I think my country was better in communism...

[Tierbook]

What exactly does the internet have to do with the moon? Granted, electronic systems tend to be my main intellectual weakness, but I think I would have heard of that.

Cellphones, velcro, i wanna say kool aid as well

also this is sorta relevant

[schwarzkopf]

What exactly does the internet have to do with the moon?

Actually the internet has military ties, however the computer (which was what I was thinking of) relies on much of the miniturisation technology that was driven by the need for small payloads on the initial space launches.

Big government and military had little need for little computers, but NASA did.

[Deleted]

Intruiguingly whereever a communist country shares borders with a capitalist one, people rather swim with sharks and risk being shot at or ripped apart by mines than stay in their workers' paradise. Fools, lacking the deep insights of video game forum denizens, they are.

[Deleted]

sorry NASA was the agency that managed the space program they produced nothing it was all done by private industries

the Saturn 5 rocket was produced by Boeing, North American Aviation, Douglas Aircraft Company, and IBM

the Space shuttle was made by North American Aviation .The contractor for the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters was Morton Thiokol, for the external tank, Martin Marietta, and for the Space shuttle main engines, Rocketdyne

All private industries

So just disregard the effort made by scientists, the astronauts, the programmers, the engineers etc. that actually were the ones to actually put man on the moon?

but with corporations they are controlled by the consumer by the public if the corporation fails to meet the consumers needs the public needs they switch corporations
there for the corporation is controlled by the public
in communism the government is in control of the public and if the government doesn't meet the peoples needs what recourse does the people have other then over throwing the governement

You can switch how much you want, you're still dependant on corporations in the end.

If all corporations go bankrupt because everyone switched to the best one, the best corporation can raise prices significantly to get as much profit as possible, and you have no choice but to buy from them.

[Kasierith]

Actually the internet has military ties, however the computer (which was what I was thinking of) relies on much of the miniturisation technology that was driven by the need for small payloads on the initial space launches.

Big government and military had little need for little computers, but NASA did.

So things they would have developed even if the Soviets had managed to get to the moon first. It was related to the process, not the end result.

[Stir]

but with corporations they are controlled by the consumer by the public if the corporation fails to meet the consumers needs the public needs they switch corporations
there for the corporation is controlled by the public
in communism the government is in control of the public and if the government doesn't meet the peoples needs what recourse does the people have other then over throwing the governement

This is a myth.

You see; by their very existence, production corporations prime their environment with the idea that the service they provide is necessary. Psychology has proven, time and again, that we are not exactly in control of what we think, and especially not of what we expect of the world.
There's many ways in which (large) corporations can dictate an entire country. Monsanto is an example; they can get farmers locked up for NOT using their products, specifically. They have caused the dioxine problem, have poisoned an entire town, and have gotten away scott-free. People depend on them; countries now depend on them.
There are many ways in which corporate corruption and, indeed, corporate dictatorship shape our very lives. The fact that we hardly notice those things because we all (including myself) behold those things as 'normalcy' doesn't change that.

Intruiguingly whereever a communist country shares borders with a capitalist one, people rather swim with sharks and risk being shot at or ripped apart by mines than stay in their workers' paradise. Fools, lacking the deep insights of video game forum denizens, they are.

Strangely, the states those people escape are all dictatorships.
Strangely, in other dictatorships, people act exactly the same way.

So the problem must be the system of economy rather than the system of government. That must be true.

[Vyxn]

And what benefit has putting a man on the moon effectively granted the USA ?

most advancements in electrons came from the space program and defense
and since all products and technology produced for the space program and defense was produced by private industries here in America they had the freedom to use it for public consumption
In Russia since the technology and products that was used for their space program and defense was owned by government it wasn't used for public consumption

[Beavis]

How is this different from being a slave to the corporations?

I'm sorry, but you seem to live in the strange assumption that you are free. You're not. You're a consumer and a slave, and your existence serves not yourself, but your boss, and your boss' boss. If you do not abide by the demands of the capitalist hierarchy, you starve. You will have no food. No shelter.

Worse still, more and more of us live in debt, thinking our debt is actually our possession. Mortgages and more. Which turns us into indentured slaves.

Communism is a great system. You claim that your 'free' system is the best, but if anything, that results in true slavery. The only problem with communism is the fact that the people in charge don't generally care too much about the populace. The leaders of communist states have, so far, been ultra-capitalist. Corrupt and uncaring, greedy and dangerous. It's not the fault of communism that the people were maltreated. Communism wasn't at fault for the death-squads or the tyranny. Communism doesn't even oppose democracy.
The problem wasn't communism... The problem was tyranny.

The problem with communism is that it's a 19th century utopian fantasy. That people can still read the Communist Manifesto 165 years later and not see that it simply wishes away human behaviors we know to be intrinsic is kind of astounding.

[schwarzkopf]

So things they would have developed even if the Soviets had managed to get to the moon first. It was related to the process, not the end result.

Soviets used mini-tube technology, because it was immune to EMP - it took the US to do the integrated circuit and semiconductors.

The soviet process was one of evolution, the US process is one of revolution.

[Kasierith]

Soviets used mini-tube technology, because it was immune to EMP - it took the US to do the integrated circuit and semiconductors.

The soviet process was one of evolution, the US process is one of revolution.

I don't see anything in your statement that contradicts my post.

[schwarzkopf]

I don't see anything in your statement that contradicts my post.

Just the bit about the end result being different.... BECAUSE the process was different.

[Deleted]

In Russia since the technology and products that was used for their space program and defense was owned by government it wasn't used for public consumption

Everything was owned by the government. They could have had those scientists where their technology was needed to develop the other applications.

---------- Post added 2013-01-02 at 03:01 AM ----------

Just the bit about the end result being different.... BECAUSE the process was different.

How was the process different ? They both had a problem, both found a viable solution. One just didn't happen to have the applications the other had.

[Vyxn]

This is a myth.

You see; by their very existence, production corporations prime their environment with the idea that the service they provide is necessary. Psychology has proven, time and again, that we are not exactly in control of what we think, and especially not of what we expect of the world.
There's many ways in which (large) corporations can dictate an entire country. Monsanto is an example; they can get farmers locked up for NOT using their products, specifically. They have caused the dioxine problem, have poisoned an entire town, and have gotten away scott-free. People depend on them; countries now depend on them.
There are many ways in which corporate corruption and, indeed, corporate dictatorship shape our very lives. The fact that we hardly notice those things because we all (including myself) behold those things as 'normalcy' doesn't change that.

And how are corporations able to do what you claim they do?
they are able to do that through government
you claim a corporation could have you locked up for not using their product its not the corporation that has you locked up its is the government
See the corporation doesn't have the power to make you buy their product it is the government that is forcing you to buy their product

[schwarzkopf]

How was the process different ? They both had a problem, both found a viable solution. One just didn't happen to have the applications the other had.

For getting to the moon sure... but for getting us to where we are today - TOTALLY different outcome.

[starlord]

And how are corporations able to do what you claim they do?
they are able to do that through government
you claim a corporation could have you locked up for not using their product its not the corporation that has you locked up its is the government
See the corporation doesn't have the power to make you buy their product it is the government that is forcing you to buy their product

its like the gilded age never happened for some people.

[Stir]

And how are corporations able to do what you claim they do?
they are able to do that through government
you claim a corporation could have you locked up for not using their product its not the corporation that has you locked up its is the government
See the corporation doesn't have the power to make you buy their product it is the government that is forcing you to buy their product

A government that is pretty much controlled by such corporations isn't a government... It's a corporate dictatorship.
But by all means; believe that democracy really works as intended, why don't you?

[Vyxn]

Everything was owned by the government. They could have had those scientists where their technology was needed to develop the other applications.

---------- Post added 2013-01-02 at 03:01 AM ----------

How was the process different ? They both had a problem, both found a viable solution. One just didn't happen to have the applications the other had.

Why didn't they? because their was no incentive to do so.
the engine of advancement, ingenuity, and innovation is greed

[Sarojini]

"Communism" (the theory behind it) isn't bad, the problem is that it relies on humans, and human's are prone to laziness, greed and mistakes.

Fear, greed and corruption brought this country to it's knees during the height of it's communist escapades.

Somewhere between 15m (official) and 45m (unofficial) people died due to the failure of communism because of the above issues, in 3 years alone. This was less pronounced in the cities because that's where food was shipped to, however, if you were in the rural counties producing the food, odds are you were starving. Corruption, greed, fear and stupidity led to one of the greatest famines of all time.

Between 40-70m are estimated to have died during Mao's time as Chairman, through starvation and executions.

Yes, China is "prosperous" (debatable) now. However this is purely because they are now toeing the capitalist line whilst retaining their communist label.

I am fairly certain that the majority of Chinese would not welcome a return to the days of "The Great Leap Forward".


To OP: if you want a close, up-front view of communism at it's finest, save some money and head on over to North Korea on one of their strictly controlled "holidays" there. I've heard that it's quite interesting. I'm tempted to do it myself actually...

[Wikiy]

I understood from someone that your corruption is similar to ours though, not sure what to say.

Croatia was probably even more corrupt than Romania 2 years ago. Fortunately, the right-wing party that was in power made so many fiascos and their corruption was ultimately revealed. Right now, our former prime minster from that party is being tried for several abuses of power. He was already sentenced to 3 years for one of them.

A year ago a social democratic left-wing party was elected and even though we're still going through recessions, reforms are happening and corruption is being rooted out. A scary thing, though, is that there is essentially no political opposition to that left-wing party. The right wing one has lost all credibility not only because of that failure of a prime minister but also because of a few political abuses of power that its current leader was found out to have committed while his party was in power and while he was the minister of internal affairs.

That said, look at the other side of the coin too, Portugal, Greece, Ireland, these all joined even earlier and aren't prospering.

That's mostly because they employed the Mediterranean social model. Well, actually, they still do. Croatia doesn't have it.

The idea I want you to understand is that the entry in the EU won't bring milk and honey.

I've already said I'm aware of this. I just don't see why it would be wrong for me to be happy because I know that for example we're going to get 2% of our GDP every year for at least 14 years, which is essentially a huge amount. Or the fact that because of the membership I'll be able to work in any of the EU countries without any problems.

It is how your leadership makes the benefits from the EU work what will or will not make milk and honey pour. If you have a crappy leadership... hot tar will pour.

Well, at the moment, I'm optimistic of the new government.

About second thing, isn't Slobodan Milosevic the one that triggered something after all though?

He was essentially a catalyst that started the war. The possibility of the war was always there because ethnic distrust was always there. And that was always there because of a lot of reasons really. It was an endless cycle of oppression and crimes of one people directed at another people and then that second people doing the same to the first people that resulted in the war. And it started right after the first world war.

I remember reading that he sort of made the equality so serbs are higher then others, and only then did other nations from the union (I don't know how to call Yugoslavia, so union seems best) got pissed.

I think one kind of needs to know at least something about the historical perspective to fully understand why the war happened.

After the end of the first world war, Slovenes, Croats and Serbs united into a State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs (that was its real name) and eventually, as the dominant people, the Serbs started exploiting their advantage and initiated a hegemony over the other peoples. You can even see that by the fact that when it turned into a kingdom, it wasn't the Kingdom of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, it was the kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Later it was renamed into Yugoslavia (Jug, pronounced in English as Yug, means south, so the meaning of the word Yugoslavia is essentially South Slavia).

Anyways, in the second world war, the Croatian fascists were given rule over the then-conquered Croatian and Bosnian part of Yugoslavia and these idiots started committing a genocide over Serbs, i guess as revenge or something. About 300 000 of them were killed. After the war, when Tito (a Croat) got to power over a newly founded second Yugoslavia, he started initiating Serbian hegemony, again. Which baffles me, maybe he was doing it as historic poetic justice for all the genocide over the Serbs, I'm not really sure. Maybe he felt sympathy.

But yeah, anyways, when he died, ethnic tensions started rising up again. Eventually, my country, together with Slovenia, declared independence and Serbs in regions where there were more of them than Croats started displacing the Croats and founded their own state within Croatia. Croatia of course couldn't agree to this and couldn't recognize it as a sovereign state because among other reasons, the Serbs in those regions had a referendum of independence where they filtered out Croatians' votes and only counted in Serbs' votes, resulting in a figure of 90% or so for independence. While in the Croatian independence referendum that was held earlier, we counted in Serbs' votes which is why it was also 90% or so instead of 99%. We also couldn't recognize them because immediately after forming their state, their civilians massively displaced Croatian civilians which lived in those areas, as I've said, and kicked them out.

So yeah, we started a war with this phony state to take back what was ours, Croatian territory that had been Croatian for a millennium and a half. The capital of that state was a city that was the capital while Croatia was an independent kingdom during the years between 900-1100. So yeah, we couldn't just let them have it. It's because of that that Milošević went to war with us. It's worth noting that he was the architect of that state, he gave the idea to its president. The name of that state was Republic of Serbian Krajina. If you're interested, look it up.

[seta-san]

missing communism is like missing the flu because it got you off work/school