PDA

View Full Version : When capitalism and communism will become anachronism: A Newest Form of Democracy.



Nicholas Popov
11-12-2010, 08:27 AM
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/discussion/avatars/2010/10/24/NicholasPopov/cccaa7c4-8d3b-4091-ab10-33a1812ce37f/60x60.png

When capitalism and communism will become anachronism, "the messiahs" of new political religions will continue to proselytize "lost sheep" and set them at loggerheads for the purpose of the own crowning. But the chronic error freedom fighters provoking lovers of royal honors and arbitrary rule, will remain former.

Lenin's errors (and not only his):

1. Monopoly of one political idea leads to the inevitable formation of a caste which serves it, to the cult of "The Supreme priest' and to the alienation from the rest of society. The caste pursues the interests of the caste exclusively. It is a monarchy again instead of a republic. "The Dragon is dead, long live the Dragon!"

2. The monopoly idea creates an imbalance in the society, and retention of its domination demands regular disinformation (the lie) and physical violence in Soviet Russia, such as the Kronstadt rebellion, the Gulags, Novocherkassk - June 1962', Prague-68, the Iron Curtain, among other flagrant examples of rebellions dealt with in a horrendously repressive way.

3. Self-preservation of a monopoly and social privileges of the 'high priests' require the suppression of new ideas. The lack of renewal and of healthy competition leads to degeneration.

4. The unipolarity which controls autocracies leaves the possibility for shadow protectionism; corruption destroys the state from within. /The corruption can be minimized by means of cross-checking of several independent and competing parties in power. /

5. The traditional pyramid of power is too dependent on the personal qualities and political orientation of the leader and his "cheerleading group": in Soviet Russia, from authoritarian Stalin, who built a socialist super state based on criminal rules, to shortsighted , idle talker Gorbachev, who betrayed the fates of millions by one weak-willed phrase to the kulak werewolf and drunkard Yeltsin. That this pyramid is unstable and vulnerable was thus proved!

6. A new society begins with a reform of the means of power. Lenin was to have bequeathed not a successor, but an innovation in management: 'the development spiral' returns to an obsolete level without a new system of management. So Russia returned to the monarchic National Emblem, a two-headed clownish mockery of modern Russian 'democracy'.
/ Incidentally, and two-party political ‘football’ is a fascinating show for the common people, which distracts from the Sedition ("bread and circuses!"), but with the winning score is invariably in favour of the sponsors' top. /

Read more: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Three-Ways-to-the-Future--by-Nicholas-Popov--e-101020-737.html

The new management idea resolves contradictions between different ideologies by means of the constructive rivalry within a united team and directs energy of their leaders to the benefit of the entire society, and also frees healthy the potential of the society itself. It is the power of Collective Wisdom and Common Sense.

“Know-how” against Wars and Crises: a New Formula for Democracy. The new meaning of a 5-pointed star!

“Equals with equals are most easily flocked together”

The stalemates primarily indicate a crisis of governance.

Single-party leadership of any political form and colour through inevitable caste egoism foists and accumulates misbalance in the whole society and economy, provokes crises and dangerous regime changes (revolutions, dictatorship) and through the paranoia of “the fuhrers” it causes wars. Caste egoism inhibits the potential of other, larger part of society.

Does the phrase “Winner take all” mean that the rest are “the losing party”? On which side will YOU find yourself? Is it wise to give initiatives and decisions concerning the whole society to the one-sided point of view? Objectivity and justice cannot be unilateral!

The self-balancing power of five Independent parties with a movable centre of joint decisions would be more broad-minded, enterprising, protected by Collective Wisdom and would fit into society more adequately. The five [view angles] make up the minimum for self-balance. 5-pointed star is a symbol of objectivity (of wisdom) in power. The morning of a new, energetic and harmonious civilization will begin with the Rise of a refreshed star!

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af166/MacWriter/Decorated%20images/uji.jpg

THE IDEA OF A SELF-BALANCING POWER.
Attention: the mechanism that is spelled out below, is built on feedback!

Collective interests of the whole society are presented in the governance of five Independent political parties simultaneously. In every party there is a team of experts in different fields.

The favourite of most voters will have initial 2 votes out of 6, but the 2-votes advantage will be “floating”. The accepted decisions are the result of a balance of contradictions and compromises among the leaders within power.

Any party of five has the right of initiatives.
The realization of suggestions impels seeking allies and go to compromises. The decision can be taken at the half of the votes. If the solution is blocked by another half, the right of the new edition and the 2-votes advantage go to the leader of the second (regarding the number of voters) party.

In case of repeated lock, either:
1. The 2-votes advantage on the current theme goes to the communicator with a new alternative, which is supported by at least one participant from each block, or by mutual agreement. The conflict can be resolved using the Edgeworth Method with the participation of thematic experts of 5 sides only. Any of the leaders has the right to abandon the decision.
2. Final lock. The one provoking regular locks loses the right for initiatives, the three least (for the number of voters) parties can be updated from a reserve.

The three least parties are not enough in order to take separate initiatives’. Control of “taken decision” is implemented by participants outside the resolution.
Two- or three party alliance, that exceeded half of all decisions and locks, may claim only for one place in the future team. At least one vacancy in it belongs to 6 new contenders from the non-ruling parties.
Only one of them is “the entrance ticket” to the Elections for the ruling party, a protege may declare himself off the Elections along with the curator only. It is possible for a trainee to participate as an advisor. The team going to Power for the first time can not be reorganized from functionaries of the ruling parties.

Advertising of the ruling parties’ is prohibited, their campaign can be supported with the work done only, opposition may publish an unaccepted version through the mass media. The advertising campaign of new parties can not be financed from private sources and state funds are distributed equally among the contenders.

A ballot paper has 2 columns: Ruling Parties in descending order by the realized solutions rate only (an initiator earns two points, partners receive one, lock withdraws one and two respectively) and new ones, each presents its three basic purposes. If the voter trusts a former “mon ami”, he puts “YES”; if not, then he selects the new one with the most needfull priorities. He also has the right to say “NO” to the most negative of the ruling parties. The negative evaluation may take away up to half of the positive votes.

The final grade of the “Old Fighters” in the elections is different between “FOR” and “AGAINST” votes, multiplied by the efficiency index (the ratio between implemented decisions and all the decisions taken) and the average objectivity index (the ratio of the parties who made the decision to their total number of 5). The parties not involved into decision making will have the objectivity index 1. For the party of lowest participation, its protege and a free candidate, the results will be increased by the reverse usefulness index (that is a ratio of a difference “FOR” votes “AGAINST” votes to “FOR” votes) of the leading four. If the usefulness index of the outsider is higher than the average index of the four, the outsider gets two vacancies in the new team for the outsider itself and its educatee, if the index is lower he gives off his vacancy to the leading alliance.

The voter is free to include one own candidate!

The Elections are supervised by 3 parties: the party of the lowest participation in the decision making, the party of compromises and any of the new ones. When leveling the voters’ number “the 2-vote advantage” must not be associated with the leaders of the two largest parties only.

The five Independent in power means: freedom of initiatives and rivalry’s energy; shrewdness; extended field of variants and balance of the decisions; mutual control; continuity in the policy and the openness to renewal!
A minimum of participants and stages makes the decision-making process dynamic and manageable.

… Stalin had not been allowed to “miss the boat” of Hitler’s invasion, there would not have been “conditions for” and fatal consequences of “the Messiah syndrome”, Brezhnev stagnation, Cold and Hot Wars and “Khrushchev’s Shoe” …

And let the Kremlin’s stars light up!

??????? ? ?????? Nicholas Popov 2009

Mark Stapleton
11-13-2010, 07:42 AM
Interesting.

I'm not sure about the 5 pointed star model but the West's current 'representative democracy' form of Government has already become anachronistic.

Just ask the people of Great Britain, France, Spain and others. Representative democracy only seems to work when sufficient economic prosperity exists for people to overlook the corruption within the system. Now those decades are over we can see the system for what it is. Our elected 'representatives' don't represent us, regardless of their claims to the contrary.

Some hybrid form of Government model which cherry picks the most useful attributes of both communism and capitalism is required. Useful to the majority as opposed to useful for the wealthy elites, that is.

Modern Governments also need to realise that the equitable distibution of wealth via an economic system based on limitless growth is unsustainable and will fail.

Nicholas Popov
11-13-2010, 09:17 AM
The government of several independent participants and a tough competition between them for the purpose to keep the power will force political parties to work in interests of the voters. These parties are deprived the right of the following pre-election advertising and they can get to vote only honest work.
The quantity of sympathizing voters is here as money in business.

David Guyatt
11-13-2010, 10:31 AM
Interesting.

I'm not sure about the 5 pointed star model but the West's current 'representative democracy' form of Government has already become anachronistic.

Just ask the people of Great Britain, France, Spain and others. Representative democracy only seems to work when sufficient economic prosperity exists for people to overlook the corruption within the system. Now those decades are over we can see the system for what it is. Our elected 'representatives' don't represent us, regardless of their claims to the contrary.


How true Mark.

The sad and unrelenting fact is that the political elite will remain unable to respond to the changing situation, and will trot out all the same "remedies" proven not to work in the past.

Mark Stapleton
11-14-2010, 12:16 PM
The sad and unrelenting fact is that the political elite will remain unable to respond to the changing situation, and will trot out all the same "remedies" proven not to work in the past.

I agree 100% with your evaluation of human nature David.

Nothing will change.

John Kowalski
11-14-2010, 03:02 PM
The sad and unrelenting fact is that the political elite will remain unable to respond to the changing situation, and will trot out all the same "remedies" proven not to work in the past.

I agree 100% with your evaluation of human nature David.

Nothing will change.

Sadly, I too agree. I am becoming very skeptical about the chance of real change. The electoral system as it works usually results in the same people getting elected, and as a result, the same policies. The US is especially susceptible to this. With the economic elites in control for the media, and with so much money involved in politics, there is little hope for a change in political direction. Human nature is the problem. Regardless of the political or economic system, greed seems to prevail.

John

Nicholas Popov
11-14-2010, 05:00 PM
The sadness is good for young ladies and poets. We'll fight again.
The problem is not that 'bad' people come to power. The outdated system of autocracy allows them an arbitrariness.
The new form of government should consist of several independent participants without the right of individual decisions. + Tough system of updating which is supervised not by them. It cuts lordly arrogance down to size and impels leaders to work.
The pharisaic system keeps on loyalty to public opinion. The new form of government should be betrayed to wide publicity. So far the internet allows it.
It is real work for unbending fighters! :ridinghorse:

Magda Hassan
11-15-2010, 12:00 AM
????? ?????????? ?? ????? ???????! ?? ????? ????, ??? ?? ????? ? ????. ? ???????, ??? ??? ???????? ???? ??? ???. ??? ????? ???????? ???? ???????, ? ??? ?????? ????? ??????????? ???????????. ??????? ? ?????? ??? ??????? ? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ????. ? ???????, ?????????. ????????? ????????, ??? ?? ????? ????????? ???? ? ????? ??????????? ????? ? ??????? ???? ??????????? ???????. ???? ????? ? ???, ????? ??????? ??? ? ????? ?????.

Was Lenin wrong or were Lenin's ideals misinterpreted or misused by others? In any case it is past but we can learn not to make the same mistakes again.

I love the symbolism of the star. A point of light in the darkness. A light to guide us to our destination. Something eternal and reliable. An object of attraction which captivates our attention. Something which makes us think outside of ourselves, of other places and beings. A light which shines equally on all of us on earth. A thing of nature. Much nicer than that 2 headed eagle inbred mutant which would die at birth in the natural world but is sustained by artificial life support using the lives of others.

As Marx and Lenin well knew western representative democracy is a farce and a tool of the ruling classes. Participatory democracy and participatory economics is the way to go for a more just and sane world.

Nicholas Popov
11-15-2010, 10:14 AM
Howdy Magda! I am touched by your Russian greeting. I'm also glad that the '5-Point Star' finds adherents. This idea has a great future. "The Road by Walking."

"??????? ? ??????" or "??????? ? ????"? The idea with the claim for objectivity and universality can not be tied to any political :adore: religion. It cripples brains. But modern Russian marauders very much spoiled an image of Russia.
My Soviet childhood has left impression of the happy serenity of Stagnation. "????? ??????? ??? ?? ???????? ..." / song by M. Isakovsky / ("Again all has stood still till a dawn ...") :goodnight:

Unfortunately, the Lenin's idea has been doomed initially. Already in following generation the leader with other political views can come to power and change the state ideology. The traditional concept of one-man management allows it! Guarantees aren't present.
Lenin has made attempt to get away from it: collegiate Council of several participants with the secretary, who generalizes opinions of others. But the fixed leadership has remained. Experienced criminal Stalin, having used this error, has crushed Trotsky and other intellectuals (the brain revolution), whom has replaced by lackeys and careerists.
Do justice to it, tsar Stalin has constructed a powerful superstate, but it has perverted an initial plan and discredited idea.
We see shoots of Stalin criminal crops in today's Russia.

The monarchy is the 'divine right' of one person, the democracy is a constructive rivalry of different opinions. Who among democrats for show can voluntarily to part with the 'crown'?

In modern fast-changing live, egoism and inertness delusions of one dominating point of view it not a way to the future. It is lack of any prospect under any flag.

Nicholas Popov
11-20-2010, 03:51 AM
:questionmark: Kotze (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=29597)
unior Revolutionary

Any ideas how to make sure that they are independent? I suppose that, as usual, in this scheme you aren't allowed to be a member of several parties at the same time, but are there any other limits? Example: Somebody leaves a party and wants to join another one. Should there be a waiting period? Should there be an upper limit to allowing former members of another party to join? Another example: The son of a high-ranking member of party A (who is still alive and very active in the party) wants to make a career in party B. Should that be forbidden? More important, how to make sure that the working class isn't underrepresented like usual, and I not only mean among each party's overall membership, but also at each party's top?
What do you mean by Edgeworth Method in this context? I only know a Mr Edgeworth from statistics and his (and Pareto's) Edgeworth Box from economics.


:alberteinstein: Nicholas (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=29597)

It is only an idea which requires detailed elaboration. It shows the work of the new scheme in general. I have no ready answers to all questions.
The aim of this scheme is to consider the issues and decision-making as far as possible of more all-round.

Thanks for the hint. He who controls the entrance, that is elections, will become the owner of the next power.

The transition from one ruling party to another should be prohibited. That will lead to well-considered choices and will force to work honestly. That is under the control of competing parties.
"The team going to Power for the first time can not be reorganized from functionaries of the ruling parties." The mimicry shouldn't be.

"The son of a high-ranking member of party A (who is still alive and very active in the party) wants to make a career in party B."
Provided that the competing party will want to take it. In addition, the new man is a fresh 'brain cells'.

"At least one vacancy in it belongs to 6 new contenders from the non-ruling parties." That ensures regular updating and simultaneously creates competition within the team. / Knockout tournament game: 5 players and 4 chairs / Updating can be increased by results of elections.

When leaders can not reach a unanimous verdict:
The Edgeworth Method from statistics is used in the event that the group consists of several coalitions, each of which is disadvantageous to revoke its decision. Knowing the preferences of coalitions that can make the best decision, without prejudice to each other.
"The conflict can be resolved using the Edgeworth Method with the participation of thematic experts of 5 sides only", without ambitious leaders.

Sorry for bad English.

Nicholas Popov
11-21-2010, 11:17 AM
obtuseobserver (http://www.politicalfray.com/member.php?u=936) http://www.politicalfray.com/images/styles/greendeluxe/statusicon/user_offline.gif :viking:
Senator

"In his will, Ben Rea bequeathed $15 million to his cat, Blackie."

Capitalism is an economic system that seeks greater liberty of capital and less government involvement than others. I tend to see it as more of a range on a spectrum than a different breed of cat.

What you are referring to is avarice. An insatiable desire for money. That would be bad. Seeking to earn wealth to support one's family is not. More people fit the second example than the first.

Ben Rea. It is his money. He can do whatever he wants with it. The more authority the state has over his money the less liberty Ben has. One of the aspects of liberty is the freedom to be a dumbass.

Yes, his money could help many people, charities etc. But it is his money.

Most people do not have $15MM. Most who do have $15MM do not give it to their cat.

There are many Americans who give a great deal to charity be it research, aid to the poor, etc.

http://www.slate.com/id/2243496/ list of American Philanthropists... I listed top 5 2009

Stanley F. and Fiona B. Druckenmiller—$705 million
John M. Templeton—$573 million
William H. (Bill) III and Melinda F. Gates—$350 million
Michael R. Bloomberg: $254 million
Louise Dieterle Nippert—$185 million


Nicholas Popov (http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/member.php?u=1265) :fight:

It is illness of accustoming. In concentration camps fascists have put prisoners into condition when those fur-trees a grass near barracks with a blissful expression on her face . And this happiness wasn't counterfeit. Hardly you will consider it normal now.

The charity of Pharisees: they take away one million to show much favour in one hundred dollars. The Russian GAZPROM which robs the future generations on trillions dollars, holds sporting competitions for children. Children will return to poverty then, yet laundered palaces will become dwellings of adored 'tin gods'.
Swindlers will be in clover, until exists simpletons.

Freedom of marasmic grandmother is earned by UNFREE work other people, possibly, unrealized talents which are lost for a society / Raskolnikov by F. Dostoyevsky /. Each problem has several sides, and wisdom begins with the multi-polarity of views.
I doubt whether Raskolnikov was more stupid and is less useful to a society than the grandmother. But unipolarity their views led to a fatal end. Both are hostages of the socio-political system.

The society should choose that is more important to him: mercenary interests of the gone mad old woman or a augmentation of public potential.

I not the Russian cop who without ceremony rummages in another's pocket.
It is a question of extremes. Any limitlessness generates a reverse reaction. Meanwhile, in the nature all processes are self-regulated. The society will become truly effective, harmonious and safe when contradictions are will resolve within wise power itself.

It is possible only for collective intelligence of independent participants. Regular disbalance of making is a pathology of the outdated system of monocracy. IT IS HER NATURAL OPERATING MODE.

Nicholas Popov
11-22-2010, 04:30 PM
http://www.revleft.com/vb/customavatars/avatar10945_11.gif Dimentio (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=10945) http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/statusicon/user_offline.gif

Sadly, a multi-party dictatorship isn't so much an improving of a one-party dictatorship.

Ideally, democracy should be about a confederacy of municipalities where all people in every single municipality are those who directly are voting for laws and regulations, as long as they aren't violating human rights.


Nicholas Popov :pcguru:

Charles de Gaulle: “How can you expect to govern a country that has two hundred and forty-six kinds of cheese?”

Nevertheless, the problem exists: he who controls the entrance, that is elections, he would call the tune. This requires more careful consideration and, probably, the next "know-how."

Nicholas Popov
11-30-2010, 03:15 AM
http://http://cs4539.vkontakte.ru/u21062829/54904812/x_42eb6f75.jpg http://cs4539.vkontakte.ru/u21062829/54904812/x_42eb6f75.jpg sans-culotte

Or how about just - all power to the soviets, not the party? Remember the workers' soviets and Kronstadt at all? Before they were crushed by the Leninists?


Nicholas Popov

You're talking about a spontaneous activity of the common people. Ordinary people are inert, they turn to politics and power, only when come tough times. And forgets later. This is normal. How to make that hard times for him didn't come?

The permission of inconsistent problems and interests demands special preparation and an mental outlook. This is as much a profession as well as others. It is impossible for a man from the crowd. Stalin used this falsification, when it replaced the old revolutionaries by yes-man / "cooks" for crowd scene. You know the outcome.

The Kronstadt rebellion was caused by the monopoly and privileges of the Bolsheviks in a common predicament. The slogan of the rebels: "We are for the Soviets, but without the Communists!" / Phrase was changed to a more loyal "without political parties" later /. The problem consists not in communists or any other Party, but in MONOPOLY of this Party.

Political activity is impossible without organized structures, i.e. political parties.

My idea is the Council (the Soviet) of several parties. I set myself the task of developing a simple and compact circuits control the society, which is free from any ideological preference. In this scheme the right to decisions doesn't belong to any party single-handedly, it uses the spirit of constructive rivalry as well as it depends on public opinion and is opened to renewal.

Leadership is the work for the most intelligent and energetic. We will not go against nature!

Nicholas Popov
12-01-2010, 07:22 AM
Originally Posted by Budguy68 :sheep:

I am not a slave. People need to work in order to survive. Thats a fact of life.

If I hire someone to wash my car for 6 dollars THAT IS NOT SLAVERY
If I pointed a gun at someone and make him wash my car then YES THAT IS Slavery

you commies are amazing.


Nicholas Popov :stupid:

The slave works for an slaveholder for soup and a lodging for the night. The slaveholder relaxes on the ranch. IT IS SLAVERY.

Your salary is equal to payment for a food and residing. The owner went to Hawaii. IT IS NOT SLAVERY (?) : you are free to pass to other owner.
Repeat it till one drops.

Homo sapiens differs presence of brains: in this case MONEY IS ONLY THE TOOL which depersonalizes the slaveholder.

P.S: at a moment when you do constructive work, somebody fraudulently redistributes money inside a society to a own benefit.
If nobody limits the proprietors, then the slavery will become your destiny.

In the confrontation of two political systems the socialism was the restrictive factor. In the absence of socialism a contradictions of capitalism will continue to become aggravated.

Magda Hassan
12-02-2010, 07:25 AM
Wash your own car.
Money is not the only tool.

Nicholas Popov
12-02-2010, 08:04 AM
Wash your own car.
Money is not the only tool.
I'm not a communist, but in this case they are only a tool.

I wash my own car. Therefore I have dirty shoes unlike children of rich parents. I should have time to do different work and therefore I work without the days off. :willy:

Nicholas Popov
12-02-2010, 08:08 AM
Holt Posted: Mon 29 Nov 2010, 23:07

Everything is ideology. There is no 'pure' space outside of ideology, what we do and think and how we act is always already ideological. How such an instrument of power that you propose be 'free from ideological preference' when it could only have been cemented into place in the first instance by some limited continuum of class interests, and thereafter subverted and contested by those same sets of interests?


Nicholas Popov

The sets of interests, to be more precise an ambition of leaders, it is a motive power. The line of development is defined by assessment and preferences of a society by results of elections. Any leader works for a positive reaction.
Interests of the two largest parties will be prevailing in this idea; 3 least parties fulfills a stabilizing function. That is clear from the scheme.

Nicholas Popov
12-02-2010, 08:47 AM
Originally Posted by Hailtothethief


This assumes that the soviet union was a communist society. That is absurd, but a common mistake. What is more absurd is that it assumes that it was communist in the 60s. People need to read some books.


Nicholas Popov

Fortunately, I don't need books with that or other propagandistic bias. I was born in the USSR at the time of Khruschev's thaw, have endured Brezhnev's stagnation, marasmus of vain attempts by Andropov on the rescue of socialism, Gorbachev's 'bla-bla-bla' and a carousal of present marauders on ruins.
Communism took place only in the dashing Khrushchev's phrase: "The present generation of Soviet people will live at Communism." / By the way, the Kremlin bosses and their families all the same lived as 'at communism'. /

It is a sight from within. Time for the analysis and useful conclusions has come. This problem is more ancient than the confrontation of two political fetishes.

David Guyatt
12-02-2010, 10:01 AM
Nicholas, why do you keep posting statements made by other people who are not members of this forum?

I don't understand the relevance of this, other than as a device to give you the opportunity to beat your drum here?

It's like you're having a private-pubic conversation where you post the question and then the answer. How curious.

You've even posted a "thank you" to you for your shining prose, from someone who also is not a member of this forum.

Perhaps we should change the name of the DPF to the Nicholas Popov Forum?

Nicholas Popov
12-02-2010, 03:40 PM
David, I hope that the interests of the forum and my interests coincide in some way.

I try to explain my point of view and to stir up the people.

Also, I hope the idea of government that is attentive to the common people will become not only my own.

Nicholas

David Guyatt
12-02-2010, 04:13 PM
Fair enough.

Nicholas Popov
12-11-2010, 05:02 PM
Originally Posted by ComradeMan
What does "at communism" mean-- I don't understand the nuance.

Nicholas Popov

As in any religion, the Communists were propagandizing a priority of intellectual values over material values.

In the Soviet Russia the word "communism" were associating with a phrase 'to receive on a freebie'/ 'get a free lunch'. Kremlin elite had special customer service in special clothing stores, hospitals, and received high-quality food rations at low prices. They could afford to free aviation cruises for fishing to Baikal and many other entertainments. The tsarist hunting and golden spoon-baits for members of the Politburo, as well as diamond mania by Galina Brezhneva did not become a unexpected opening to the people. The supply of Moscow as a showcase of socialism for foreigners was supplied relatively not bad also.
The exit of foreigners outside of Moscow was possible only by special permission.

In a province simple people were receiving coupons on 200 gram of butter and 0,5 kg of sausage a month. Also, they have had a right to a low-paid job at chronic deficiency of habitation and the goods. Provincials have been compelled to go for the goods to Moscow, that was provoking discontent of Muscovites.

However, the health care and education were free. And people were opened and friendly.

It was 'communism' for the Elect's only.

Nicholas Popov
12-11-2010, 05:06 PM
Originally Posted by Menocchio

What does this ahistorical gibberish actually mean?
But given the fact that you've enumerated some of the privileges of the bureaucratic class within "real existing socialism", I'd speculate that by "communists" you actually mean "the state officers in USSR". However, you still have to demonstrate three things:
1) what are "intellectual values"
2) how does the fact of historical privileges translate into an ahistorical eternal truth which encompasses everyone who proiclaims himself/herself "communist"

It was, historically, "communism" for the elect only.
Yet, the relationship between the ideology and material practice is more complicated than a suggestion that it (the privileges) follows logically from the ideology itself.

Nicholas Popov

I am not so clever to compete in knowledge of ideological Talmuds. The desire has been extinguished 30 years ago in university, when communism was the state religion of the USSR.

Deviation from the revolutionary ideas in Russia began after the death of Lenin.
It is impossible to build a new society without innovation in management. The power of one person means return to former tsarism. Lenin's idea of the Soviets (Council of several participants) was a necessary innovation at that time and the first step towards collective intelligence. But fixed leadership (headed by the Secretary) has remained the same. A six-time convicted criminal, J. Stalin took advantage of this mistake (?), and shortly after Lenin's death has destroyed most of the revolutionary creators. Leon Trotsky did not escape this fate also.
All party disagreements were decided by majority of votes. The new tzar gradually has replaced the Old Bolsheviks on the "cooks" from the Stalinist conscription. These people had no independent thinking, but they have been betrayed to the new "Master of the House" who has opened new possibilities for them. Some of them were honest fanatics of a new faith, but who did not understand the essence of what is happening. Others have used affiliation to one-party monopoly for mercenary ends: for increase of the social status and for access to material values under the general poverty of people. In so doing professional qualities were substituted for personal fidelity and a party affiliation. The unaffiliated person could not calculate though on slightest prospect in this monopoly. In USSR: the state officer = the party member. The new bureaucratic elite has substituted real care for the simple people by slogans the communist consciousness and selflessness.
The privileges follows logically not from the ideology itself, but from the 'historical' relationships between lackeys and lords in any domination.

Besides, newly appeared "Messiah" has destroyed an the intellectual top of the nation, capable to independent thinking, that has lowered the general standard of culture and intellect. Stalin has replaced romanticists-thinkers on dogmatists, careerists and grabbers, and also usurped the power in republic. The creative stage of Russian revolution ended with the departure of Lenin and its like-minded persons.

Modern Russian two-headed, one-party 'democracy' is an eructation of Stalin's school and artificial selection.

The revolution dies without new ideas ...

P.S.: Refreshed 5-Pointed Star will reborn as a symbol of Collective Wisdom and consolidation peoples of five continents without ideological coloring.

Nicholas Popov
12-11-2010, 05:11 PM
Originally Posted by NecroCommie

Some self-proclaimed communist movements might go with the first point, but that is far from making communism per se something even close to religion. Not only that, but this is not how religion is defined. Many religions do nothing of that sort.

And about the God-given part: there exist religions without any sort of idea about God, so this is not how one describes religion. And even if it were, communist movements are almost entirely atheist. No matter how much one tries to argue about some personality cults and such it does not make communism any less secular. At the most, it means that not all communists understand communism.

Nicholas Popov

Sunday's readings of Marxism according to Pol Pot, Cult of Messiah Stalin, worship to "The Great Helmsman" Mao... compulsory cramming of psalms at the Soviet universities...

Well, let will be 'zombie'. How it is better?

http://www.ljplus.ru/img/k/k/kkirsanov/stalin_icon.jpg

Any cult of the leader (the leaderism) is a religion for the sheeps. (For flock)
The crucession according to Stalin
http://www.todayonhistory.com/HistoryPic/3/5/200611102075269.jpg

Religious dogmatism requires blind worship and does not tolerate dissent and newness.
The reeducation of non-believers / gentiles on Belomorkanal. A way to a nirvana.
http://c1.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/144/m_e2be10d52f9c45459e9d4bc608906480.jpg

Self-effacing "Brother Number One" did not wanted to be a god.
Sacrifice of 'Infidels' according to Pol Pot.
http://www.twited.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/1280159312-74.jpg

It is good when your head doesn't lie on this "altar", NecroCommie.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Choeungek2.JPG/220px-Choeungek2.JPG

The 'Testament' by criminal 'Father of all times and the people' who lived and ruled the destinies as God, to preceding and future simpletons.
http://www.proza.ru/pics/2008/12/19/265.jpg

Nicholas Popov
05-17-2011, 07:15 PM
Thanks for editing! My new website: http://nicholaspopov.wordpress.com/ :hobbyhorse:

Nicholas