Ars Regendi Simulation Forum

Full Version: UH OR PH
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
I would say, what country type like Post communistic, emerging nation etc. would be best for which. I have an Emerging nation thing but i would also like to know for future reference which goes best with which.

Me being on the Left side of the political spectrum personally like UH.

Herman Cain Wrote:
You tell em MAAAAAAAAAAAN

The most developed post-communist country is Belarus, which is also the most communist post-communist country.


you didn't answer my question but i would say you are sort of right, their economy is 50% state controlled which i agree with however they are not ruled or have a chance of being ruled by their communist party. Moldova has a strong communist party, as with Russia and the Czech Republic.

StatlerNWaldorf

I guess I have a very different concept of socialism than either of you.

First of all, Communism is a state that does not exist currently in Belarus. it does exist in some places, such as Ladakh, India, and in Papua New Guinea. Its both the most primitive form of development and the end stage of socialism, which can only come about after an experience with capitalism, which arises from an experience with feudalism. In Ladakh and the highlands of PNG, it exists in its most primordial form- a decentralized hunter gatherer society where decisions are made by the group, and there is no central authority figure. Communism after socialism will be essentially the same thing.

Secondly, I do not agree that Lukashenko's regime is socialist. Neither was the USSR. In both cases, the exploitation of workers to generate surplus value was and is being carried out, and that is the defining characteristic of capitalism. In these cases, the capitalist who maintains an exploitative relationship over the worker is the state itself.

It is more fair to describe these states as state-capitalist. At best, you could call them deformed worker's states.

If you want to see what real socialism looks like, it is taking place right now in Argentina, not at the government level, but in factories taken over by workers after their owners closed the plants. They make things such as tractors, suits, ceramics, and the workers themselves make decisions in an assembly where each employee has an equal vote.

This mirrors the economic theories of Edvard Khardelj, which were implemented briefly in Yugoslavia under Tito.

Communism is about the decentralization of power, not the concentration of control by a few. It's supposed to be the ultimate expression of democracy. The USSR proved itself incapable of such in 1918, when the Bolsheviks lost control fo the Duma to the Socialist Revolutionary Party and responded by abandoning democratic elections altogether. You could argue that under Gorbechev that democracy and socialism were restored to the Soviet Union, but unfortunately generations of obscene human rights abuses caught up with the country, and the Russian people allowed the hectoring voice of Yelstin to delude them into thinking his path represented something better. It didn't. But who can we blame for the disgust that led them to fall for such a stinking pile of bullshit? We can blame the CP_USSR, that's who.

Do you know what Communism means? It means you don't need someone else to jerk you off. It means you can take control of your own life, your own workplace, and make this world better yourself. You don't need a savior, and you shoudl distrust anyone who pretends they are that savior, whether that person is Lenin or Bush or Robespierre or Blair. I don't trust Ceacescu or Karimov, Kim or Mao. They're all assholes, every one of them.

That is what was meant by the phrase, "No gods, no kings, only men".

In truth, the USSR and American corporations are indistinguishable in many respects. They sucker you into giving up the most precious thing you have, the moments and seconds of your life, for nothing. They make slaves out of everyone so a very select few, be they on the Board of Directors of the Politburo, can indulge in a lush life while those they employ are kept in constant terror of hunger and homelessness. Their workers have no real freedom, because in both cases attempts to express ideas contrary to the extraction of surplus value through the labor process results in censure and castigation.

So no, I do not agree that Belarus is the "most Communist" anything. Its the most Capitalist state, even moreso than Russia itself. At least in rural Siberia, there are some places you can go to get away from total domination by the state. In tiny Belarus, there is no escape.


Lastly, Communism has a difficult time co-existing with capitalism. Primitive communism exists only in isolated and remote places that haven't been penetrated by the previous development stages yet. Communism as a result of socialism cannot come about until capitalism itself has run its course and faded from all the Earth. The Argentines are making great progress, but so long as the state exists to suppress the worker controlled factories, Communism itself cannot come into being. Carlos Menem is no different than Adophe Theirs, except that Theirs was able to crush the Communards much more quickly than Menem, thanks to the sentiments of the times.


Since socialism is suppressed by the state, so long as the state persists there cannot be Communism. To call Belarus a "Communist state" is an oxymoron. There is no such thing as a Communist state, since Communism is the absence of the state.

Lenin delivered the funeral oratory at the grave of Marx's last surviving daughter, thereby claiming his mantle. But what he produced was not Marxist. What he produced masqueraded as Marxism, and in fact was its exact opposite.
Again not answering my question but ok, 1st of all that is Pure Marxism, which i do not believe in because it is Anarchy. Any country without a government is in anarchy and will not function. 2nd. I Do love the Soviet Union (post Stalin) with everything in my heart. 3rd. I am however Authoritarian rather then Totalitarian, i don't like the idea of controlling every aspect of society. 4th I believe in a socialist Mixed economy (more like China has now where the government controls most of the economy) so this would put me i would say between comrade Lenin and Stalin but closer to Lenin.

StatlerNWaldorf

Theolor Wrote:
Again not answering my question but ok, 1st of all that is Pure Marxism, which i do not believe in because it is Anarchy. Any country without a government is in anarchy and will not function. 2nd. I Do love the Soviet Union (post Stalin) with everything in my heart. 3rd. I am however Authoritarian rather then Totalitarian, i don't like the idea of controlling every aspect of society. 4th I believe in a socialist Mixed economy (more like China has now where the government controls most of the economy) so this would put me i would say between comrade Lenin and Stalin but closer to Lenin.



Well, not exactly Anarchy. Anarchy is all about tearing things apart and starting with a clean slate, which I think is impossible, because unless you murder everyone who is not an infant, there is no such thing as a clean slate. Bakunin was an idiot, and he associated with psychopaths.

Marxism is more about building than destroying. Socialism is an intermediary state that leads to Communism, not Communism itself. Also, something like a state has to persist to prevent a demogugue or psychopath from exploiting others, but that thing cannot centralize power the way the modern state does.

And as for Lenin, well, to quote the Old Man himself, "If that is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist."I do not love the USSR pre-Gorbechev. I admire Gorbachev greatly and deeply respect what he tried to do. I think he underestimated Yeltsin too much and that was his undoing.

I also consider myself anti-Totalist, like you. However, I see Totalism in the terror Lenin perpetrated on his own people. Lenin at times said things I like to hear, but he did things that make me nauseous.

If I were forced to pick names of socialists I think were closer to the correct path, they would be De Leon, Debs, Berger, London, Khardelj, Dubcek, Allende, Douglas and Whitlam. But as for everyone between Lenin and Chernenko, a pox on all their houses. I cannot look at the 1918 election and the refusal to cede control to the SRs as anythibng other than obscene, nor can I excuse the crackdown on the Kronstadt Rebellion.


As for Marxian economics, it's not state capitalism. What you're describing isn't Marxian Economics.

I see your point in some aspects. but what about the health care then?

What would go best with my state (being an emerging nation) and what would go better with other nations like post communistic or superpower etc.

private Healthcare or Universal?

StatlerNWaldorf

Well, the first thing you have to understand is that this game works by a very definite set or formulas that are intended to simulate real life. However, since they were written by people, and people always inflect their own opinions into any formula they write, you will find the answer to your question displeasing.

Privatized Healthcare is the better option.

Now, in real lief this is not the case. But this game only simulates real life, it is not real life. And in the context of this particular game, the answer is PH.

StatlerNWaldorf Wrote:
Well, the first thing you have to understand is that this game works by a very definite set or formulas that are intended to simulate real life. However, since they were written by people, and people always inflect their own opinions into any formula they write, you will find the answer to your question displeasing.

Privatized Healthcare is the better option.

Now, in real lief this is not the case. But this game only simulates real life, it is not real life. And in the context of this particular game, the answer is PH.


doesn't it also depend on the type of country or was this game just made by a giant biased capitalist?

StatlerNWaldorf

I told you, you would not like the answer.

Well, I guess we need to look at what you mean by "go best with my country".

In terms of long term debt reduction, PH is your only option. Post-communist states start out with massive debt, and if you throw Universal healthcare on top of the pile, it will crush you.

Debt is the central problem to be conquered in every state of every kind in this game. The regents who die of old age are the ones who run low debts or surpluses. The regents who die young run very high debts. After around 3:1 debt:GDP, your popularity will sink and there's not much you can do to revive it.

However, in the very short term, your popularity will drop in a post-C state. However, this rebounds over time. It will not rebound if your debt rises too high in relation to your GDP.

Developing countries are a pain in the ass. You have to maintain a low debt:GDP, but you also have to worry about Starved to Death, Religion, and you start out with tax and benefit policies that are entirely backwards of where they ought to be. To bring down Starved to Death, you must increase Pensions and Welfare, but not too high or else Unemployment rises. You also have to up your education budget, and raise your Corporate Taxes without causing Capital Flight. Good luck on that one, by the way.

And as if all that wasn't difficult enough, Religion starts out much higher than in other states.

Your best bet is to join an alliance, ingratiate the Chair and Vice Chair, and talk them into subsidizing your state until you can get your tax and benefits policies where they need to be.

But yeah, no matter what state you run, PH is a very good idea. Reduces your new indebtedness substantially.
Gooood mooooorning vietnaaaaam!
Joke appart, i don't want to fight against everybody. I just give numbers:
- Exterminated peolple in the USSR (source: archives of the KGB): 35 millions
- Exterminated people in china during Maotsetung: at least 100 millions
China was the first exporter of human bones during more than 20 years. Export of human bones have been banned since then.
- Exterminated people in Cambodia: half the people...
This is about the facts. Any other position leads to revisionisim.

About opinions? Have the opinion you want. In general disputes are made on theories. And I don't care about.
If a gamer wants to test communism, why not? I don't see any problem in that. The problems only comes when we consider theories over humans.
Pages: 1 2
Reference URL's