economic conference was held in Moscow, where the USSR and CMEA proposed to create, in opposition to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the expansion of the United States, a common market for goods, services and investment, not tied to the dollar. And now the dollar is a commodity sold by the US Federal Reserve to the entire planet.

[KirillMazur]

Khrushchev destroyed the method of increasing the efficiency of the economy in the USSR.

In 1939, the USSR developed a new method for increasing the efficiency of the economy (MIE). MIE was used in most sectors of the national economy. The MIE was effective for both the socialist and the capitalist economy, but for the socialist structure, the MIE efficiency was more than 2 times higher.
But, unfortunately, this Stalinist economic system of the USSR did not last long due to the activities of Khrushchev. There was a reversal not only in terms of ideology, but also in terms of economic policy. The reforms that Khrushchev carried out destroyed the integral economic model.
And, nevertheless, the system that allowed to reduce prices in early April (now the price reduction is from the realm of fantasy, then it was the norm), which made it possible to abandon coupons before anyone else, which allowed pulling the country out of ruins in 5-10 years - it helped to survive until the end of the 1980s, and this potential is still being consumed in all post-Soviet republics.
Here is how the Japanese billionaire Heroshi Terawama said about it in 1991, referring to Soviet economists:
"You are not talking about the main thing, about your leading role in the world.
In 1939 you Russians were smart and we Japanese were fools. In 1949 you became even smarter, and we were still fools. And in 1955, we grew wiser, and you turned into five-year-old children.
Our entire economic system is almost completely copied from yours, with the only difference that we have capitalism, private producers, and we have never achieved more than 15% growth, while you, with public ownership of the means of production, reached 30% or more. In all our firms your slogans of the Stalinist era are hanging."

A number of conclusions can be drawn from the above statement: In 1955, Japan borrowed the MIE, which ensured its rapid economic growth due, first of all, to innovative technologies (the "Japanese miracle"), and the USSR in the same year began to move away from the MIE, which led to the subsequent degradation of the economy.
So, in the USSR, from 1939 to 1955, a magic method was applied that ensured an unprecedented rise in the economy. At present, absolutely nothing is known about this method, although in Stalin's times in the USSR it was used everywhere.

---

Khrushchev's reforms seemed chaotic and disorderly, and at the same time they were systemic. The essence of this system is destruction. For all their apparent confusion and disorder, with all the broadest spectrum of Khrushchev's ideas, one can always single out one general pattern. All reforms led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.


Khrushchev's transformations undermined the Soviet system, weakened the USSR.
In order for the Soviet people to lose faith and become disillusioned with socialism and the government’s course, Khrushchev immediately destroyed the basic socialist principle: "To each according to his work."
Equalization was introduced throughout the USSR. No matter how much you work, you will not get more than your rate. Labor was devalued.

Under Stalin, a professor or designer could receive more than a minister. Under Khrushchev, a highly qualified specialist could receive less than an ordinary worker. At the same time, production standards were raised and wage growth was frozen. In fact, Khrushchev ended Stalin's socialism. Under Stalin, how much you earned, so much you received. The production standards were not raised monthly. Production standards increased depending on the introduction of new capacities, technologies and equipment in production. Violation of the basic socialist principle turned the party and the state away from the people. The party bureaucratic nomenklatura began to rapidly degenerate, to separate from the common people The top of the nomenklatura began to turn into a new class of exploiters. It is clear that this was a long process, invisible to most people. But by the 1980s, the decay process had already become irreversible and led to the death of the USSR. The new "masters of life" wanted to become official "boyars". For this, Gorbachev's "perestroika" was launched. Khrushchev's socialism gradually turned into a kind of capitalism - state capitalism. And the constant rise in prices for essential goods, which began under Khrushchev, was the main feature of a capitalist society.