Interesting and Humour - page 3894
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
What outcome do you see?
history repeats itself
for example now (imho) russia is going through a kind of phase-mix of still strong tsarism and still strong soviet Union from the 60-70s
and the doctrine itself would have to be greatly corrected.
the very idea of the proletariat as the ruling class is very flawed.
Learn the math...
The idea that the proletariat as the ruling class is just one of the early stages of building socialism.
What's wrong with communism?
For example, you go to work, you make a conscious effort all day long, the canteen is free, in the evening you go to the store (?) to change worn-out trousers, you go to the shop (no shop assistants) and get something to eat, if you fall ill, you call for a leave (consciously), on holiday you board the train and go wherever you want. No money, no guards, no criminals, no rent. The country would have several centres for distribution of funds and labour resources, etc. centres by districts. Governance would be (I assume) based on management exams, not elections.
Scientists study, engineers design, workers work, villagers grow, management wisely.
What an economy of everything, how much can be done in the foreseeable future.
Who is bad? Who prevented the USSR from building it? Why is it utopia?
Was it even possible to build it? Maybe the collapse of the USSR was a matter of time and chance?
Do you think the majority should be outcasts?
You've got to be kidding me!!!!!!!
First of all, why are they outcasts in the first place? - I didn't write that, you're imagining it yourself......
Second, direct majority rule is probably illusory - the masses are incapable of governing in principle.
although the democratic idea of the participation of each in governance is very good
however, everyone has their place and mission. a housewife cannot rule the state.
in the ussR it would be funny to think that a factory worker or a peasant had the privileges of the ruling class
so there was certainly no communism/socialism in the ussr
Learn the math...
The idea that the proletariat as the ruling class is just one of the early stages of building socialism.
The lectures on scientific communism (you must remember them, right? And the MLF too) clearly declared the dictatorship of the proletariat, so you probably didn't study well...
What's wrong with communism?
For example, - you go to work, you make a conscious effort all day, get a free canteen, in the evening you go to the warehouse (?) to change worn-out trousers, go to the shop (no shop assistants), get something to eat, if you fall ill, call (consciously) to reschedule, holiday, get on the train and go wherever you want. No money, no guards, no criminals, no rent. The country would have several centres for distribution of funds and labour resources, etc. centres by districts. Governance would be (I assume) based on management exams, not elections.
Scientists study, engineers design, workers work, villagers grow, management wisely.
What an economy of everything, how much can be done in the foreseeable future.
Who is bad? Who prevented the USSR from building it? Why is it utopia?
Was it even possible to build it? Maybe the collapse of the USSR was a matter of time and chance?
everything is fine.
two things are bad:
1 - egalitarianism
2 - centrally planned economy that does not take into account the real needs of people
What's wrong with communism?
For example, you go to work, you make a conscious effort all day long, the canteen is free, in the evening you go to the store (?) to change your worn-out trousers, you go to the shop (no shop assistants) and get something to eat, if you fall ill, you call for sick leave, on holiday you board the train and go where you want. No money, no guards, no criminals, no rent. The country would have several centres for distribution of funds and labour resources, etc. centres by districts. Governance would be (I assume) based on management exams, not elections.
Scientists study, engineers design, workers work, villagers grow, management wisely.
What an economy of everything, how much can be done in the foreseeable future.
Who is bad? Who prevented the USSR from building it? Why is it a utopia?
Was it even possible to build it? Maybe the collapse of the USSR was a matter of time and chance?
There was no real socialism/communism in the USSR.
there was a layer of people (the nomenklatura) under the slogan "our children will live under communism"
this layer of the nomenklatura essentially became an exploiting class (see monographs by Voslensky and others).
and it happened as usual - we wanted the best, but... we again built a mono-kingdom with an absolutist structure
The lectures on scientific communism (you must remember them, right? And the MLF too) clearly declared the dictatorship of the proletariat, so you must have had a bad education...
I studied well and that is why I drew your attention to the fact that the dictatorship of the proletariat was declared in the early stages of building socialism, not in Communist society.
everything's great.
two things are bad:
1 - equalisation
2 - a centrally planned economy that does not take into account people's real needs
2 - If you want to eat more, eat it. What *real* needs cannot be met?
Be aware that the scythe is sharp. It can manifest as a nuclear mushroom, or a bacteriological weapon. Die if you don't want to and that's it, or suffer for a year or two if life becomes so desirable.
So? Am I supposed to be scared or something?