Military Review

Socialism and capitalism from the point of view of the common man

116
Still, we need to understand, our generation sees socialism and capitalism as different systems of economic management. What, alas, the school does not explain, but only frighten the current students of repression.


Socialism and social planning

So imagine that you hit, say, in the 1980 year. You walk down the street and see, say, a soft drink machine called soda. If you have a 3 penny, then you can perfectly legally drink this soda, and even with syrup. What is 3 penny? It is very simple - this is the number of hours you have worked in a certain sphere of production. And because the desk will cost exactly 2p 80 kopecks, bread 18 kopecks, matches 1 kopecks. From here there are problems, for example, and what to do if the matches are over, and the working time of the manufacturer of these matches is also over? In Soviet times, coupons regulating the amount of consumption of this product appeared in such situations. If you want matches in the conditions of underproduction, then instead of personal “I” - you will have to include “we”. Actually, you have the same situation at home, if something is missing, then all family members save the current deficit. And then socialist planning begins: “how much do you need to produce a product that would be enough for everyone?”. The current economists are shouting that social planning is impossible because of the abundance of different types of goods that cannot be planned. However, they are dishonest - because there is only one milk product. Kefir, bread and many other products are grouped together, thus representing a class of products. And in the USSR it was planned to manufacture exactly the class of goods, not units. The most common myth that if there is no owner, then everything is in disrepair, fails, as soon as we realize that there are no places and people in our apartment that we could not pay attention to. The defect invented by capital to eliminate competitors.

Capitalism, which everyone is talking about, but no one has yet seen.

Now let's talk about capitalism. Now imagine that you are walking along Broadway and in the same 1980 find a similar device in which soda costs the same 3 kopecks. What now these 3 pennies? And nothing! This is just a receipt that this piece of paper has the number 3, which is less than 4-x, but more than 2-x. How does the capitalist mechanism work when there is a shortage of product? Instead of coupons, he simply increases the number on a piece of paper and thus takes away real value from the whole society. Yes, there are no coupons, but the purchasing power is falling. Every time I am surprised by supporters of exchanges - who shout about the amount of taxes that they allegedly invest in our economy. The problem is that, with an increase in the number on a piece of paper, there really isn’t more value, which means that the product you produce is not worth more than 3 kopecks, but less, which means your contribution to the economy, and therefore profit - less ! But what about the consumer? After all, the indicator of the health of the economy according to the capitalist principle is the number of consumer goods! And it is very simple - the manufacturer deliberately increases the cost of this product to the mark, which, with the same amount of work, allows you to live for some time without changing your lifestyle for the worse. And the consumer is forced to buy at the price that producers imposed on him. Hence the abundance on the shelves of the current capitalist way of life. There are a lot of goods, but in reality we buy far from everything that we want or need. Moreover, this scheme stimulates the search for cheaper production of the product - hence GMOs, substitutes and fakes. Alas, it is unsafe for health and for the state as a whole.

More about systems

Many "democrats" compare both systems and say that capitalism is a more correct and fair system, but this is not so. Under socialism, a certain number of people suffer, who are accustomed to thinking only of themselves. Under capitalism, those who want to think about others suffer. The current system of production of "successful" people instills strange values. Wherever you drag and as legally as possible. You understand that the depravity of such an action is to steal, and that, according to the law, it has been going on since our “late” socialism. Thieves in law lobbied for the rules that they dragged their whole life into society. I don’t say that it strongly undermines statehood itself, as such. What we see in the army, in the number of homeless, homeless people, level of education and culture. On the eve of the holiday I want to say that if such a situation is long, then Hitler will easily overcome our mighty and proud country!
Author:
116 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Explore
    Explore 4 May 2013 06: 51
    25
    Socialism was a good alternative to the bourgeois system. Not to say that the only true and flawless, but still an alternative.
    Although the value of society depends primarily on the people who make it up.
    1. Fantomac
      Fantomac 4 May 2013 11: 42
      +3
      Sociolism is power for the people, capitalism is power for man.
      1. dddym
        4 May 2013 11: 46
        12
        what country is this ??? The power of man is the power of the oligarch do you mean?
        1. S_mirnov
          S_mirnov 4 May 2013 17: 31
          12
          Already wrote, but I repeat. It is very important to understand that in our country there is no capitalism !!!
          A capitalist is someone who turns money into capital (means of production), produces products, sells and invests the money received again in capital (factories, factories, farms).
          In our country, capital (factories, factories, collective farms) is converted into money, and money is exported abroad (because investing or storing them in the Russian Federation is sheer madness (there is no rule of law), but that's another topic). If you take a closer look at our "effective owners", they manufacture products at the former Soviet factories until the machines wear out, then the machines are scrapped, the land is sold and brought down with money to the ocean coast. Such a fate befell Zavod Kalibr (Moscow), ZIL (Moscow), VILS - these are the ones that I saw personally.
          So we have no capitalism, but what we call ourselves.
          1. Ustas
            Ustas 5 May 2013 08: 26
            +4
            Quote: S_mirnov
            A capitalist is someone who turns money into capital (means of production), produces products, sells and invests the money received again in capital (factories, factories, farms).

            Hm! Let us turn to the primary sources:
            Capitalism (French capital — the main property or amount) is a socio-economic formation based on the private ownership of the bourgeois class on the means of production and exploitation by capital of wage workers deprived of the means of production and forced to sell their labor power;

            This formation is based, according to Marx, the receipt of "surplus value" - profit. And the capitalist will invest his capital wherever he can make a profit. In fact, capitalism is now in Russia. And it does not matter whether the capitalist invests in production or simply resells, everything is geared towards making a profit. It's just that the modern economy has developed this way, without producing it is possible to get huge profits. Otherwise, trading in empty securities, stocks, derevtiva, bills of exchange, etc., you can get much more profit than selling tangible goods. And this practice is fraught (I will now say a seditious thought, and many will minus me but ..) "decay" with the decline of the capitalist system itself, a deep crisis of production. Because all means (production, raw materials, etc.) will increasingly be concentrated in the same hands, in five or ten families.
            Marx said that capitalism is replacing feudalism, and socialism is replacing capitalism. Modern capitalism will lead a quiet glanders to feudalism.
            1. Sandov
              Sandov 5 May 2013 14: 27
              +1
              Remember Marx, there was no jerk. Where there is at least some kind of income, the capitalist will not stop at any crime. The conclusion is clear! Workers unite again.
        2. Fantomac
          Fantomac 4 May 2013 20: 19
          0
          Capitolism, power for the most competitive, And no matter whether he has honor and dignity or not, the main thing is that he (the person) brings income.
          1. cdrt
            cdrt 5 May 2013 01: 03
            0
            Knowing the economy, only one thing can be said - the most serious economic problem of socialism is pricing. And especially such a delicate thing as the pricing of new products (or new classes of products). Under capitalism, the price is determined by the balance of supply and demand. Under socialism (real), it is much more complicated - a really undercover struggle in the State Planning Commission, questions of state strategy, earlier plans, etc. As a result, it turns out that only those types of new products that were planned during the previous cycle of long-term planning can develop. The result - at the beginning from 50-60 the mass creation of new types of products of the USSR constantly acted as catching up. Naturally, this applies primarily to goods not related to defense (since pricing is almost the same everywhere for the defense industry).
            1. dddym
              5 May 2013 09: 30
              0
              You wrote something like this that nobody understood anything. Pricing has never been a problem, it was just the 72nd crisis that forced prices to rise, but this crisis happened not only in the USSR. Under capitalism, the new product was never determined by the balance of supply and demand, since it is new and the demand for it is very vague. The capitalists invented advertising, thus creating an artificial demand, and artificial supply correspondingly to the artificial demand, that is, roughly put the consumer on the needle and get as much money from him as you like. If you are talking about five-year plans, then do not forget to say that when adopting a five-year plan, it was not the state plan for 5 years that was determined, but the priority sectors of the national economy that should be developed. With such planning, of course, the market situation suffers, but in terms of the quality and quantity of products, the plan is much superior to the market, preventing it from knowingly counterfeit goods, preventing price dumping and, accordingly, inflation. What actually blossomed today is exaggerated prices for medicines designed to save our lives and instead killing us, incredible prices for medical services, electronics that breaks down the day after the expiration of the warranty period, from which palenka vodka dies annually in a small village. Suffice it to recall Iraq with losses from "insiders" when you notice that the US army bought Chinese cartridges (with an effect of 1 out of 10, non-standard or does not shoot) or their new weapon that killed more friends than others (microwave cannon). I do not want to say that there were no shortcomings under socialism, for example, anti-priorities were announced - such as cybernetics from the standpoint of those who did not understand anything about this. But even here it is not entirely so unambiguous. For example, I remember when aybiem just came up with a 386 processor, we had Corvette training complexes. which used both a hard disk and surpassed their American counterparts in terms of speed. ICs that ensured the uninterrupted automated operation of giant enterprises, while the architecture of their processors was compatible with the very same iBeem. BC which appeared even before Sinclair. And in this situation, they were only catching up with what suddenly surfaced "in the depths of capitalist ores" by a lone capitalist, who immediately put it on stream without even checking how much his product is in demand and safe.
            2. dddym
              26 December 2013 07: 08
              0
              it’s not true that defense pricing under socialism and capitalism are very different. Under socialism, the product wins as a result of socialist competition, and this is the most effective and balanced weapon. Given the price-quality ratio, Soviet weapons, precisely because of socialist competition, turned out to be at the highest world level. In the United States, the defense industry takes up much more money and is less effective, although it looks more convenient and interesting. It happens this way: the state needs weapons, immediately the capitalists appear who want to get profit from this. Yes, in this case, the defense industry takes a step forward, but not in terms of characteristics and cost, but in appearance and effective (not effective) application. For example, the SDI which scared us Americans, which was supposed to cost several trillion dollars. And the answer to this is the USSR - fissile warheads, which cost a penny compared to SDI only a few thousand rubles per warhead (I mean those prices)
          2. dddym
            26 December 2013 06: 56
            -1
            where does honor and dignity come from? The principle itself is to buy cheaper and sell more expensive - this is speculation about what honor and dignity can we talk about?
      2. starshina78
        starshina78 4 May 2013 19: 09
        +7
        A strange conclusion - "Socialism is power for the people, capitalism is power for people." That "socialism is power for the people" - this essentially means that socialism is the power of the people, perhaps the author had this in mind. The way it is . Under socialism, society is social, that is, there is social support for the population: the main principles of socialism are free medical care, education, social guarantees (pensions, and other social benefits), the principle "from each according to his ability, to each according to his work", that is, how it worked , and ate. Hence, socialism is power for the people, people's power. But "capitalism is power for man" does not in any way approach capitalism as a system; under it, man survives as best he can. He earns his own pension, pays for insurance, pays for his studies. So capitalism cannot be called power for a person. And I agree with many authors that capitalism does not exist in Russia. There is a semblance of capitalism, in which some take out everything they can from Russia, while others are trying to survive, despite the efforts of the authorities, who are trying to “improve” the life of the country's population so that soon there will be no one to “improve”.
        1. Fantomac
          Fantomac 4 May 2013 20: 32
          -1
          People’s power does not exist, at least it wasn’t. Power it cannot be popular, it can only be independent and independent of the people or anyone else. People can be manipulated as you like, which is what they are doing today. People have always been manipulated, and power, etc. Roughly speaking, there is nothing independent. I hope you will understand me, if not ask questions.
          1. not good
            not good 4 May 2013 21: 34
            +3
            The trouble of our country is that at first the power was for the people and depended on it a little, but gradually ceasing to pay attention to its people, I forgot what kind of figs I need and I lost power not only power, but also the people and the country. The conclusion of capitalism or socialism is possible argue hoarsely, but if the authorities in Russia do not hear the people will see above ...
        2. S_mirnov
          S_mirnov 4 May 2013 22: 31
          +3
          And a little more to my previous koment
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMTT4jTj7Qs
          "capitalism is power for a person" - not for a person, but for a group of rich people wink , and all the wealth acquired by criminal means (read the classics).
          And so that the power was popular, they came up with a simple law
          http://igpr.ru/aim
          which modern power fears like fire and declares extremist.
          1. Joker
            Joker 4 May 2013 23: 38
            +4
            And so that the power was popular, they came up with a simple law
            http://igpr.ru/aim
            which modern power fears like fire and declares extremist.

            Thanks for the link. It’s time to wake up, otherwise we’ll lose our homeland, this time irrevocably. And then our holy oil is already selling to our English. The law is wonderful, only it seems to me that it can only be introduced in a revolutionary way, and no more, which government will allow it to evaluate its work and in which case it will be punished criminally? I just didn’t understand how they are trying to push it through, all the same, it’s not easy to assemble a national referendum, but I’m sure that 80 will be in favor with something. The rest of 20 are either idiots or thieves.
            1. S_mirnov
              S_mirnov 5 May 2013 10: 23
              0
              "how are they trying to push it through" - so far through a referendum, why a revolution, if there is a legal path officially prescribed in the constitution. And if the government does not allow the adoption of the law in a constitutional way, then it will put itself outside the law.
              I think we should do our best to popularize this project. The more people know about this law, the more difficult it is for authorities to pretend that they are not up to date.
  2. Sibiryak
    Sibiryak 4 May 2013 06: 52
    +7
    The current production system of “successful” people instills strange values. Where to drag and as legitimate as possible. You understand that the viciousness of such an action is to steal, and whatever the law means, this has been going on since our “late” socialism. Thieves in law have lobbied for the rules that they dragged all their lives into society.

    The above words reminded me of one life situation - in one of the villages of the Krasnoyarsk Territory, almost the entire younger generation has a dream, to get to places not so remote, to an area located near this village. The reason is simple - there you will be full and dressed.
    1. Slavs69
      Slavs69 4 May 2013 07: 52
      +2
      Let me ask, what kind of village? Maybe the desire is simple, go to serve in this zone?
      1. Sibiryak
        Sibiryak 4 May 2013 08: 00
        +6
        Slavs69
        I will not name the village, the essence is different, in relation to the state at the present stage to its citizens, against the backdrop of promising conversations of our leaders! Upon learning of this, my hair stood on end!
        1. dddym
          4 May 2013 08: 20
          -1
          I will support you. For I know that these teenagers plan how they will do it. From robbery to rape is planned, if only to get into the fence paradise.
      2. dddym
        4 May 2013 08: 01
        +2
        You have a rich choice. For example, I know 3 of such villages in the territory of the Kemerovo region. request
        1. Sibiryak
          Sibiryak 4 May 2013 08: 45
          +4
          Quote: dddym
          You have a rich choice. For example, I know 3 of such villages in the territory of the Kemerovo region.

          Yes, all this is regrettable!
    2. djon3volta
      djon3volta 4 May 2013 09: 06
      19
      Quote: Sibiryak
      The reason is simple - you'll be full and dressed there.

      American, Englishman and Russian boast that they will make the cat eat
      mustard. The American grabs the cat and stuffs the mustard into its mouth.
      - This is violence! - protests Russian.
      An Englishman puts mustard between two pieces of sausage and a cat
      eats up.
      - This is a lie! - protests the Russian, then smears the mustard cat
      under the tail, and a cat with a howl licks it.
      “Pay attention,” the Russian says, “voluntarily and with the song.”

      nothing reminds you of this joke? laughing
  3. FC SKIF
    FC SKIF 4 May 2013 06: 54
    19
    The ethics of socialism and communism are closer to Christianity, if they would have become friends in the USSR, then things might have gone differently. And for capitalism, personal gain, selfish interest is important - hence all its vices.
    1. not good
      not good 4 May 2013 21: 36
      +3
      The trouble is that in the USSR above they considered themselves gods, and Gorbachev imagines himself to be the messiah am
    2. Joker
      Joker 4 May 2013 23: 52
      +8
      Oh yes, where are we without Christianity. I thought the USSR collapsed because of the betrayal and connivance of the people of the USSR, but here it turns out that Stalin simply did not knock his forehead on the floor enough, but he would knock more often, you might as well not poison him, God would remove the poison from the body and send terrible punishment to the killers. Do you yourself think what you are writing or not? Stalin did everything right, you believe, sit at home and believe, went to church, prayed and went home, but no, you need to fill the whole of Russia with churches. Stalin died and they began to build more mosques, and then bite between each other, immediately the infidels appeared. Stalin did the right thing, an excellent education will replace both faith and everything else, and people will fight only discussing theorems, and not cut each other because of someone who is not clear. As today they staged a clownery, "the condescension of the fire of the Lord" all the joyful burning candles, God sent them fire, and the fact that the church officials admitted that they light it themselves is not interesting to anyone, then the scientists were not allowed there for several decades so that they could not study the "phenomenon" of this fire. It is called teach the fool to pray ...... Faith will never replace education, but education is faith with ease. We are now discussing Islamic terrorists, and if we reach their level of education, we will discuss Orthodox terrorists. And about the catchphrase, they say, "There are no atheists in trenches under fire" here's an atheist on fire http://hardingush.livejournal.com/ and something in the Second World War everyone shouted For the Motherland, not for Jesus Christ.
      1. not good
        not good 5 May 2013 15: 14
        0
        For me, at least set up mosques with pagodas, I didn’t talk about faith, but about the top that power should be controlled, uncontrolled power degenerates and ruins the state entrusted to it. And the highest education will not save you from a lack of conscience. And you were not there about trenches , and I knew the scouts in which in Afghanistan they prayed before each exit.
  4. Kaa
    Kaa 4 May 2013 06: 56
    35
    "The victory of the West over the USSR gave it about 10 years of prosperity, during which on both sides of the Atlantic they consumed the mobilization resources that the Union created for the confrontation. After the collapse of the USSR's economy, the West received dividends: energy and raw materials from Russia were sold at dumping prices, and the proceeds for the money was exported there, to the West (the so-called "capital flight"). The result was a rapid economic growth and prosperity in the United States and Western Europe during the 1990s. Then experts announced that this was a consequence of neoliberal economic policy , the success of the "new economy" based on some combination of new technologies, new financial laws and neoliberal restructuring. All of this was incorrect and politically biased interpretation. In fact, the prosperity of the West in the 1990s was the result of the collapse of the Eastern bloc and the USSR. , the collapse of their economies freed up huge resources of excess capacity in oil and gas production, electricity production,extraction of raw materials, smelting of metal and rolled products, production of fertilizers, etc. The crisis of the West is closely related to the gradual loss of technological leadership and dominance in industrial production. During the confrontation with the USSR, both sides constantly transferred technology, and not only the military, to the third world countries and thus equalized the level of their development. The USSR demonstratively built there metallurgical giants, factories, plants, roads, bridges, even nuclear power plants. Moscow has exacerbated this "game" of raising technological levels, and the West was forced to participate in it, helping its allies, transferring technology to them and investing production capital in them.
    The West went beyond the Union and not only transferred technology to Japan, China, India, other countries, but also brought mass production of goods there. A major role in this “brilliant operation” was played by Zbigniew Brzezinski, an anti-Soviet and an active participant in negotiations with China. Paradoxically, this “hawk” of American foreign policy has done a lot to destroy the West. It is characteristic, by the way, how rarely the phrase “golden billion” has recently been used. The reason is that against the backdrop of a general weakening of the West, it is becoming increasingly difficult for him to maintain an nonequivalent exchange, which causes deepening social inequality in the West, curtailing social programs, lowering incomes, increasing workload for workers ... So, if in 1980 every worker and employee in the USA spent 1883 hours working in factories and offices, in 1997 already 1966 hours. Workers in the USA are now forced to work longer than even in Mexico. The situation is even worse in the countries of the former socialist camp, where for the sake of survival the population has to work too much almost without exception. So, in the Czech Republic, 90% of men and 80% of women are forced to work over the standard 8 hours a day.
    The West still has the strength to torment weak countries, but its time has passed. He overstrained in the fight against the Soviet Union, transferred technology and capital to developing countries, lost military, political, industrial, technological dominance. And then the very survival of the West will depend on how successfully it can reproduce the Soviet mobilization model of society. http://otchizna.su/main-theme/660
  5. aszzz888
    aszzz888 4 May 2013 07: 10
    +7
    Yes, let it be social planning and the struggle for world markets ... The main result. The result of raising the economy to a higher level. Is it really bad with the social system in China? We went up and rod further .. Will we keep up with them ?.
    1. Fox
      Fox 4 May 2013 07: 39
      12
      Quote: aszzz888
      Is it bad with the social system in China

      so they didn’t invent anything new in China ... they simply followed the path proposed by Stalin, and here they went for a half-fool. Here and the result.
      1. aszzz888
        aszzz888 4 May 2013 12: 56
        +1
        Unfortunately you are right.
      2. aksakal
        aksakal 4 May 2013 18: 35
        +4
        Quote: Fox
        Quote: aszzz888
        Is it bad with the social system in China

        so they didn’t invent anything new in China ... they simply followed the path proposed by Stalin, and here they went for a half-fool. Here and the result.

        - Is it right when such a gigantic system, a multi-million country, depends on one person, on how gifted or mediocre this person is? After all, it’s all the same that the whole organism will depend on one single cell, which is a neuron located on the poppy itself immediately below the skull.
        As for the socialist economy and the economy of the USSR, a whole research institute with a staff of 700 scientists, which is called the research institute for the USSR, was created, operates and is in great demand in China. The local scientists under a microscope study everything related to the Soviet Union, why it fell apart and draw conclusions that are used by the highest rulers of the PRC. We need to somehow find the site of this research institute and read their conclusions, otherwise we will argue for a long time and not come to a consensus.
        I also had one acquaintance, he was an ancient programmer, who worked in Moscow in the economic modeling department of the Institute for System Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences. He argues that linear programming based on Kantorovich's work did not help in economic modeling, because There were many factors to consider. This led to an effect known as the "curse of dimension". Fortunately for that friend, a theory appeared in the West - econometrics. Using the provisions of this science, they managed to implement a model on a computer, which could somehow be interpreted unambiguously. But the forecast was not good - the collapse of the USSR was foreseen already in 1972! The Soviet party bosses immediately ordered to declare econometrics a "pseudoscience", as well as cybernetics, and genetics, for example, econometrics can only work in the West in their economy and closed this scientific topic. The fault was the excessive regulation of the economy through the plan. For what I bought, for what I sell.
        1. not good
          not good 4 May 2013 21: 45
          +5
          Having come to power, any party structure creates its gods and if you read the classic of Marxism-Leninism, then Ulyanov (Lenin) had the correct idea that the party was created to fulfill a specific political task, after which it should cease to exist, and the (Soviet) power should belong But the party, having come to power and tasted it, struck a big bolt on Ilich’s precepts, crushing the Soviets and even fixing himself in the constitution. It turned out that they didn’t listen to Lenin’s grandfather. And now: ... the old grandfather doesn’t care for him ... For then we now have a new Communist Party, forgive EP ...
  6. fenix57
    fenix57 4 May 2013 07: 35
    31
    Article +++. I WANT SOCIALISM- SUPPRESSING RUSSIAN WILD CAPITALISM hi
    1. matross
      matross 4 May 2013 13: 19
      +4
      Yes, almost everyone wants socialism! Those who lived with him, apart from the later period, just dream about him. However, the question of changing the social formation to a more advanced one is not resolved by voting. Here the property stolen with meat will have to be torn. Blood to pour Russia. Ask everyone - is I ready? That's it.
      So we recall the signs of a revolutionary situation, reread the classics, scolding the power of capital smile
      1. dddym
        4 May 2013 13: 33
        0
        A revolution is possible not by the victim of one "I am ready" but by a whole system of directed mechanisms. Do not be cunning that the revolution would have taken place in 1917, the revolutionaries walked for a whole century.
      2. Per se.
        Per se. 4 May 2013 19: 03
        +6
        Quote: matRoss
        Here the property stolen with meat will have to be torn. Blood to pour Russia. Ask everyone - is I ready? That's it.
        Who will go to war for these bourgeois and bad guys, the majority in the country are poor. The problem is that they make laws for themselves, they make morality for themselves. Everything that is Soviet is displayed in the negative, and the current "abundance" of Chinese consumer goods and rich products is a great achievement. All our billionaires, for the most part, made money by breaking the law, any serious investigation, for many the prison is crying. What blood to fill the country with, what to tear with meat? Simply, I would have found my own Hugo Chavez in Russia, that's all. Capitalism, at least one like ours, has no decent future.
        1. not good
          not good 4 May 2013 21: 50
          +3
          Chavez is not a format for Russia, it’s better to Serafim Sarovsky, Dmitry Donskoy, Alexander Nevsky and many others who truly love their homeland, and not a bank account over the hill.
          1. atalef
            atalef 5 May 2013 15: 32
            -2
            Quote: Negoro
            , Alexander Nevsky and many others who truly love their homeland, and not a bank account over a hill.

            Well, Nevsky then paid Yassyk to the Tatars) and was poisoned in the Horde) but what is Yasyk? This is when the invaders gave you the right to collect taxes (having approved you as a prince), provided that they pay the required share. So that would not bother. Everyone has both white and black sides.
            1. YuDDP
              YuDDP 6 May 2013 00: 37
              0
              atalef, there is an interesting historical literature called "new chronology". Causes a lot of questions and tension of the mind. Nevertheless, for all its unusual theses for a person who has studied traditional history, reading this literature and the evidence noted in it, you understand that yes - the Horde is we (our ancestors) and were, and not outside conquerors. And the showdown was not with a global enemy, but internecine. Read, curious. But this will be unacceptable to you, because The 4-thousand-year history of the Jewish people is flying to the tail.
  7. horoh
    horoh 4 May 2013 07: 42
    12
    Hello everyone hi. Personally, my opinion is, I am for socialism, since capitalism is a utopia. And democracy, in the sense in which it exists today, is not possible. In a normal society, there can be no democracy.
    1. Jarilo
      Jarilo 4 May 2013 13: 50
      +7
      Quote: horoh
      capitalism is utopia

      This is not a utopia, this is the previous model of the economy, a step backward compared with socialism (feudalism - two steps). In the West, by the way, they already understood this, and are slowly changing their economic system in the direction of socially oriented (the same Sweden, Holland ...)
      And we, the Russians, ate plenty of this capitalism, this system has no future. It's time to restore what was destroyed in the 90s
  8. Renat
    Renat 4 May 2013 07: 44
    +7
    Article +. "Socialism is a family" is beautifully said. Money is money and human relations under different systems by what criteria should we evaluate?
    1. Ivan.
      Ivan. 4 May 2013 16: 55
      +6
      I bring this argument for about 15 years, few people hear: the family does not live by the needs of the economy, and those who live by the economy and not the needs of not a family but a pack of wolves. Only by satisfying one’s material needs and not being afraid for tomorrow (hoarding) does a person have a chance for abstract thoughts, an independent look into the future, and satisfaction of spiritual needs. Hence today's struggle with the family and propaganda of the economic model of the development of society. Arguments: there is no master in the family, the conclusion is: there is no democracy.
      In front of the herd there is a horned sheep, the sheep think that he knows where they are leading, and the sheep simply goes in front - a dustless and good choice of grass. Kozma Rods
      1. not good
        not good 4 May 2013 21: 52
        +1
        Conclusion: power should come from the bottom of society, and not hang on the vertical.
        1. Ustas
          Ustas 5 May 2013 08: 50
          +2
          Quote: Negoro
          Conclusion: power should come from the bottom of society, and not hang on the vertical.

          I agree with you, but ... This bottom should not be subject to the disease omnipotence dough. For the lower classes can be bribed. In modern Russian history, there are many examples of bribery in elections. And the poorer the people, the easier it is to bribe him.
          1. not good
            not good 5 May 2013 15: 24
            0
            This is also explainable when moral principles and the criminal code do not work, money decides a lot.
  9. Zomanus
    Zomanus 4 May 2013 07: 53
    15
    They did not say the main thing. Previously, all slaves to the country, for the country, which would ultimately be good for everyone. And now everyone works for themselves, or for the owner. As a result, the country does not receive nichrome. As a matter of fact, it turns out not a country, but a territory where people hang out, merge topics, and bargain with goods between themselves. A country with this hell. Although at this hell she should provide protection for these dudes that hang out on her territory, provide them with a communal apartment and a social room. And sometimes you think, and what will happen if the workers of the defense industry and, in general, state employees take and scatter. They pay little, and still .. try at every opportunity.
    1. dddym
      4 May 2013 08: 13
      +8
      Well, why didn't he say, does the family shit? The family just works for the family. Speaking of family, the juvenile is entirely the brainchild of the capitalist system. Since, as stated in the article, everyone is for himself - and the family is a competitor because in it someone helps someone. Just as in our country they are trying to destroy socialism by all means, so they are trying to destroy the family. She is the image of socialism. Capitalism denies joint work, mutual assistance, family, friendship, love, faith, and the most important thing for a Russian person is CONSCIENCE. That is all that. what the Russians have brought from the depths of the centuries into the heart. It is not surprising that the majority of Russians are uncomfortable and extremely contraindicated to live in modern "capitalist" Russia.
  10. SPACE
    SPACE 4 May 2013 08: 20
    11
    Capitalism is a financial pyramid based on GROWTH, upward movement, vertical development, capital accumulation. Some get richer, others get poorer, while contradictions accumulate. This cannot happen forever, sooner or later this tower of Babel will collapse. The theory of order and chaos, the more vertically organized the structure of the order, the greater the cost of its maintenance and at a certain point in time, the costs equal profits, which leads to the destruction of the system, everything will return to chaos and the transition to a new level is possible only through war. Socialism is a more stable structure of order, based on equality, redistribution and self-restraint, LIFE, horizontal universal development. The transition to the upper level is possible only at once the whole system.
    The socialism that we built in the USSR collapsed not because its existence is impossible, but because there were two systems in the world and capitalism in the medium term looks more beautiful for incomprehensible people. Gorbachev and Yeltsin, jacks and liberals and all other adherents of capitalism were and are not-so-distant people who did not understand the theorists Karl Marx and Lenin and the practice of Stalin.
  11. djon3volta
    djon3volta 4 May 2013 08: 40
    +3
    Money cannot be a goal. Money is a means. The task is incorrect. If you just dump a ton of money, you will also spend it stupidly. That’s the essence of man. If you decided to build a house and happiness fell in the form of manna from heaven, then it’s just a fortunate combination of circumstances. In life this rarely happens. In most cases, the “lucky ones” turn out to be completely unreasonable. It was on this phenomenon that “chubaitization” was built. That is why the people turned out to be so unreasonable - they profiled what could be taken away from him only together with freedom. But that is why it has become impossible in Russia to build a normal capitalist society. While we hang out in the ice hole, curse Putin, but it’s not his fault, but a bumpkin with a red face and a blue nose. But today it’s not customary to recall about the dead or good, or - no way ...
    1. dddym
      4 May 2013 08: 42
      0
      Where did so much money come from, let me ask you, and who tried to "make us happy"?
      1. djon3volta
        djon3volta 4 May 2013 09: 53
        +3
        Quote: dddym
        who tried to "make us happy"?

        so you answer me a simple question - why does the United States spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year on non-profit organizations in our country when they have more than 40 million beggars inside America itself? why do they help all kinds of foundations, defenders of forests, children, birds, homosexuals, etc. , why are they investing millions in Russia in this way? why do not they spend these millions on their beggars ???
        1. dddym
          4 May 2013 10: 01
          0
          You really don’t understand why ???
          1. djon3volta
            djon3volta 4 May 2013 10: 10
            +1
            Quote: dddym
            You really don’t understand why ???

            I understand that. But many people sitting here do not understand the campaign, or they understand, but they specially pretend and leave the topic.
            I won’t be surprised that soon Navalny will not fight corruption (because he is NOBODY and call him NO, they will deal with corruption without him), but with the prices for housing and communal services and gasoline, and if this does not work out, he will fight against juvenile justice or paid education. Only few pay attention to who is behind it and who is sponsoring it.
            1. dddym
              4 May 2013 10: 41
              +7
              Navalny will not fight corruption

              What Navalny suddenly became a socialist ????
              I will try however to illuminate your question.
              The United States invests money not in the development of Russia, but for its political and moral decay. One of the brightest representatives of such investors in Russia is Mr. Sores. On whose money the facts, surprising in their cynicism, occur. For example, with the money of Mr. Sores in Russia, textbooks have been published by which our children study. But if you open those, then suddenly you will see that, for example, the battle on the Miduvey attola is covered in some detail, and Stalingrad, the Kursk Bulge and the battle for Moscow are generally separated by commas. That Pasternak is a writer and his only book is Doctor Zhivago. That Mr. Solzhenitsyn is a great writer and a whole spread is dedicated to him, but for example Pushkin did not write lyric poetry in his youth and he did not indulge in prose, you will not see Karamzin in this school curriculum at all. You ask, what for money to invest if there is no profit - but it turns out that the Sores fund not only has not collapsed, but is growing by leaps and bounds. And suddenly, quite unexpectedly, it turns out that Sores is one of the sponsors of the Chechen war. Well, this is absolutely incredible, you say - on the one hand, to invest in Russia, and on the other, to fight with it. Yes, everything is simple - Russia is the only competitor of the United States and money flows into the Sores Fund from the US budget. To shake Russia is the goal and not to help Russia. Another thing that is striking and out of my head. Oil - do you know about the Sakhalin tragedy? That on the basis of the Sakhalin1 and Sakhalin2 agreements, our country, thanks to Yeltsin, assumed all the costs of developing the Sakhalin oil fields. Isn't it surprising - American corporations pump oil for free, sell it on their own, and we have to pay the costs. After the elimination of these programs, budget revenues doubled. And after the closure of Yukos, they increased 80 times - not 2, but 80! How do you like this? Thanks to Putin for this! No one has ever given us money just like that - and therefore your words about the incorrect spending of funds cause only bewilderment.
              1. djon3volta
                djon3volta 4 May 2013 11: 24
                +3
                Quote: dddym
                Nobody ever gave us money just like that - and therefore your words about the incorrect spending of funds cause only bewilderment.

                This text that you wrote from the movie UNKNOWN PUTIN Part One! Everything is as it is, instead of the multiplication table, there are four United States Presidents drawn there. Putin was amazed, Mikhalkov said.
                therefore, it’s useless to process and persuade me about the fact that if the Americans help even if the orphanage (for example), then they do it out of kindness. even if it’s kindness, then it’s double! There were spies in the USSR who traveled through the union in pubs, etc., now that the country is open, they created NPOs, and if a person works in NPOs and protects fish or protects jailers, then he works primarily for his US employer who pays his salary. And not the fact that the person protects the fish It doesn’t pass other information to its employers. In many Russian cities NGOs work by renting offices and premises, just people don’t know the true purpose of their work.
            2. The comment was deleted.
    2. alicante11
      alicante11 4 May 2013 15: 00
      +4
      And what has the "people" to do with it? Was it possible to actually become the owner of the enterprise for a voucher? The system was built on the fact that these vouchers would be collected in the hands of a few initiates and confidants. And for this there were three main ways. The first is to redeem vouchers for next to nothing. I remember that people sold their vouchers for a bottle. This is for those who are "unreasonable". For the somewhat more reasonable ones who tried to invest vouchers somewhere, they created MMM and all sorts of other "investment funds". In one of these, my mother gave a voucher. They put them in a centralized way. And even a couple of times they were invited to take dividends. True, the bus had to be spent more to get them. And then everything died out completely. Well, the third way. Against the most "reasonable". Who were able to collect several dozen vouchers with relatives or friends and sharply tried to become capitalists. There were, of course, few of them. Therefore, their data was simply communicated to "socially close comrades." And they roughly explained that it is not good to be capitalists. Not our pier, this is, give it to my uncle.
      So the people here would not have broken off under any circumstances.
      1. Ustas
        Ustas 5 May 2013 09: 03
        +3
        Quote: alicante11
        And what has the "people" to do with it? Was it possible to actually become the owner of the enterprise for a voucher?

        Under socialism, we were all owners and received dividends in the form of free education, free medicine, free rest for children, etc.
        With the help of a voucher, we were deprived of property, dividends, collectivism.
  12. shitovmg
    shitovmg 4 May 2013 08: 41
    11
    Article "+". I want soda for 3 kopecks! At one time I preferred without syrup, but 2 glasses each! After soda, maybe the rest will work out? .. laughing
    1. Egoza
      Egoza 4 May 2013 08: 59
      10
      Quote: shitovmg
      I want soda for 3 cents!

      And then a guy (10th grade) for 25 kopecks could take a girl to the cinema for the first session - tickets for 10 kopecks, treat her to soda for 3 kopecks, drink himself for 1 simple penny, and save the remaining kopeck until next time. Such "courting" was beautiful and polite. It is a pity that the current generation will not experience this!
      1. corn
        corn 26 December 2013 22: 08
        0
        And we could drink, have a bite and get home for 1rub 50 kopecks:
        "Bastard", "Chekushka" (250 g of vodka) - 1 rub 49 kopecks you get 1 kopeck change.
        You go to a machine with a gas supply, drink vodka, drink a soda.
        You go to a glass container collection point, hand in a bottle for 7 kopecks.
        You buy "nausea" (pie with liver) for 4 kopecks, have a snack.
        You get on the tram and, for 3 kopecks, you go home.
        So there!
    2. yurta2013
      yurta2013 4 May 2013 12: 44
      0
      You first compare the average salary in the country then and now. So feel free to multiply 3 kopeks by 100. This will be the current equivalent of the cost of then soda.
      1. dddym
        4 May 2013 12: 55
        +5
        let's better honestly :) 100 p = 10000 cop (the average salary in the country in 1980). This is 0.03% of wages then now the average s / n 15000 now this soda should cost 4,5 rubles. In vending machines that were delivered to the shopping center in June, for example, we have a glass of soda without a filler worth 10r with filler 15 and 20r. In total, we are robbed additionally at the double price of this product.
        1. rexby63
          rexby63 4 May 2013 20: 08
          0
          And let's transfer to vodka - 4, 12 rubles in 1980, based on your logic, it should now cost 618 rubles, meat in the market 5 rubles / kg, in a store with 3 small, now it should cost at least 450 rubles. Only today I bought a loin - 240 rubles per 1 kg.
          Next - what is in our daily necessities, bread? 18 cents a loaf in 1980, now, if I’m not mistaken, it should cost 27 rubles, in reality 24 rubles for a loaf
          1. dddym
            5 May 2013 00: 17
            +2
            When the price was raised in 70, Moskovskaya began to cost 2 p. 87 cop., And "Capital" - 4 p. 12 cop. Then appeared "Russian" for
            3 p. 62 cop. Prices for other varieties of vodka were different. So, just vodka, nameless, colloquially, “knot” cost 3 p. 62 cop .; "Extra", "Starorusskaya" - 4 p. 12 cop .; “Lemon”, “Kuban”. "St. John's wort" - 4 p. 32 cop., “Wheat” and “Siberian” by 4 p. 62 cop., “Andropovka” or “first grader” - 5 p. 12 cop.
            based on the logic of such vodka, we don’t sell it at all, so that according to the guests it is in the first place, and secondly you counted at the most expensive price - that’s how I saw vodka for one and a half thousand. so recount the Moscow 2p87cop (even Moscow was better than the same 5 lakes every five well, okay, we think) 2.8% total today it should cost 420p. And let's count the utilities and then everything will fall into place it turns out that today's average salary immediately loses almost a third of its mass. and in the scoop of 2's, the room was not more expensive than 8 rubles, even if you have the mansions add free medicine and education and travel in transport, as a result you will remain in shorts and possibly in socks.
            1. rexby63
              rexby63 5 May 2013 15: 08
              0
              in the scoop 2-bedroom was not more expensive than 8 rubles


              This means with an average salary of 100 rubles, you had to pay 8 rubles for an apartment, i.e. 8% of the salary. Now for a kopeck piece I pay 4 thousand rubles. With an average salary of 15000 rubles, it turns out I give no more than 3% of the salary
              1. atalef
                atalef 5 May 2013 15: 13
                0
                Quote: rexby63
                This means with an average salary of 100 rubles, you had to pay 8 rubles for an apartment, i.e. 8% of the salary. Now for a kopeck piece I pay 4 thousand rubles. With an average salary of 15000 rubles, it turns out I give no more than 3% of salaries

                actually, to be; accurate, you give 26.6% of the salary hi
                1. rexby63
                  rexby63 6 May 2013 19: 31
                  0
                  I apologize, you are absolutely right, I counted incorrectly
              2. dddym
                5 May 2013 15: 18
                0
                recourse can you count? you have mixed up the equivalence of the robust so toe fit your little three and yes, two to you for math! and 3% of 15000 is 450p. like that
                1. rexby63
                  rexby63 6 May 2013 19: 32
                  +1
                  Do not believe me, today all day at work I was tormented, I was mistaken, I'm sorry
        2. corn
          corn 26 December 2013 22: 16
          0
          Help
          Average salary 1970.-115rub, 1980.-155rub (taken from the data on the calculation of pensions)
          April 2013 - 26620.
          26620: 155 = 171,7 - the conversion factor of the ruble in 1980 and 2013.
    3. MG42
      MG42 4 May 2013 16: 34
      +3
      Quote: shitovmg
      Article "+". I want soda for 3 kopecks! At one time I preferred without syrup, but 2 glasses each!

      At one time in childhood, in order to drink just with syrup, the syrup was poured into a faceted glass, then first the water ran, i.e. you could dial pure syrup, they also managed to throw instead of coins copper blanks by weight and shape of just 3 kopecks, the machine took them for coins ...
  13. vladsolo56
    vladsolo56 4 May 2013 08: 44
    11
    By the way about taxes. Few understand the essence of the tax system, at least in our country. We all pay income tax without exception. In most cases, this is just a payroll tax. 13% as from a bush, not a taxable minimum, as far as I remember it is 400 rubles. In addition, we all pay taxes: on land, on property, on transport, and so on. So what does an entrepreneur pay? but nothing, he adds all his taxes to the price of the goods that he produces or resells. Moreover, having often invested taxes in the price, and having received them from us, he is in no hurry to give them to the state. I am sure that 80% of "entrepreneurs" in various ways keep half of these taxes for themselves. In Soviet times, everyone paid income tax without exception. The profit of enterprises went to the budget and was distributed there. Yes, it is not always correct, but it already depends only on the professionalism of the financial workers of the relevant ministry. To improve the situation in the economy, it was only required to reliably control the level of working economists in the government. Although my opinion is that power is the evil that destroys any society. A strong and severe limitation of the power of officials is necessary. It was they who destroyed the USSR, it is they who are hindering the development of the country today. All the work of the State Duma is aimed at even greater delegation of power to officials. The result of such work is visible to everyone and everyone can see who wins in this situation.
    1. yurta2013
      yurta2013 4 May 2013 12: 51
      0
      It is not clear how you want to limit power? After all, power is the meaning of the existence of the state. No power - no state. You are not an anarchist, by chance?
      1. vladsolo56
        vladsolo56 4 May 2013 18: 30
        0
        There are many ways to limit power, the simplest less prohibitions, more interest in the proper conduct of business and behavior in society. If a person knows that it is profitable to conduct business honestly, he will not give bribes to officials. But for this, deputies must pass laws that do not restrict everything and everything, but stimulate production growth and an honest attitude towards taxes and workers. What is unreal about this? Regarding anarchy, by the way, if we analyze anarchy as a classical ideology, without a raid of propaganda nonsense, then anarchy just offers to adopt all the laws according to their regional significance, and accordingly, by voting, the majority has passed the law is passed, no, it is sent either for revision or cart. The officials in this case are only executors of the law no more, ordinary employees with a regular salary are simpler. This is of course simplified but in essence. So what do you dislike about such anarchy?
    2. Ustas
      Ustas 5 May 2013 09: 11
      0
      Quote: vladsolo56
      Although my opinion is that power is the evil that ruins any society.

      I support a colleague. It is the government that sets taxes and annually raises them (for entrepreneurs), and we all pay them in good faith in the price of the goods.
  14. Egoza
    Egoza 4 May 2013 09: 02
    +2
    The collapse of socialism
    Automated control systems by V.M. Glushkov
    “The advantage of EMN that is decisive for superiors: promising a fundamental effect, it did not threaten institutional changes, moreover, the modern technical base was brought under the familiar system of centralized economic management. By the early 1970s, automated control systems, the famous ACSs, became the main concern of EMN; Hundreds of organizations were engaged in the country’s asuchization-asunization: they aimed at mechanization (including automation) of office work, most of all in planning and accounting. http://vikent.ru/enc/931/
    The trouble is that Glushkov swung at the "sacred" - indicating the power of the party and the ability of officials to steal and take bribes. The decayed top did not need it at all. But I.V. It was not for nothing that Stalin divided the tasks of party members and economists. That's why we got the "result"
  15. My address
    My address 4 May 2013 09: 35
    +2
    The overwhelming majority of people want justice. Of course, when it comes to a specific person, he wants more justice for himself, this "more" depends on upbringing. But the criterion of justice is present everywhere. For example, good, effective laws on punishment for crimes are based on fairness for the SOCIETY, SUFFERED, CRIMINAL. By the way, talking about the ineffectiveness of a greater punishment for a greater crime is stupidity or deliberate distortion.
    Do we need to understand how fair our capitalism is? Will OUR employees try to work in good faith at least with the average OUR capitalist? No and no.
    1. aviamed90
      aviamed90 4 May 2013 10: 54
      +3
      "Do not confuse justice with legality"
      (Catherine II).
      1. My address
        My address 5 May 2013 08: 26
        0
        Read carefully.
  16. krpmlws
    krpmlws 4 May 2013 10: 39
    +3
    The future of socialism is a fairer socio-economic formation. However, social

    Lism in the USSR had drawbacks: the manufacturer was not interested in the realization of his product, but only in its production-fulfillment of the plan. Therefore, the quality of the products, assortment, and appearance of the goods presented in the store may suffer. Thus, the enterprise can be modernized by material interest in quantity realized product.
    1. Roll
      Roll 4 May 2013 10: 56
      0
      Hi, socialism in its construction has serious systemic shortcomings, just like capitalism therefore they have no future. The future is either communism based on new principles or the electronic concentration camp, and now the last stage of capitalism is a feast during the plague. In the next decade, a bloody denouement will begin.
      1. dddym
        4 May 2013 11: 23
        +4
        Sorry, they have no shortcomings - none at all, because they are self-sufficient. Disadvantages are things that can be fixed. Socialism has a single Achilles heel - a single leader. capitalism of these heels is exactly as many people in this system. In general, capitalism is not considered a kind of state system, because language is a certain number of egoists trying to rob their neighbor calling it business.
        1. Roll
          Roll 4 May 2013 12: 25
          -4
          fellow Sorry, but we have different concepts of flaws. In my concept, a systemic flaw is a defect in the system. Socialism has many defects, just like capitalism. But capitalism, although it loses to socialism in the efficiency of the economy, is still a more stable system. Here is an example: people built a hydroelectric dam. It belongs to the people. But if you privatize it for free, someone immediately becomes a billionaire. This process can be restrained for a while, but as soon as the people's piggy bank exceeds a certain side chapel, it will be taken. The USSR proved this, also in Libya, only there with foreign help. Socialism cannot escape this process.
          1. Roll
            Roll 4 May 2013 12: 42
            0
            belay But capitalism does not have such defects, if one entrepreneur built the hydroelectric dam and another took it from him, the system will still remain capitalist, and in the case of socialism the system changes. This is the whole trick, capitalism is more structured but stable, and socialism is more advanced, but very shaky and it always has a limit in development.
            1. dddym
              4 May 2013 12: 45
              -4
              What is shaky then ??? The USSR did not lose out of action, but because of competition with the United States and the West.
              1. Roll
                Roll 4 May 2013 13: 27
                +1
                am The USSR did not compete with the West, let alone Amers; it had a self-sufficient and closed economy. Well, the collective farm (Red Lapot) did not compete with American farmers, it simply worked disgustingly, although there were plenty of equipment and peasants. And the same thing with factories. For example, AvtoVAZ products were disgusting, but they were sold. But in order to tear apart the people's capsule and the people were decomposed by Western values ​​and created all kinds of deficits and difficulties, everything went according to plan. But when the socialist system was bent, then it’s possible to tear the feeder. As for China, there the feeder is both public and private. There harmony officials govern the state, and businessmen the private sector.
                1. dddym
                  4 May 2013 16: 25
                  +4
                  Are you serious? And the USSR did not have export? And nobody bought Soviet products in the world? Why bought broken-down AvtoVAZ products ??? You my friend contradict yourself. For you on purpose - the USSR by the 85 year was the largest power exporter after the United States. And not only with resources, but also with machines and instruments and military equipment, and oddly it sounds like electronics. This general competitor number 1 was for Americans, in politics, in economics. They bit their elbows so he’s an ideological enemy, but they can’t do anything with him.
          2. dddym
            4 May 2013 12: 43
            0
            Again I do not agree - once again I repeat the word lack means - if you add the missing then everything will be all right. As for the piggy bank, the collapse of the country just happened due to a lack of funds in this piggy bank. And not because of the excess that they decided to tear apart as you say. Socialism can avoid this - there are examples and abruptly, for example, Paraguay. Or the same China - there a Piggy bank was formed there - but they won’t do something. And they privatize it on fragments - when there is already no socialism as such.
            1. krpmlws
              krpmlws 4 May 2013 18: 53
              +2
              I don’t understand what you are looking for all the economic causes of the death of the USSR? Is it possible that the economic situation in the USSR has developed over the course of its history and nothing, but here it suddenly collapsed. Obviously, there were economic prerequisites, since they always exist for any they can be tied to the event, but the only reason is the betrayal of the interests of their homeland, the betrayal of their duty by the leader of the country, Gorbachev. It was his activities, his proteges that ruined what would have existed beautifully and still flourished.
  17. Roll
    Roll 4 May 2013 10: 46
    +1
    fellow The problem is that labor productivity determines the social system. Socialism as well as capitalism can exist only at a certain interval from 5 to 88 percent of labor productivity. Further, either communism on new principles or an electronic concentration camp (the theory of the golden billion) is still option 3 of the world thermonuclear and begin to build socialism and capitalism anew. which way let's go see. Socialism as a system is much better than capitalism, but it has a systemic fatal flaw. When a society works for a public feeder, and not for a private pocket, then a public feeder can be kept only to a certain limit. Then, enough officials accumulate in power who want to tear it apart, which was excellently demonstrated by the example of the USSR.
    1. dddym
      4 May 2013 11: 37
      0
      To answer your post, you should understand what socialist competition and competition are. Much can be said about labor productivity under capitalism. And even wave the numbers. The picture is more than sad after realizing. Social competition is a struggle for quality or quantity - call it whatever you like, but the point of social competition is to raise labor productivity bloodlessly - i.e. without destroying competitors. If you have lost a socialist competition, it means only one thing that your company works in the winner's group. That is, all the forces and knowledge and developments as a result of such a competition remain in the game. In competition, everything is much sadder - everything that has been developed by your company will go under the hammer if you lose this competition, which means that all your efforts and efforts are in vain and will not bring any benefit to people. Thanks to the socialist competition, T34 Il2 and even the legendary Katyushas appeared. Therefore, labor productivity in the USSR in practice was much more beneficial than, for example, in France. Socialism cannot have a lack there is a lack of a main competitor - capitalism. Which, according to its nature, in every way, including dishonest, is trying to eliminate a competitor - SOCIALISM.
      1. Roll
        Roll 4 May 2013 12: 33
        +1
        As for the social competition, I absolutely agree with you, moreover, when after the war and until 1953 the USSR worked on a system of scientific labor organization, the economic growth and cost reduction were unprecedented, but the system was broken and the train went downhill. Capitalism is not a competitor to socialism, but internal degeneration is death.
      2. Uzoliv
        Uzoliv 4 May 2013 14: 35
        +1
        Quote: dddym
        Social competition is a struggle for quality or quantity

        Social competition could still solve the problem of quantity, but it did not solve the quality problem. And in the days of the Union, this problem was understood, as you think, for what you introduced a quality mark, not from a good life. Products, it must MUST be of high quality, without any signs. And we, like Bulgakov, have sturgeon of the second category. The problem is in a planned economy - so they’ll get where they will go.
        For example, how did machines for export? Already in the mechanical workshops, parts were selected without deviations, strict control of technologists and quality control department. The assembly distinguished the best experienced assemblers. Cars literally licked, because they understood they might not take over the hill. And ours can be shoved a golem marriage, not to get anywhere. Therefore, I do not see anything bad in the competition, the team must understand that they will work poorly - they will lose their jobs.
        And by the way, on military equipment. There was just real competition between the design bureaus. The Stalin Prize is a very good incentive. There were incentives of a different order. Here you are writing about the IL-2, but the Su-6 could replace it, if not for the war.
        1. krpmlws
          krpmlws 4 May 2013 15: 09
          -2
          It is necessary to understand what is the engine of production: first of all, the manufacturer’s material interest in the largest sales of the manufactured product. Competition is secondary, although significant. The planned economy should give a minimum order, but there the interested producer will make as much product as it can and is obviously overfulfilled of all plans. It will also launch advertising and representatives will travel around in search of new markets. Just like under capitalism, with the only difference being that there will be no exploitation of man by man - this wild rudiment of modern society.
          1. Uzoliv
            Uzoliv 4 May 2013 15: 56
            -1
            Quote: krpmlws
            material interest of the manufacturer in the largest sales of the product

            In other words, the manufacturer is interested in profit.
            Quote: krpmlws
            A planned economy should give a minimum order,

            If the manufacturer is interested in profit - why does he need a minimal plan? Yes, and the plan in general? He himself was intrinsically interested in the greater result.
            Quote: krpmlws
            there will be no exploitation of man by man - this wild rudiment of modern society

            WILL BE. It's unavoidable. People are imperfect. Any leader partially exploits his subordinates.
            1. dddym
              4 May 2013 16: 33
              0
              No need for a plan - who says what is needed? But he is interested in his personal gain and therefore is not very interested in how his country lives, he’s like a dying old man, a veteran or just a street kid, moreover he will suffer material losses if he helps someone other than his beloved. And when he suddenly suffers bankruptcy it is surprising to him - why no one helps him - because he earned so much for the tax authorities and then here - walk at least to the janitors.
              1. Uzoliv
                Uzoliv 4 May 2013 18: 23
                -1
                Quote: dddym
                not very interested in how his country lives,

                And it is necessary to ask entrepreneurs. We have a friend here, I don’t remember his nickname, which is engaged in the production of confectionery. Judging by what he wrote, I believe that he is a patriot. Business to business is different. There are financial speculations and there are manufacturers, there is small business (ipeshniks) - these are interested in ensuring that the country is rich and stable. And they also work hard. They need customers, not an angry, hungry crowd ready to tear them apart.
                Look at China, they have relied on private business and the country is rushing, tell them that they are not patriots of their country.
                1. stalkerwalker
                  stalkerwalker 4 May 2013 18: 33
                  +4
                  Quote: Uzoliv
                  Look at China, they bet on private business and the country rushing

                  The China phenomenon is the use of a multi-million dollar army of "cheap" labor - the "world factory". And only the massive export of cheap goods made it possible to invest in the development of ALL types of production.
                  So ... briefly
                2. vladsolo56
                  vladsolo56 4 May 2013 18: 38
                  +3
                  In China, for tax evasion of private traders, a term of up to 15 years, if the amount exceeds one million, may well be shot. Everything is under state control there, so private business is not there to stupidly enrich itself on natural and human resources, but to maximize the employment of the population.
                  1. Uzoliv
                    Uzoliv 4 May 2013 19: 58
                    0
                    Well, that's right, it is necessary to act toughly with violators of the law.
                    And about enrichment, people do not start their own business just to maximize employment, this is a concurrent process.
        2. dddym
          4 May 2013 16: 28
          0
          And that all the KBs that were lost were disposed of and the executives were shot ???
          1. Uzoliv
            Uzoliv 4 May 2013 18: 38
            0
            And where did I write about the executions? I meant sharashka. (Tupolev, Petlyakov, Korolev)
    2. djon3volta
      djon3volta 4 May 2013 13: 20
      -7
      Quote: Rolm
      Socialism as a system is much better than capitalism, but it has a systemic fatal flaw.

      By the 70-80s, the Soviet economy had slipped into a dissipative cycle, that is, it was being produced and done before the ... th clouds, and the final work was zero. For instance:

      Excavators mine iron ore, iron ore plants process and produce metal, excavators again make this metal, which again mine ore so that excavators can be made again ... And so on. etc.

      So in everything ... Here the economy collapsed, but it could not fail to collapse with the given labor productivity and work.

      At the same time, the whole economy was planned - a plan was issued for EVERYTHING !!! ??? the product range for 5 years. if the situation has changed, fashion, breakthrough technologies have appeared, everyone did not care ... For they fulfilled the plan.

      The Soviet economy is superhighly effective only during the war. In peacetime, it is economically meaningless and flawed ...
      1. luka095
        luka095 4 May 2013 14: 29
        +5
        Dear djon3volta. If the Soviet economy is "economically meaningless," then why is the current economy resting heavily on its legacy?
        If the economy is effective during the war - it is effective in peacetime. Its post-war development showed this.
        Labor productivity is certainly an important indicator. But it must be compared with something, and not just mentioned.
        About the plan. Do you really think that a plan is bad? Then why is planning applied throughout the economy now? And in our country and in the West?
      2. alicante11
        alicante11 4 May 2013 15: 23
        0
        Fashion is just advertising. For their own money, the "stars" advertise the products of fashion designers and stylists, etc. If the USSR thought about it, then the T-shirts from "Red October" with a hammer and sickle would become a brand. And the Gvozdika cologne would easily score overcoat No. 5, because the USSR could have invested much more in advertising than any Western companies. And then everyone would follow our fashion, and we would not be chasing imported rags.
        The socialist economy is, yes, a mobilization economy, it must be properly managed. But it’s also necessary to manage the capitalist one so that it does not slide to monopoly capitalism. Why are there all sorts of WTO and antitrust committees? Here to maintain competition. At least, before they themselves begin to lobby for the interests of the monopolists.
        But in general, socialism is a customizable system. For example, the problem of fashion can be solved by opening private ateliers. In general, the Chinese or Stalinist version.
  18. luka095
    luka095 4 May 2013 11: 28
    +5
    Society under capitalism and under socialism has a completely different character. I am not concerned with the economy now. The goals are different! Now individualism is being imposed on us, they say, every man for himself. At the same time, the main thing is proclaimed - consumption. And in order for people to think only about consumption, they must be “lowered” intellectually. Hence the education reform. And propaganda - turn on the TV - some shows ripped off from programs in the West.
    And further. Under socialism, the goal was to build a better society, and now - my hut from the edge ... The main thing is to consume, consume and not think about anything!
    1. stalkerwalker
      stalkerwalker 4 May 2013 11: 52
      +4
      Quote: luka095
      Society under capitalism and under socialism has a completely different character.

      We can talk for a long time about different "Izm" ...
      At the end of the 50s of the last century, even such a close, regular leader of the USSR as Nikitka remarked aloud: "We are all trying to build socialism, while in Sweden it has ALREADY BEEN BUILT ...".
      Meaning.
      The point is not in the name, but in how this "change" is reflected in the welfare of citizens and the country's economy ...
      1. vladsolo56
        vladsolo56 4 May 2013 12: 49
        +1
        As for Khrushchev, you turned it down, he could never say such a thing, there were not those people who would indicate that the capitalists see if they built socialism, but we do not.
        1. stalkerwalker
          stalkerwalker 4 May 2013 16: 22
          +4
          Quote: vladsolo56
          As for Khrushchev, you bent it, he could never say such a thing

          There was such a pearl, there was ... It escaped from him by accident, of course (he was not an idiot, he understood what he was doing wrong. But he did not know how it should be). But "our" people heard and entered into the annals of history ...
    2. alicante11
      alicante11 4 May 2013 17: 15
      0
      And I would not agree with that. Society is a collection of individuals. And it will always be the same. And always a person will want to satisfy his needs. There are simply moments of mobilization when, say, an external threat or religious worship becomes higher than these needs. But this is only for a while. When danger passes, or when it comes to understanding that religion is a lie, everything returns to normal.
      At the same time, I do not agree with the fact that capitalist society is a society of individuals. Forgive me, but if fast food outlets are everywhere throughout the country from New York to San Francisco or from Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk to Kaliningrad, what individualism can we talk about here? Just now, TNCs are trying to build the whole world under one comb, so as not to bother with a variety of product ranges and thereby reduce costs. So, between socialism and monopoly capitalism, everything is very similar. Only the motivation is different for the manufacturer.
      Thus, both the social community and the capital community just need to be properly managed. In the social community, show that your lifestyle is the most advanced. And in the capital community - to limit the appetites of corporations and conduct anti-monopoly activities.
      True, as I said, there is another way. To enable small businesses to ensure the diversity of consumer goods, and to keep large-scale industry in goskulak.
  19. djon3volta
    djon3volta 4 May 2013 11: 28
    +4
    On the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, on the initiative of the BBC World Service, residents of 27 countries answered the question of the collapse of the Soviet Union. The results obtained in the post-Soviet space, as it turned out, differ significantly with the answers given in other states.

    A total of 29033 people were interviewed on all continents. The countries participating in the survey were Australia, Brazil, Great Britain, Germany, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Spain, Italy, Canada, Kenya, China, Costa Rica, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Poland, Russia, USA, Turkey, Ukraine , Philippines, France, Czech Republic, Chile, Japan.

    In general, more than half of the respondents (54%) said that the collapse of the USSR was good. Less than a quarter of the participants (22%) declared the termination of the Union as evil, and the remaining 24% of the respondents found it difficult to answer.

    But in Russia and Ukraine the situation is completely different. For example, in our country, 61% of respondents are not happy with the collapse of the USSR, and 21% consider it a blessing. In the territory of the Independent, the number of opponents of the collapse was 54%, and supporters - 27%. The fact that the Countries of the Soviets no longer exists is more regretted only in Egypt - 69% of the respondents. And most of all are happy about the collapse of the Union in Poland (81% of respondents), Japan and the United States.

    Attitudes towards capitalism among survey participants are more or less unambiguous. Only 11% of respondents said that the current market system is functioning correctly and does not require strict state control.

    More regulation of capitalism requires 51% of respondents. And on average, a quarter of all respondents spoke out against this system. Moreover, most of these people are in France (43%). Not much less than them in Ukraine (31%), Mexico (38%) and Brazil (35%). In Russia, 77% of respondents favored the nationalization of the main branches of production.
    1. vladsolo56
      vladsolo56 4 May 2013 15: 11
      +1
      I didn’t understand why they put the cons, it's just statistics, no more. In addition, in my opinion it is completely reflecting reality.
      1. vladsolo56
        vladsolo56 4 May 2013 18: 22
        +3
        Now I understand that they put the minus not for comment, but for the person who did not like the minus, and you can’t please everyone.
  20. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee 4 May 2013 11: 54
    +8
    Socialism: "Man is man's friend, comrade and brother"

    Capitalism: "Man is a wolf to man"

    So conclude gentlemen, comrades hi
  21. Boris55
    Boris55 4 May 2013 12: 32
    -6
    All these isms (feudal lordisms, capitalismssocialismscommunesisms) do not imply the destruction of the slave pyramid of power. This is just a lure for the sheep with a new stall. There is no point in changing the "evil" master to the "good", all the same - the BARIN.
    pyramid

    I am for its complete destruction.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Boris55
      Boris55 4 May 2013 15: 13
      -2
      Who minus, explain your desire to maintain a pyramid of minority violence against the majority.
      1. bogdan
        bogdan 4 May 2013 18: 12
        +3
        I didn't minus, but - when more than one person is present in one place - a society appears that begins to live according to certain laws, that's how -ism actually arise, do not want to live according to-isms, - go to uninhabited places and live alone, - that's in this case, there will be a complete absence of -isms, which is well known: "It is impossible to live in society and be free from society."
        And by the way: from lat. socialis - public.
        1. Boris55
          Boris55 4 May 2013 18: 47
          -2
          Quote: bogdan
          when more than one person is present in one place - a society arises that begins to live according to certain laws, that's how isms actually arise

          And why should these laws be necessarily slaveholding? Why should some live at the expense of others? Do you think that the official’s son is smarter than you, and his grandson is even smarter? Why do you like it (hunch over drones)? Or do you think that under socialism it was different? (without joining the CPSU - you won’t get a position) or could the labor collective change the careless director? :)

          Quote: bogdan
          It is impossible to live in society and be free from society "

          Who told you that I am calling for this? I say that in addition to the slave concept, there is another, fair concept of the development of mankind - BER (concept of public safety).
          1. Boris55
            Boris55 4 May 2013 18: 56
            0
            TWO PLAN OF LIFE-DEVICE - TWO CONCEPTS

            On planet Earth, with all the outward diversity of views on the organization of human life, there have always been only two plans for living arrangements - two concepts:

            1. The idea of ​​good morality, the life of people in harmony with the Laws of the Universe, with the Laws of Nature, and also in harmony with what people have always called God, the Divine Providence - toconcept of fair living arrangements.
            2. The plan of life contrary to God's Providence, the plan of evil-morality, according to which "everyone is for himself", "after us even a flood" - unfair living arrangement concept.

            http://www.kpe.ru/partiya/programma/3622-programm
          2. dddym
            5 May 2013 10: 11
            0
            In the country under the name of the USSR there were 18 million communists for 1986 year, of which 1,8 million were officials. So you want to say that every tenth communist was an official? And if you add the heads of enterprises, workshops, departments and other bosses to the 1.8 figure, then you will get a figure that exceeds the number of Communists in the country as many as 2 times. Slavery to capitalism is much closer because they work for survival there, and under socialism there is no slavery even if you couldn’t become a worker in some area, for example, you can go and get reprofiling, no one was captive. If you want to work, you will live like a normal person. And now I want to work - and even have 5 jobs, and there is barely enough money for a month with severe restrictions on travel, parties, and even sausage.
            1. Boris55
              Boris55 5 May 2013 11: 31
              -1
              To begin with, let's decide what period of socialism we will talk about:
              - Trotskyist - Leninsky
              - Stalin
              - Khrushchevsky
              - Brezhnevsky

              I am talking about the last period of socialism - Brezhnev-Gorbachevsky.

              So you want to say that every tenth communist was an official?

              Do not misinterpret my words. I meant that without joining the CPSU, you will not advance high in the ranks. At the initial levels of government there were most non-partisan ones. About how and who was accepted into the CPSU and the fact that the CPSU was structured according to the Masonic principle is a separate issue.

              Slavery to capitalism is much closer because they work for survival there, and under socialism there is no slavery even if you couldn’t take place as a worker in some area, for example, you can go and get a reprofiling, no one was captive


              One of the reasons for the collapse of the USSR is universal equalization. There was no point in working better — prices would cut. There was also criminal liability for parasitism. Has not worked for more than 3 months - criminal liability. Salaries were enough from pay to pay. Mandatory registration ... etc.
              When equally divided - the impression of universal happiness is created.

              Capitalism fed its slaves for the collapse of Stalinist Russia. There is no need to feed them now ...

              The power pyramid that there, that was sharpened here for enrichment of the top. There is money, here there are privileges that they converted in 90 into lifelong and inherited ...

              Only Stalin pursued a policy in the interests of the majority.
              With lower prices, the poor get richer, and with their increase (inflation), the rich get richer.

              PS
              But were not the Communists 19 millions?
    3. Eugen
      Eugen 4 May 2013 19: 15
      +2
      There was always power and it was impossible to get rid of it, in teams of different levels leaders were always born and led the rest. Moreover, power limits the individualistic passions of man. Without such a regulator of social relations, we will slide into what is commonly called the wild capitalism of the 90s, only in an even more disgusting form. It is power that makes the collective an object of social relations; without it, we have a handful of disparate individuals.
      In general, absolute anarchy is impossible in my opinion and destructive. Whatever discipline and hierarchy may seem unfavorable to the individual, they are the lesser evil in relation to chaos. The only sensible thing we can do is control power, improve it, and “replace faulty parts” through social mechanisms of influence. My opinion.
      1. Boris55
        Boris55 4 May 2013 19: 24
        -1
        And where did you get that, what kind of anarchy am I? Read the program: http://www.kpe.ru/partiya/programma/3622-programm
        There is power of the minority and there is power of the majority. I am for the power of the majority!
        As long as there is a biblical concept of isms working for the power of a minority - slavery cannot be defeated !!!
  22. Tihas
    Tihas 4 May 2013 14: 33
    0
    If we talk about the political system, then I am for enlightened socialism, in which the main goal of society is creation, not consumption. And the reward is not an end in itself for pleasure, but only a stimulant of the desire to reach ever greater heights. (C)
  23. uzer 13
    uzer 13 4 May 2013 14: 39
    -2
    It seems that an educational program has opened here. Then let's decide, what is the socioeconomic model now? Under capitalism, for example, it is customary to pay money for work, and up to 50% of the enterprise’s income goes to salary, rather than 6 7, as in socialism. And under socialism, citizens must have some kind of social protection. We have neither one nor the other. The salary is like in Nigeria, and the prices are like in America. The Papuans discovered by Miklouho-Maclay live better than us.
    1. dddym
      4 May 2013 14: 48
      +4
      50% ??? Something is not there anywhere and neither here nor beyond the hill. Under socialism, not 6-7%, but much more, for a person received incomparably more benefits and benefits. For example, medicine was free, education was free, even additional education was free. The army was funded almost unlimitedly, while there was no headache in the form of inflation. Now the situation is really awful, but given that capitalism in the world has a leading position, almost all developing countries live like this, and only the USA and Some Germany feel less normal. It’s just that under these conditions, capitalism works for 2 countries, and if we don’t want to work for them, it’s better to develop ourselves than to really pay the United States for that. that we have a semblance of democracy.
  24. Thomas A. Anderson
    Thomas A. Anderson 4 May 2013 14: 40
    +7
    Naturally SOCIALISM-equality, developed science, life is much simpler in terms of study and work, while the standard of living is normal, etc.
    In 1990, Russia ranked 3rd in terms of education in the world, in 2001 - 19th place, in 2012 - 35th place. Moreover, now 85% of the younger generation have higher education, and 15% used to be. Our education continues to rapidly fly down, and people continue to subscribe to public pages like "MDK" and other dregs for degenerates. What does this mean? About the level of intelligence of most Internet users who want dumb humor and vanilla, and not materials that make you think.
    1. aleshka
      aleshka 5 May 2013 09: 29
      0
      I consider the current "higher education" to be the main problem of Russia, I see people who read almost by syllables, cannot connect three words in a sentence and, with all this, have a diploma! With such "specialists" we will lose everything that is left of the USSR !!
  25. optimist
    optimist 4 May 2013 15: 39
    +7
    Dear forum users! In Russia, everything is as always: it does not come through the head, it will come through ... The point is that in Russia capitalism, as such, has never really existed. When the bourgeoisie was overthrown in 1917, there was mainly feudalism in Russia. And now we are basically consuming the remnants of material, intellectual and other resources left over from the USSR. As soon as the "gingerbread" in the pot at VVP and K runs out, the triumph of the 100-year-old motto awaits us. "Rob the loot". Socialism 25 years ago was purposefully ditched by a bunch of bastards and traitors in the highest power of the USSR, who wanted to have their own yachts and palaces in the Canary Islands, and not state-owned dachas in the suburbs and sandwiches with caviar. And current "capitalism" will collapse on its own under its own weight. And the "catalyst" of this will be the approaching 3rd World War. (Everything is like 100 years ago). By the way, an anecdote on the topic: "The History of Russian Capitalism" has been published in two volumes. Volume one: "Ponty". Volume two: "Krants" laughing
  26. krpmlws
    krpmlws 4 May 2013 17: 52
    0
    Quote: Uzoliv
    Quote: krpmlws
    material interest of the manufacturer in the largest sales of the product

    In other words, the manufacturer is interested in profit.
    Quote: krpmlws
    A planned economy should give a minimum order,

    If the manufacturer is interested in profit - why does he need a minimal plan? Yes, and the plan in general? He himself was intrinsically interested in the greater result.
    Quote: krpmlws
    there will be no exploitation of man by man - this wild rudiment of modern society

    WILL BE. It's unavoidable. People are imperfect. Any leader partially exploits his subordinates.

    There should be material interest of the manufacturer. What embarrassed you so much? In what form: can there be a percentage of the over-planned revenue of the products sold that the director of the enterprise receives or a percentage of the total revenue. What is wrong with that? On the contrary, thanks to this, socialism will take what is good in capitalism and become more effective. Look at China, they don’t understand what makes capitalism effective, therefore they blindly adopt the capitalist model, coupled with the exploitation of man by man, which contradicts socialist principles, which is why the Chinese model is eclectic, erroneous, although it gives its effect in economic terms, but in terms of justice, flawed. A plan is necessary, since socialism is not conceivable without general planning — this is its strong side, which has proved its viability. Mat.interest is only an incentive for more effective work, which under socialism of the USSR was replaced by social competition, diplomas, transition.
  27. krpmlws
    krpmlws 4 May 2013 18: 20
    +2
    I will continue: ... with passing flags, all this is good, but only with a mathematical stimulus will socialism become truly effective. The exploitation of man by man is the alienation of the producer of the product from the product of labor itself. The capitalist is the absolute owner of the manufactured product and all the proceeds from its sale. The employee is given the salary established by the capitalist (so as not to offend himself), and the excess profit goes into his pocket, which leads to excessive and unfair enrichment. Under socialism, there is also the exploitation of man by the state, but there is justice, since the funds go to a common cause and are beneficial to the whole society and to a particular employee as well.
  28. Vtel
    Vtel 4 May 2013 19: 29
    -2
    We need Orthodox Socialism. When the Tsar - God's Anointed One - will be the father of the Russian People, and not a handful of parties with changing names, as on a conveyor belt, and thinking day and night about the "prosperity" of their people. And there should be no billionaire "workers" who "in the sweat of their brow" grabbed the people's money and then buy villas for themselves outside the border, football clubs, or generally suffer foolishness, send these to their original homeland. Under socialism, we did not depend so much on the West as we do now - we were dragged into the WTO, and whoever asked the Russian people, he needs it, it means others need it.
    1. optimist
      optimist 4 May 2013 20: 32
      +2
      Respected! There is no need to drag the country back to feudalism. And do not forget that religion is an opium for the people !!! The priests, and so the people are confused with theirs "all power from God" ... And the king, and the communists, and the fascists ... licked. Now the GDP and K are licking. angry Yes, and the Russian tsars did not particularly show themselves at one time ...
    2. aleshka
      aleshka 5 May 2013 09: 32
      0
      was already "anointed" fucked up Russia !!!
  29. Semyon Albertovich
    Semyon Albertovich 4 May 2013 19: 30
    +3
    Under socialism, Russia is a country of peasants and workers, and under capitalism, a country of officials and managers. These are the pies.
  30. Egoza
    Egoza 4 May 2013 23: 43
    +2
    The worst thing is the brainwashed by young people - we will correct these imbalances - they themselves will want socialism and still solve this issue together, but for now ...
    Unified State Examination, 2012 - Soviet History

    “Before collectivization, they starved individually, after collectivization they all starved together” (well, isn’t it super?);

    “Stalin made robots out of people, instilling in them a herd instinct”;

    “Most of the inhabitants of the USSR were involved in unskilled labor”;

    “In Soviet schools, children were like incubators, everything was the same for them”;

    “In 40, on behalf of Khrushchev, Trotsky was killed by an icebreaker in Mexico”;

    “The Marshall Plan is an American plan to capture the USSR;

    “Soviet power could force the West to give our scientists and writers the Nobel Prizes”;

    "The development of the first atomic bomb";

    “In the Caribbean crisis, the brain drain from the USSR to the USA intensified” (it was written “through Cuba”, but it was crossed out);

    “People were taxed and ideologically taxed”;

    "In the USSR, those who did not go to the heavy camps of the Gulag went to less difficult pioneer camps" (BIG!)

    “Enemies of the Soviet government were called dividends. The dividend movement grew and expanded ”;

    Unified State Examination-History, 2012 - Yeltsin

    “Boris Yeltsin was the first president of the USSR. He ruined the country, sold everything, lost everything. For the collapse of the USSR he was awarded the Nobel Prize ”;

    “Boris Yeltsin created the United Russia party, which to this day is the most influential political force in Russia”;

    “Yeltsin is the first political despot of a democratic Russia” (cool!);

    "Yeltsin is the first president of the CIS";

    “Yeltsin canceled article 6 of the Soviet constitution, which forbade having more than one political party in a personal plot” (this is just a mega-masterpiece!);

    “Take care of sovereignty as much as you want - that was his motto in life”;

    "Yeltsin implemented a policy of step therapy";

    Unified State Examination, 2012 - Solzhenitsyn

    “Solzhenitsyn was born at the beginning of the twentieth century. From a young age he was under police control for a rebellious character ”;

    "Solzhenitsyn was the main writer and peredvizhnik";

    “Solzhenitsyn was sent to the camp for the story“ One Day by Vani Deniskin ”;

    ““ Shmon ”,“ greyhound ”,“ informer ”- these words could not be found in spelling dictionaries. Solzhenitsyn brought them to our language ”;

    “Solzhenitsyn is the author of the novels“ The Gulag Archipelago ”and“ Virgin Soil Upturned ”. Both of his novels reflect the spirit of the times better than his stories ”;

    “After the deportation, Solzhenitsyn continued his camp path to the USA”;

    USE-history, 2012 - on the eradication of illiteracy by the Bolsheviks

    “It was necessary to eliminate the illiterate”;

    “Illiteracy was eliminated by the Bolsheviks so that just a herd would become a smart herd”;

    “The policy of universal literacy was aimed at filling the budget. Literate people bought books and newspapers, and this filled the USSR budget no less than buying vodka ”;

    “A literate woman is easier to get married, it is easier to give birth to a child. Literacy contributed to solving demographic problems ”;

    “After the dispossession of peasants, practically no literate people remained in the USSR. It became clear that it was necessary to start educational programs ”;

    “The Bolsheviks eliminated illiteracy to facilitate censorship. After all, how can illiteracy be censored? No way ”;
  31. The comment was deleted.
  32. dddym
    5 May 2013 12: 44
    +1
    Quote: Boris55
    To begin with, let's decide what period of socialism we will talk about:
    - Trotskyist - Leninsky
    - Stalin
    - Khrushchevsky
    - Brezhnevsky

    I am talking about the last period of socialism - Brezhnev-Gorbachevsky.

    So you want to say that every tenth communist was an official?

    Do not misinterpret my words. I meant that without joining the CPSU, you will not advance high in the ranks. At the initial levels of government there were most non-partisan ones. About how and who was accepted into the CPSU and the fact that the CPSU was structured according to the Masonic principle is a separate issue.

    Slavery to capitalism is much closer because they work for survival there, and under socialism there is no slavery even if you couldn’t take place as a worker in some area, for example, you can go and get a reprofiling, no one was captive


    One of the reasons for the collapse of the USSR is universal equalization. There was no point in working better — prices would cut. There was also criminal liability for parasitism. Has not worked for more than 3 months - criminal liability. Salaries were enough from pay to pay. Mandatory registration ... etc.
    When equally divided - the impression of universal happiness is created.

    Capitalism fed its slaves for the collapse of Stalinist Russia. There is no need to feed them now ...

    The power pyramid that there, that was sharpened here for enrichment of the top. There is money, here there are privileges that they converted in 90 into lifelong and inherited ...

    Only Stalin pursued a policy in the interests of the majority.
    With lower prices, the poor get richer, and with their increase (inflation), the rich get richer.

    PS
    But were not the Communists 19 millions?

    Firstly, what kind of period is this Brezhnev-Gorbachevsky? How are they related to each other Brezhnev and Gorbachev? Even now you will not advance without serving edru - name a major official (not a deputy) in your area who is not a member of United Russia. Then you quote my words and write about something else. But even here there is something completely incomprehensible - what kind of statement is the reason for the collapse in leveling - if the very essence of socialism is in this leveling, then how did this socialism last for 70 years? Why didn't he fall apart before? What does it mean that the salary was enough from paycheck to paycheck, and what for, for example, did my whole family go to the Black Sea, have four of me, dad, mom and brother? And what did mom and my brother and aunt go on a tour of the Warsaw Pact countries? From paycheck to paycheck, drunkards lived — since they drank everything they earned — that's for sure. Registration is generally a sore subject - do you want to say that now this registration is optional? When it was equal to everyone — and not exactly so — not evenly given, but according to work — the principle of socialism from each according to his ability — to each according to his work. Capitalism did not feed anyone for the sake of something; he did not even try to feed anyone at all - he simply enriched himself by intrigue, theft, deceiving the consumer and eliminating competitors. Further, the pyramid of power itself gives such opportunities and few people can cope with this temptation. For example, I.V. died with 7 rubles on a passbook. Stalin did not at all engage in increasing the wealth of anyone - he simply did his job. But no one knows exactly how many communists there were, for it was classified information. Under Gorbachev they called numbers from 16 to 18 millions, I took the largest so that they would not accuse me of exaggerating. By the way, during Gorbachev's two years of his reign, 4,2 million party cards were put on the table.
    1. Boris55
      Boris55 5 May 2013 13: 27
      0
      Please specify what period of our history you are talking about:
      - Trotskyist - Leninsky
      - Stalin
      - Khrushchevsky
      - Brezhnevsky
      If you do not see the difference, then tady oh.

      Quote: dddym
      Is this the period of such Brezhnev-Gorbachevsky?


      This is the end of the Brezhnev era (stagnation) and the beginning of Gorbachevskaya (when he spoke and said everything ... but has not yet collapsed)

      Quote: dddym
      how did this socialism last for 70 years?

      Comrade Stalin. Read the article on the establishment of the Cold War Victory Medal: “As Hillary Clinton stated,“ Our victory in the Cold War was only possible thanks to the willingness of millions of Americans in military uniform to fend off the threat posed by the Iron Curtain. Our victory in the Cold War was enormous. achievement, and those men and women who served at that time deserve an award. ”Medal“ For Victory in the Cold War. ”This medal, on the reverse side, directly indicates the war years of the Cold War: 1945-1991." http://klin.hutt.ru/viewtopic.php?id=471#p829

      At the resorts and abroad to ride you one salary was enough or all the same saved up?
      Some saved up, while others drank .. they say they’re fools, or is it still a system? You want to say that the salaries of workers and partigenigenoss were not much different, but taking into account privileges? Social Equality NOT!

      Quote: dddym
      the principle of socialism from each according to his ability - to each according to his work.

      And how do controllers fit in here to lower the prices of a product (increase in productivity or just sweatshops)? Will you roll up your sleeves, knowing that tomorrow you will be paid half as much for the same work?

      Quote: dddym
      Stalin did not at all increase the wealth of anyone


      Under Stalin, prices were reduced? They reduced, and this is an increase in the consumer opportunities of the population, an increase in its level of well-being.

      You did not convince me that in the USSR there was no minority power over the majority. It was the same slavery, only the wrappers are different and it is not known which one is worse ...
      1. dddym
        5 May 2013 13: 38
        0
        Please specify what period of our history you are talking about:
        - Trotskyist - Leninsky
        - Stalin
        - Khrushchevsky
        - Brezhnevsky
        If you do not see the difference, then tady oh.
        Why even distinguish them? To compare leaders? But this is generally a separate issue.
        This is the end of the Brezhnev era (stagnation) and the beginning of Gorbachevskaya (when he spoke and said everything ... but has not yet collapsed)
        Then you need to remember both the Andropov era and the Chernenkov same, they differed from Gorbachev and Brezhnev and very much.
  33. dddym
    5 May 2013 13: 41
    0
    At the resorts and abroad to ride you one salary was enough or all the same saved up?
    Some saved up, while others drank .. they say they’re fools, or is it still a system? You want to say that the salaries of workers and partigenigenoss were not much different, but taking into account privileges? Social Equality NOT!
    Two, i.e. salary of the pope and his vacation. It cost 400 a little rubles.
    1. Boris55
      Boris55 5 May 2013 13: 43
      -1
      Quote: dddym
      Why even distinguish them? To compare leaders? But this is generally a separate issue.

      Well tady oh ....
  34. dddym
    5 May 2013 13: 45
    0
    And how do controllers fit in here to lower the prices of a product (increase in productivity or just sweatshops)? Will you roll up your sleeves, knowing that tomorrow you will be paid half as much for the same work?
    There have always been two payment systems: 1-hourly, 2-piece. And now something similar is being observed. If there was an overproduction, then prices automatically decreased. My friend’s father worked at a mechanical plant and he just got into this system. I will say this - they received 600-700 p per month. And this decline did not bother them much. They simply did not work more than necessary. Although someone tried to earn more, they either were beaten into the dark, or he left because his workmates turned away from him.
  35. dddym
    5 May 2013 13: 49
    0
    You did not convince me that in the USSR there was no minority power over the majority. It was the same slavery, only the wrappers are different and it is not known which one is worse ...
    And power in general is not the power of the majority because: "The state is a power that needs strength to suppress the discontent of the oppressed class" read V. I. Ulyanov
    1. Boris55
      Boris55 5 May 2013 14: 16
      0
      Quote: dddym
      The state is a power that needs strength to suppress the discontent of the oppressed class "read V. I. Ulyanov

      "The state is the apparatus of violence of the minority over the majority" - Karl Marx

      The community of people built on the principle of "states" is nothing more than a slavish system of exploitation by some by others. I am for the abolition of slavery in all its forms.

      I am sorry that you do not see the difference between socialism according to Stalin and socialism according to Khrushchev, between socialism according to Khrushchev and socialism according to Brezhnev ... (we are not talking about the personal qualities of leaders)

      Quote: dddym
      Although someone tried to earn more, but they either were beaten into the dark, or he left
      I confirm this, it was with us. Here is the answer to you - why stagnation and why the decision was made on perestroika ...
      1. dddym
        5 May 2013 14: 23
        +1
        I see the difference between Stalin’s rule and Khrushchev’s not in favor of the latter, but in this article there is no indication of leaders but an indication of the state system. I am the same against the state as such, I am for the commune, but the commune is not able to exist independently since the state does not necessarily intervene in it immediately. But the article discusses the system! So what does stagnation have to do with it? They wanted to earn at the expense of their comrades, and so they were thrown out of society. If he really wanted to earn money, then he needed to open a cooperative or go to the north on a rotational basis. They always returned with good money and did not work at all for six months.
      2. dddym
        5 May 2013 14: 26
        +1
        And about stagnation, it would be possible to discuss another topic as the topic is separate and interesting.
  36. Boris55
    Boris55 5 May 2013 14: 40
    -1
    Quote: dddym
    The article discusses the system!

    So I started about the system: under capitalism, under socialism (with the exception of the Stalin period) - slavery, in various forms - but slavery.
    Until ~ 10 century in Russia there was no state (apparatus of violence) and there was no commune, and Cyrus, Darius and Macedon were beaten ...
    1. dddym
      5 May 2013 15: 02
      0

      Slavery

      Slavery, historically the first and most rude form of exploitation, in which the slave along with the tools of production was the property of his master-slave owner. At the stage of the most distinct forms of R., the slave had no rights; devoid of an economic incentive to work, he worked only under direct physical coercion.
      Excuse me, but there was no slavery! This capital can use slavery, and today it is illegal. There was no form of slavery in the social system!
  37. neoxine
    neoxine April 18 2018 08: 10
    0
    I would like to hear that socialism has ended, and what remains of it under capitalism