First of all, here's some disturbing statistics on late 2003.


According to Russian central statistic agency "VTsIOM":
45% of Russians want to live under socialism
23% of Russians want to live under Putin
5% of Russians want to live under monarchy
3% of Russians want to live under capitalist Perestroika

According to "VTsIOM", if Soviet revolution starts today:
43% of Russians will support Bolsheviks
16% of Russians will leave the country
8% of Russians will fight against Bolsheviks

According to "VTsIOM":
53% of Russians think that Stalin played absolutely positive role in Russian history


Taking in account this information, do you think that return of Soviet Empire is problem for American national security? If it is, how it should be dealt with?

Kimov,

I watched a documentary on Stalin on Biography just yesterday. At the end of the program they showed demonstrations in Russia of people who are nostalgic for Stalinism. That is scary as heck.

As military scientist, I also has knowledge of some Russian latest projects in warfare.

First of all, there are, of course, revolutionary combat units. For example, MiG-MFI, which is cheaper and more potent than its American counterpart F-22. The main advantage of MiG-MFI is plasma stealth field generator "Marabu". This sounds like science fiction, but "Marabu" can generate field that completely hides aircraft or missile from radar scans. That is only one of many revolutionary breakthroughs.

http://www.aeronautics.ru/plasmamain.htm

But units like this are quite expensive. That's why Russians developed upgrades for existing units. For example, old S-125 "Pechora" (the same SAM system that shot down F-117 "Stealth" in Yugoslavia) can be upgraded to "Pechora-2" with increased range, accuracy and ability to engage "Stealth" aircrafts. One of the msot scary things I saw is old Soviet BTR-70 (armored personal carrier) with its engine and transmissions removed and replaced with additional armor and weaponry and prototype "water spin" power generator, which gives it almost unlimited range of operation - perfect for invasion of Europe.

I wonder what the demographics of the statistics are. I would expect the older generations to desire a return to the "good old days". If the citizens under 30 are replying the same, that would be disappointing, but still not enough evidence we need to "deal with it".

Supporters of radical Communism in Russia are very often quite young. Russian Communist movement is getting younger each passing year. Approximately 80% of radical Communists in Russia are people younger than 40 years.

It is also should be noted, that Russian youth movements are almost always are associated with Stalinism. Two Russian most influent youth movements in Russia are Stalinism-based.

Want to know the favourite phrases of Russian radical youth?

"Zavershim reformy tak - Stalin, Beria, GULAG!" (AKM movement)

("Let's end [democratical] reforms in this way - Stalin, Beria, GULAG!")

"Limonov, Stalin, Beria - da zdravstvuyet Imperia!" (NBP movement)

("Limonov, Stalin, Beria - glory to Empire!")

Pretty scary.

Oh, yes, I forgot to include photos.

http://akm1917.narod.ru/fotoalb/foto16.htm

http://akm1917.narod.ru/fotoalb/foto14.htm

Hi Engineer Kimov - please avoid double posting. If you were the last person to post in a thread and want to add more, you need only edit your previous post. If 12 hours have passed, go ahead and make a new post because your edit window will have closed. Thanks

It is freaky to think that Russia is slowly returning to the days of Stalin. I think it is getting closer because i think all of the media outlets their are government owned now when they used to be private. Scary

Yes, the media is goverment-controlled (not goverment owned, only two channels are owned by state), but here is the crux of the problem. Media (with exception of outlawed newspapers like "Zavtra", "Duel" or "Limonka" and some branches of "Pravda") follows ANTI-COMMUNIST and mostly PRO-AMERICAN line. And Russians are PRO-COMMUNIST and ANTI-AMERICAN. Do you understand? Russians do not believe media any longer!

I would be very dubious of a large scale wish to return to the former Soviet Union times, especially among the young. I have visited there a couple times now, and have never seen a young person nostalgic for Stalin, they have been nostalgic for the safety and security of Breshnev, and the pride of being a super power, now they have had a very big blow of being turned into basically a third world country. As you know if you study Russian or are Russian, the oligarchs have always controled the country anyway, and the country was never really communist anyway LOL

Well, and I have never seen a young (below 25) person nostalgic for Brezhnev. Brezhnev's system was truly a gerontocracy, "rule of old", while most young radicals demand decreasing minimal age, required by law for elections (right to elect starting from 14, right to be elected - from 16). When I am talking about young radicals, I am talking about SKM, AKM and NBP. There ARE other youth political organisations, but they are based not on ideology, but on money.

Example is "Iduschie Vmiestie", pro-Putin organisation, sort of Putin-Jugend (with analogy of Hitler-Jugend). It exists only when is funded. We tried to offer its members some money for defiling image of their "hero", and they did it. I personally hacked two forums and several mailboxes of "Iduschie Vmiestie" and forced them to abandon most, if not all, means of Internet communication. They don't even try to re-build it. Putinists are lazy and coward.

Yeah I was going to point out that the former Soviet Union never really adopted the true principles of communism.

I like to think that nations should be free to choose whichever theory they wish. If there was a democratic election next week, and the Russian people voted to live under a Communist rather than Capitalist government, then that is fair, and shouldnt be opposed.

I am not a communist, but its ideals are valid and good hearted. I see no reason to go to war with a nation because their people think differently from ours. At the same time I dont believe in capitalism, I dont think any method that has been suggested thus far is perfect. Under capitalism we see the unfair rule of mega corporations, and under semi-communism we could see the rise of a dictator.

So no, I am not disturbed if these figures are accurate. By American law, the 1st amendment states people are free to say what they want and express their feelings. If the majority of Americans suddenly decided they wanted to overthrow capitalism and live under a Communist nation, what would happen? The correct thing to do would be to do as the people say. The incorrect thing to do would be to overrule them, and even use military intervention to oppress them and maintain capitalism. THAT is what scares me to be honest. Neo conservatives scare me more that people who have different beliefs from Europe/America.

I think Animal Farm is misniterpreted as a warning against communism. Even if George Orwell meant it to be, it is more a warning against totalitarianism. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. If America is to stand against and crush everything that emerges that isnt in line with its way of thinking, in essence be the abosute power, than that is something to fear. Even more scary if you are American in my opinion.

Any Empire is a threat to everyone's security, the Soviet Empire would not in the least be a good thing, hey, if Russians want socialism, go for it, but an Empire isn't gonna fly with the rest of the world.

CP

Yeah i agree thats different.

But on the other hand, the British Empire is still in existence, even though it may not be called that much. Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc etc still have Queen Elizabeth as their head os state

And the Imperial Empire kicked serious ###

Edited to remove gratuitous profanity. -J

But the British Empire is also just symbolic, whilst Soviet as it was 15 years ago, was a huge land, with lots of power.

What I find most curious about the images of the new MiG is its red star markings...

http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws002/afm150.htm

Why do the Russians still use the red star emblem?

Could you provide a response with a little more substance? One-liners are unconstructive and hard to debate.

"If there was a democratic election next week, and the Russian people voted to live under a Communist rather than Capitalist government, then that is fair, and shouldnt be opposed."

Do you understand that it is only possible when 100% of population are educated in politics and history? Do you understand that 70-80% of people vote "by heart", not by intelligence? Russia paid great price for using Western form of democracy. Why develop intelligent party programs and doing good things when you can just buy some time on TV and advertise your party? If this not works, you can just use financial resources to discredit all other opponents, and everybody will vote for you as for "lesser evil"?

"I think Animal Farm is misniterpreted as a warning against communism. Even if George Orwell meant it to be, it is more a warning against totalitarianism."

I read Animal Farm. It does not dicredit totalitarianism. Totalitarianism does not necessarily use lies and unjustice. I don't see anything bad in properly-engineered totalitarianism. We can discuss this if you want. I even wrote sci-fi book ("space opera") about totalitarian system of future.

Ok Ill follow that up with a little more substance

Empire may have bad connotations, and that is down to history such as the British Empire and the Soviet Union. I dont see the British Empire as being symbolic, as it was once ruthless also, and easily the most powerful force on the planet at one point. All adding to the bad Empire vibe.

But at the same time, I dont think Socialism, Communism or any other opposition of Capitalism should be confused with being an Empire. The fact of the matter is, the Soviet Unions invasion of Europ did actually happen a long time ago. If anything was even attempted again, it should be very obvious and action would be taken by the UN.

I do say should be, as illegal occupations of peoples are still under way today, and Russia is one of them. How we can justigy invading Iraq because of claims that Saddam assisted Al Qaeda (now admitted by US government that this wasnt true) and WMDs (of whch there is no sign of, and most likely never will be) when Russia occupies and oppresses Chechnya, and China oppresses Tibet, and the peoples of Indonesia who are held back from pubilc view by their government. Going a bit off topic here but I tend to do that.

Anyway although the rise of an Empire is always a bad thing, I wouldnt be too quick to attach this term to a possible revolution away from Capitalism. It only breeds hate to throw stereotypes around.

And on another off topic, I can assure you millions around the world look upon the USA as an empire, spreading its influence and seeking more power.

"hey, if Russians want socialism, go for it"

Ha-ha-ha! Thanks, that was VERY funny!

Too bad that is not true.

The truth is, the day Russia turns socialist, it will be included in Axis of Evil by America.

America DO NOT want strong and independant Russia. Cold War never truly ended. American leaders are friendly towards Russia only because it is ruled by anti-national goverment. It is anti-national, because it leads to DESTRUCTION of Russia. Russian infrastructure, science, education, demography, industry, military and culture DEGRADES WITH EACH PASSING DAY. GDP is increased only because of increased world market prices for oil.

If Russians want to rebuild Russia, they must prepare for repulsion of American military intervention. Because Russian military will be virtually non-existant, Russians will have to rely on nuclear terrorism. That will be interesting conflict. And yes, I also made a sci-fi book (anti-utopia mixed with utopia and military sci-fi) about it.

"Do you understand that it is only possible when 100% of population are educated in politics and history? Do you understand that 70-80% of people vote "by heart", not by intelligence? Russia paid great price for using Western form of democracy. Why develop intelligent party programs and doing good things when you can just buy some time on TV and advertise your party? If this not works, you can just use financial resources to discredit all other opponents, and everybody will vote for you as for "lesser evil"?"

Im terribly sorry, but for me, you just described recent events in American elections.

200 million people never voted for Bush. Illegal meddling with votes in Florida was conducted in Florida, and there is plently of evidence.

I also bet a large majority of those who did vote are most likely not educated in politics and history. All those I know that are well educated abstained the election.

Claiming people are uneducated is no excuse for disregarding their vote. That isnt democracy. I dont know what else to say, you seem to be suggesting dictaorship to me. Even if you think its best the way things are, if the majority (and it would probably requre something higher, like 75% to win, to handle such a massive change in foundations) votes otherwise, then a democracy would implement change. I am tolerant of all forms of government, but my underlying belief is that it must be what the people want, not what the top 20% who believe they are better educated to understand want.

And propaganda is used in every nation around the world. That is not a valid reason to oppose comunism, as it is used just as much by capitalist states, more so if you take into account consumerist subliminal messaging.

edit: But I do agree with your previous post, in that Russia is excluded from American military intervention and occupation simply because they now have the 'correct' economic policy.

- Robin

You bring up interesting points, but is tyranny good even if the people want it? It's definitely not good for the rest of the world who must endure the hardships it imposes. The 20th century and the 100 million lives lost put Marxism-Leninism on the ash-heap of history. Returning to it is not the solution.

2 Robin_Scotland:

Have I ever said anything about disregarding other people's votes? No.

I just think that we must not make vote of, say, former criminal be equal to vote of high-ranked scientist or war hero.

Also, I do not think that classical voting is good. I think we need use "Soviets" (councils) to run the country: every citizen will be deputy of some Soviet, and is sort of politician. In this way, for example, people who know nothing about, say, military industry, won't vote on it, but will rather choose civilian-related additions and amendments to it.

2 deerjerkydave:

"

Do you have any proof to back it up? Or is it taken from propaganda sources like "Black Book of Communism"?

I certainly agree deerjerkydave, I wouldnt be among those wanting to return a communist state, and think it is not a solution for anything.

I was just trying to argue the other side of the coin, and point out some flaws in democracy. But I do believe that people should get to choose whatever they want. Although a return to Communism in Russia might not be the best thing fo the world or itself, I dont think it is anyones place (including the USA) to intervene or start Cold War 2 because of it.

The UN, of course, should be there to advise the people, and make sure they know all the facts. But beyond that I cant see a way of preventing a revolution of this nature in any country without ignoring democracy.

edit: Why shouldnt all votes be equal, unless in the case of those who are deemed insane? A scientist or war hero could easily have much more extreme views than a former criminal.

Frankly, I don't see a reason that if Russians want socialism they should be stopped, however, if they are to make an Empire hostile to America, I see a problem there.

CP

Them building new Fighters when their economy is in the deepest of holes is evidence enough that they are obviously thinking of building a Soviet Empire II because what do they need fighters for?

Also, the war in chechnya is proof that they want to build a new empire because they are land grabbing. They want all the land they claim is their. Will they start on the former Bloc countries next?

GA.

I'm not so sure of that myself. Russian thinking has always revolved around the idea of strength. So from that perspective it makes sense to have a tough military, and an excellent weapons manufacturing capacity, since the arms trade is the most lucrative of all!

Also, America also builds new fighters, but do you suppose America is bent on building an empire?

I dont see what building a military has to do with anything. Russia, despite its fall from being a superpower, is still one of the main players in the world, and have assisted in conflicts such as Kosovo in 1999.

I also agree that America continues to expand its military, even though nobody is going to be able to seriously challenge them anytime soon. An interesting fact I got from a book called 'Why Do People Hate America' by Ziauddin Sardar and Merryl Wyn Davies, that if you were to spend $26 million every day since the birth of Chirst, you still won't have spent as much as the US has on defence since 1945. Irrelevant, but a nice little fact I thought

thanks, I needed a good laugh. seriously though, russia under stalin wasn't a marxist-leninist state (don't believe all you hear) nor was it communist. russia under stalin was a STALINIST country, and their economy was far from communist. it was a state run capitalist economy. (oh yeah, they never claimed to be communist state. USSR equals union of SOCIALIST soviet republics)

by the way, deerjerky, the most liberal estimates I have EVER heard for those dead was 60 million and I doubt that number. and lets not forget that there was a VERY bloody civil war between the bolsheviks and the white army, who were supported by several imperialist nations and nearly 9 million people died as a result of the war (including combat deaths)
the civil war destroyed russia's economy by the way, and derailed lenin's russia, which was on the path to actual socialism and eventually communism.

personally I think going back to a socialist system would be better then what they have now. I mean, look at the capitalist "reforms" at work. socialism couldn't possible make matters worse. and if a majority vote for socialism and want a strong central leader, (ie tyrant) it's up to them. as long as they don't try building an empire trough force. besides, we need another super power like russia was to keep america in check.

Touché

It's not that America is gonna build an empire, it's because we still have threats out their like an undecided China and North Korea, both nuclear powers. i name China as undecided because on and off, they are our friends...until they start getting nasty over Taiwan.

Also, there are countries who wish to purchase our Fighters, so we build them to give to them

All of which equally applies to Russia. And Russia shares a border with China...

And as Robin points out, the Russian military budget is a fraction of the amount spent by the USA.

Sorry I mistyped that - I never meant to say return to a communist state. If you return to the first page you can quite clearly see I recognised the old Soviet Union as something other than communist.

However I don't think there are any valid reasons to adopt it. It looks good on paper, doesnt mean it works. Capitlaism also looks good in paper, but look at it in practice. I cant think of any theory or system that doesnt have flaws. Personally, I would just stick with the way things are if I was Russian.

I can't speak directly for the conditions in russia. but from what I understand criminals run the country, EVERY aspect of it. women will sell themselves simply to leave the abject poverty. the average russian makes about 150 US dollars a month (about 90.5 pounds) a month, with prices for many things being sky high.



that was more directed at DJD then you. I have never heard at most 60 million. the 100 million figure just made me laugh. I hadn't read the first few pages for a couple days and my memory is horrendous. so sorry. as long as you understand (some don't) russia wasn't communist.

R.J. Rummel Ph.D from the University of Hawaii, who has studied extensively the effects of oppressive governments, comes up with the 100 million number (this is world-wide and includes all flavors of communism, not just the Soviet Union).
Click here to read his conclusions and how he arrives at them.

Nevertheless, whether it's 60 million or 100 million is splitting hairs. To suggest that we need to give communism another chance is frightening.

Unabomber, out of curiosity, do you find yourself complaining about the 300+ coalition soldiers who have died in Iraq?

Thanks, Robin and Unibomber for making this a good debate.

Yeah this is working out to be a very interesting debate. Actually, seing as this thread has opened my eyes to my own ignorance about Russia, I would certainly be very interested in learning more about its history and its present.

Out of interest, does anyone here believe that a Communist state, a true Communist state, should be fought off? Should NATO continue to exist, or is it isolating Russia from her European neighbours? I do remember the US saying it was ready to pull out of NATO a couple of years ago. Do you think there is really a threat to Western nations? What if a communist state was to arise that did not violently oppose Western capitalism, and was keen to remain friends? Does anyone think anything other than our way (by which I mean Western governments way, not individuals who may have radically different views) of thinking should be repressed?

that makes a little more sense. capitalism has probably kiled and screwed just as many if not more. (think exploitation of third world workers) but any way, no body died from COMMUNISM, but from PEOPLE (none of whoms were actual communists) just as capitalism doesn't kill and oppress people, but people that run it do.



communism has never been given a chance. to suggest we need to continue to live under a system that cares only about money and treats people like chattel is more frightening to me then giving socialism and eventually communism a real chance. (note that NO COUNTRY has ever developed close to any of marx's theories) russia, china, vietnam, korea, and to an extent even cuba, were not ready for socialism. It requires capitalism. almost ALL of these countries were agarian fuedal societies. no country has ever been communist, so we can't give "communism" another chance (again, what russia had was not communism)



I am unclear as to what you mean by this, and besides it is off topic.



don't know if I can help you much on the present really, but I certainly can help on the past. spartus schoolnet > Russia: 1860-1990 (this is the site in my signature "lots of history info") they seem to be a fairly impartial source for history.

Having travelled to Russia, studied it somewhat, started learning the language, and talked to my family in Russia at length, both my cousin in the Kazan Institute of Economy, to my grandfather that fought in WW2 and lived under Stalin, plus watching many movies from various eras- What most Americans know about Russia would fit on a head of a pin, and that includes supposedly well read poeple.

I believe Unabomber is right- Russia was not even close to socialism, much less communism. Here are two threads I started on these very subjects, both whether Russia was communist and Americas influence on the political changes in Russia:


http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...?showtopic=2904

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...?showtopic=2905


I don't even say "the end of the iron curtain" or anything so ignorant, because th power play in Russia is still going down, and the "poeple" have damn little influence or control over it.

So whether Russia is ever going to go back to "communism" is not a very good question, simply because it glosses over the very real power struggles between very powerful oligarchs, and the FSB, who don't give a damn about economic philosophy, but care about the power of thier family and friends. Russia is not very different from the US in that respect, except the oligarchs and FSB don't really care for feedback from the poeple they are manipulating, while the power brokers in America try to pretend that the US poeple have something to say about it in the end, when of course, they don't.

Conflict of Russian socialism and capitalism began in 1917 and quickly moved to "hot" phase, when Whites (czarists, democrats, etc) sided with intervention forces of capitalist countries. Such states like America, England, France and even Japan entered Soviet Russia to destroy socialist goverment and grab part of Russia's vast resources. They were armed with newest weapons and in many cases outnumbered Reds. Reds defeated capitalist intervention forces and, after that, destroyed Whites. But that was only a beginning.

Capitalist states refused to accept legitimacy of new people's goverment. Soviet Russia was treated with hostility. Capitalist propaganda machine tried to stop or pervert information coming from Soviet Russia. In America, for example, Soviet-controlled territory was "removed" from maps, replaced with white spots marking "uninhabited territory" (like some areas of Sahara desert).

But that changed little. Many workers and engineers, even from rich capitalist countries like America, moved to Russia. Thanks to this and thanks to Stalin's foreign policies, Soviet Union was finally accepted as sovereign country. But capitalists never gave up their quest to destroy Russian socialism.

Ultimate test of Soviet system was Great Patriotic War. Americans and British hoped, that Third Reich and Soviet Union will destroy each other, and they will be able to take the region themselves. The plan was to backstab Soviet Union, but soon they understood, that Nazism is much more dangerous threat, and were forced to support Soviet Union politically and economically. Soviets thought that American intentions were sincere, and considered Americans as their allies. But reality was far from it.

When it became obvious, that superiority of Soviet Union was overhelming, Americans understood, that if allowed to continue, Soviets will take control of entire Europe with ease. They decided to open second front in order to "mark the land" and prevent Soviets from estabilishing socialism in Europe.

When Great Patriotic War was over, and Soviets defeated Third Reich, masks were removed. American newspapers, which just recently called Russians "liberators of Europe", started calling them "Communist demons". Third World War began, also known as "Cold War".

Even though called "cold", the war was hot and bloody. Americans started interventing new socialist countries (like they did with Russia during Russian Civil War), and Soviets were responding symmetrically. Americans installed rigid "anti-subversive" measures inside of USA. Soviets answered by combining several security, police and intelligence services into single super-agency, known as KGB.

Cold War was going successfully from point of Soviets. Each decade Soviets developed new scientific breakthroughts, which were almost immediately turned into deadly weapons (but, unfortunately, rarely used in civilian eras). Economical growth always was higher, than in America, even though Soviets didn't have time to overcome America in terms of GDP (maybe that was because Soviets never used GDP, prefering terms of real (material) economy).

By 1985, Soviet Union was at the height of its military, economic and scientific might.

In military way, Soviet conventional force was so high that it was physically impossible to defeat it with all NATO resources, packed together. Only thing that was holding Soviets from open war with NATO is American nuclear missiles. But even in this field Soviets had superiority: uninterceptable "Satan"-class missiles, "Typhoon"-class submarines, and so on.

Economic might was also very high, even though not as high as in America. Never before Russians had such high quality and level of life. They enjoyed more stability and wealth than during any other period of Russian history. From this point, it is truly a "Golden Age" of Russia.

Scientific might was the most scary thing of all. Soviets had best education system in world, and had more scientists and engineers than all capitalist states all together, and most of them were working for military. Soviets were finishing "Energia"-class rocket with 100 tons of payload, and was starting work on "Volcano" rocket with 250 tons of payload. They built prototypes of space-age military. "Almaz" - the only manned space combat vessel ever created by man. "Polyus" - 100-ton orbital battlestation. "Molniya" - space combat vessel that doesn't need launch pads and can take off from ordinary airstrips; each ton of payload was more than fourty (40) times cheaper, than same payload launched from American "Shuttle". They were finishing other breakthrough projects. Most notable are thermonuclear power plant, which was going to destroy the only reason of Soviet Union being second, not first economy of world - supercold climate, and polycappilari x-ray lens for making nano-computers as cheap as matchbox, which was going to destroy the only reason of Soviet Union being second, not first computer power - low level of circuit integration. I am not even mentioning more extravagant inventions like combat walker drones, developed in Soviet Institute of Problems of Information Transfer.

In all ways, 1985 was peak for Soviet Union. American experts from CIA and Pentagon faced the simple fact - they were loosing Third World War. And CIA found perfect solution, which will allow them to win - using one and only weak side of Soviet Empire, the human factor. They used their agents in Soviet Union, including CIA recruit Gorbachev, to systematically corrupt political system, and use corruption in political system to systematically destroy economical, social and military spheres. This was called "Perestroika". It ended in 1991 with victory of American Empire. Third World War ended, and Soviets were defeated. The reason of defeat: human factor. Soviets failed to nurture Homo Sovieticus and lost.

Fourth World War, or Great Financial War, was started immediately after Cold War, and was aimed on finishing off Russia and removing all probability of return of Soviets. It ended in 11th of September, 2001, and turned into open, "hot" Fifth World War - the last war on planet.

Well, here's my view of the story.

CR - thanks for the links they were very informative.

Communism is a theoretical utopia. Every attempt to implement its ideologies has resulted in mass murder and oppression. One reason is its fundamental requirement of force and tyranny to impose its principles on the people. If you take away the force and tyranny baggage of communism and allow its principles to be followed volunteerily, then maybe you'll have something.

Pain is easily forgotten. Let's not forget the 100 million lives lost from the heavy hand of communism.

you are obviously ignorant of communism and marx's theories.

first off, show me ONE country that developed according close to marx's theories. there are none! every country went from agarian, fuedal societies to trying to implement socialism and communism. capitalism is a REQUIRED element in the evolution of society.

second, it is neccesary for the people themselves to implement socialism. (you may notice that in russia, the bolsheviks had a pretty large support base) it cannot be put into place by a small group of people, but society it self. communism doesn't have any fundamental need to use force to be implemented (aside from taking power from the capitalists, as those that have power have NEVER surrendered it peacefully) and communism doesn't mean "tyranny"



NO ONE has ever died as a result of communism. they all died as a result of maniacal sociopaths. communism (which has NEVER been achieved ANYWHERE!) is an impersonal economic theory. in my opinion the only reason that capitalism hasn't killed this many people is because that would be a waste of labor to exploit. so instead of killing millions, it simply enslaves them. better to die then be a slave in my opinion.
edited to add:

let us not forget the millions of natives killed by american imperialist expasion, the millions that were disappeared by regimes that WE installed through out central america, and all the "friendly" dictators responsible elsewhere for millions of deaths.

you see dave, while the above governments atrocities and were capitalists, it was not capitalism that killed these people, but sociopathic leaders. it was the same with the "communist" leaders as well. it was not communism that killed them but PEOPLE!!!

To go back to the root of the question, the use of the word Soviet is misleading. A Russian communist state is unlikely, a Soviet empire comprised of all the former territories is nigh impossible. ukrainians and Poles would likely burn their cities to the ground rather than hand them back over the Russian domination. Not to mention fundamentalist opposition in the southern Commonwealth of Independant States (do they even use that name anymore?)

Communists love to deify the common working man on one hand, then lament that he is uneducated in the true nature of the world on the other. Communism failed to be implemented because people are greedy, given to hoarding when scared, gluttonous when given the oppurtunity, and usually more concerned for their families than for society. Essentially we didn't evolve into creatures that make very good communists.

Some nationalist leader might take control claiming to bring back the glory of soviet empire. But if they were to ever actually try all outside investment would stop. Europe would again be driven into the arms of the US out of fear, uniting against the fear of an old threat returned.

But all of this is the realm of Tom Clancy. It simply won't happen. Putin is too entrenched. Revolting against a former KGB officer would be alot more difficult than against a playboy Czar.

As for the Russian military machine. They do still have talented designers and engineers. But they simply can't afford to actually make the advanced designs. Thats what has always hamstrung the Russian defense establishment. Americans aren't smarter, they simply are much better funded.

I see a some poeple here "believing their own press"- Engineer Kimov- though I definately see the modern Russia of today paying an enormous price for these new "freedoms"- I don't see a mechanism for returning to the former style of ruling, there is no weak czar, no power vacuum, and the oligarchs and FSB are firmly in control of thier various domains. Also, I see very much Russian military indoctrination in your writing/speaking style, especially in regards to WW2, where, if not for the US and Europe, Russian would have surely lost. Russia did not fight in North Africa, Europe or the South Pacific, all these theaters of operation were as important if not more important than the Russian front. It could even be argued that Russia's only contribution was to make Hitler fight on more than one front. This does not dishonor the men who fought bravely and were hurt or died, or the poeple that survived the onslaught of Stalingrad (Volgograd) , but Russian history has very badly inflated the Russian goverments contribution to the war.

The main "win" of the Russians against the US was in espionage- they flat out beat us at this. The US had very badly overestimated the power of the Russian military, after about 1970, in a conventional war, the US would have rolled over the Russian military in months, if not days, similar to any direct military confrontation we would have today. In every battle of former USSR weaponry against US weaponry, the USSR weaponry is badly defeated (modern soviet tanks against the M1 Abrams etc). We even overestimated how many tanks Russia had!

I to am the product of my military, but I have grown to regard everything they publish or say with a "grain of salt".

to NICADEMUS:

"To go back to the root of the question, the use of the word Soviet is misleading. A Russian communist state is unlikely, a Soviet empire comprised of all the former territories is nigh impossible. ukrainians and Poles would likely burn their cities to the ground rather than hand them back over the Russian domination."

Don't know about Poles, but Ukrainian nationalism is in minority, practiced only in most Western areas of Ukraine, without any complex industry or high-tech economy. Ukrainians from Eastern regions want to join Russia AND ESPECIALLY - future Soviet Union, which has nothing to do with "Russian domination" and other Western propaganda garbage. Don't forget, that Communist movement is as high in Ukraine as it is in Russia. I can give you many links on radical pro-Russian Ukrainian sites. Most Ukrainians are NOT short-minded fascists as you view them.

"Communism failed to be implemented because people are greedy, given to hoarding when scared, gluttonous when given the oppurtunity, and usually more concerned for their families than for society. Essentially we didn't evolve into creatures that make very good communists."

Exactly: YOU didn't evolve. But WE did. I can remind you Pavlik Morozov, Stakhanovite movement, 28th Panfilovians, and so on. Before Khrushev's neo-trotskyist "Ottepel" and destruction of Stalin's system of checks and balances in Party, Soviet society fully fitted definition of real socialism.

"But if they were to ever actually try all outside investment would stop."

Ha-ha-ha! WHAT investment? There is no real investment from outside Russia! Even authoritarian Belorussia and Vietnam receive more investments from outside! Russian climate makes it impossible to compete with warmer countries without help of goverment. The only target for investment is, probably, Moscow, because people there are quite rich to buy this kind of goods.

"Europe would again be driven into the arms of the US out of fear, uniting against the fear of an old threat returned. "

If we use threat of nuclear terror, not threat of invasion, Europe won't fight on side of Americans. Europeans are not stupid.

"But all of this is the realm of Tom Clancy. It simply won't happen. Putin is too entrenched. Revolting against a former KGB officer would be alot more difficult than against a playboy Czar."

Don't be so sure. Too much people want Putin to leave. We have funds, we have resources, we have technologies and we have manpower. Removing Putin is question of time.






to CRUISINGRAM:

"I see a some poeple here "believing their own press"- Engineer Kimov"

I do not believe any press at all, they are almost always incompetent and, in most cases, subjective.

"if not for the US and Europe, Russian would have surely lost"

Most Europe was conquered by Nazis and working FOR HITLER. We fought against ENTIRE EUROPE. MUCH MORE Europeans died fighting FOR Hitler, than Europeans died fighting AGAINST Hitler. And as for USA, amount of enemies they killed is many times less than amount of enemies, killed by Russians. The fact is that Russian Mosin rifle killed more people than any other weapon in history.

"Russia did not fight in North Africa"

Hell, just try to analyze the situation and compare ENTIRE North African campaign with ONE of operations on Eastern Front, say, Kursk Offensive. Want me to show the numbers?

"Europe"

Americans fighting Hitler-Jugend and Nazi militia? That's not even funny. In their military mismanagement, Americans "managed" to suffer major losses. Hell, if Germany wouldn't surrender after fall of Berlin, Soviet forces would quickly liberate the entire Europe. First, by the end of the war, they already possessed prototypes of jet aviation, specifically, MiG-15. Second, they just finished IS-3 "Joseph Stalin" tank. They arrived too late to be used in Eastern Europe, but they could be used in liberation of Western Europe.

"or the South Pacific"

The death blow against Japan was done not in South Pacific. The reason of Japan surrender was destruction of Quatun army by Soviet forces.

Soviet Union: Soviet Strike Force
Commander: A.M.Vasilevskiy
Soldiers: 1500000 (1,5 million)
Artillery: 26000
Tanks: 5500
Aircrafts: 3800

Japan Empire: Quatun Army
Commander: General Otodzo Yamada
Soldiers: 2500000 (2,5 million)
Artillery: 8000
Tanks: 1200
Aircrafts: 2000

Without Soviets, Americans would NEVER defeat Japan, because it required transfer of AT LEAST five million soldiers (according to classic offensive strategies, used by America and Britain - more than ten million) to Japan islands, which was economically and military impossible for America.

"The US had very badly overestimated the power of the Russian military, after about 1970, in a conventional war, the US would have rolled over the Russian military in months, if not days, similar to any direct military confrontation we would have today."

Any numbers to back this up? By this time, Russians have already developed T-72, which ripped its American and Jewish counterparts M-60 and Merkava with ease in Middle East. They also had MiG-25, which was physically impossible to intercept in military situation (it moved much faster than American best surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles). Soviets had SA-6, weapon of 1960ies, but which is quite powerful even today. We had best anti-tank weaponry: BRDMs with mounted "Malutka" anti-tank missiles. We had S-200 "Long Arm", which EVEN TODAY beats any American counterparts. With S-200, we can attack air targets which did not even entered our territory - especially effective against AWACS planes, in order to blind American aviation. With all my experience in military engineering, tactics and strategy, I have NEVER seen American weapon which was superior to Soviet weapon of SAME ERA. Modern American weapons are only good on attacking Soviet weapons, which were developed 30-40 years ago. Against Soviet weaponry, developed 20 years ago and after, American forces are almost useless.

The Soviet Empire. Hmm, wouldn't that just be calling out America to revert back to the Cold War, and thereby further isolate Russia, oh, sorry the new USSR. There wouldn't be much of a purpose to doing this, considering pure communism won't be achieved, and it would turn the rest of the world against the new USSR. If they want an Empire there, fine, but annoying America and the rest of the world wouldn't be the brightest idea.

CP

Kimov - could you please use the quote feature? It is very difficult to differentiate between your words and those you are quoting otherwise. Thanks

OK. I will try to use "QUOTE" feature more often.

The reason why I didn't use it in most post is that I actually write posts offline in Windows Notepad, and then paste to the reply form. That's because I want to keep track of discussion.

unabomber, there is an unignorable correlation between the communist/socialist nations of the world and the death and oppression that is so often associate with them.



This make little sense to me. In what way are people slaves to capitalism (ie corporations right)? You don't find businesses imprisoning or executing people for not buying their product or not working for them. In fact, I argue just the opposite, that corporations are slaves to consumers, hence the endless amount of advertising.

Look Engineer Kimov you say you are Communist, but you are scared of the Motherland coming back into power? That dosn't add up. A true political advocate would be happy that a country that chose to use his/her form of government to be coming to power even if its only a poll that says that most would support another revolution. You should as a communist be dancing in the streets, as I am.

The Russian economy is not strong enough to pose a threat to the U.S. even if Communism returns. Just look at how weak it was just prior to the collapse of the U.S.S.R. (Not to mention the fact that a new Russian Communist nation would not necessarily be an enemy of the U.S.)

Communism on a vast scale is not capable of keeping pace with capitalism. As an example, look at the Russian's surprise when they realized, after the cold war, how powerful the American military really was. As another example, look at China's increasing prominence and power resulting from a more open attitude to capitalism and private industry. Bottom line, Communism is nice in theory, but doesn’t work on the scale of a developed nation.

Hell, comrade, DON'T YOU KNOW HISTORY? It took THREE YEARS for Communist system to recover from unparalleled destruction of Great Patriotic War. Recovering after horrors of Perestroika and democracy will take one or two five-year plans as maximum.



THAT IS BECAUSE IT SUFFERED SIX YEARS OF PERESTROIKA! I wish to look what America will like after Perestroika...



And again you don't know history! In 1945, America and Soviet Union were FRIENDS AND ALLIES, but soon after that, Americans BACKSTABBED Soviet state just because they didn't like the idea of Communism - Americans wanted total domination of planet.



Who told you this crap? Check history. Soviet industrial growth was ALWAYS higher than American. Especially under real socialism - Stalinism. In some years, it gave 30-40% of growth AND EVEN MORE, which is unparalleled event in history of economic systems. If you read independant authors on history of Soviet economy, you would know that Stalinism has the fastest economic growth compared to any other social systems.



American military? Powerful compared to Soviet Union? What did you smoke?

As form of entertainment, I made a small calculation. Modern American mlitary succesfully engaged only those Soviet equipment, which was developed 30-50 years ago (T-72, S-75, MiG-23, MiG-29). The equipment which was developed 20 years ago (during 80ies) flawlessly beats any MODERN American counterparts. Your military is 30 years behind us, weaklings.