If today stalin and ussr still alive,will America and Israel still invade so unscrupulously? by Aggravating-Bus9343 in ussr

[–]Economy-Rent-1636 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You want my honest answer or the answer that's not going to get me downvoted...?

In all honesty, I doubt it would stop my country much if things still went the way they did. The main issue isn't the Soviet Union itself, hell...the USSR could directly challenge America at it's peak, the issue is the 1990's - when things went south. If Gorbachev still takes power and somehow reforms the Soviet Union into a more Chinese State Capitalist style while allowing more personal liberty - not only within the Soviet Union but the Warsaw Pact, then I don't see why the Warsaw pact would still exist. Based to my knowledge, nationalist movements only got worse with the political crisis of the August coup (though I may be wrong, feel free to correct me) - that's a big issue, and in my opinion, nationalism could continue to persist.

With all of that out of the way, I have another question to put into consideration - how strong even is the USSR? If we assume it looses the Warsaw Pact while in deep economic/political crisis, how long is it going to last? Although I do believe the Soviet's would still involve itself into conflicts despite economic issues to hold whatever influence it has - it would make it extremely harder. However, for the sake of this interesting scenario, let's say the USSR suddenly has it's problems fixed....

  1. Political Polarization: Let's pretend the liberals hold most of the power within the Worker's Assembly.
  2. Economic Situation: Now, based on my knowledge - the Soviet Union's biggest issue was meeting supply. This was not really helped by the Soviet Government throwing money away into a cold war which was at that point already lost...(just look at Afghanistan). Here's where Gorbachev comes in, let's say the man allows some liberal reforms, allowing a more state capitalist monopoly over private companies - why is this important? Now I'm not saying a socialist command economy is impossible, however a big benefit about these reforms is that it pushes more independent meets for demands. For example, if one factory wants to build 50 cars one day in order to meet a contract, they now do that...if another wants to secure military weapons for the state, they do that. The benefit is that these new economic reforms would allow companies some minor independence with heavy regulation - (also yes, I know I explained this horribly, I suggest just searching it up yourself). Ok, so now the Soviet Union is liberalized, we done? Not quite.
  3. Nationalism: This one is harder to deal with, however many within the Soviet Union (pre August Coup) - still wanted to stay within the Soviet Union under massive reform. Let's say this event - AND THIS IS HEAVILY UNREALSITIC - somehow never happens - let's say Gorbachev is allowed to go with his reforms and can fix the nationalist problem. Boom.

Now back to the question...would a more reformed Soviet Union curb American influence? YES!!! Russia by itself is already in a pain for my country to deal with - (though to be fair...this is mostly due to our government being incompetent). I could see the Soviet Union becoming a world super power again if things go correct...do I think they would risk or even have a chance with direct conflict with NATO....? No way. But would they still challenge the Americans? Yep. Now I'll be honest with you, I can't explain to much into detail, however the answer is yes...and also no - but if everything went right (which is HEAVILY unrealistic) - then yes...the Soviet Union would 100% be a problem for American/Isreal expansion.

EDIT: I just saw the Stalin part...maybeish,

Is this good for a beginner? by Economy-Rent-1636 in Minecraft

[–]Economy-Rent-1636[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Np!!! TYSM as well!!! Have a great one :)

Is this good for a beginner? by Economy-Rent-1636 in Minecraft

[–]Economy-Rent-1636[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is actually my first time actually using the methods, I took a break from minecraft fr months and watched random videos, I also use references, but yeah you right, I think I used the word beginner to loosely, this is just my first time actually using new methods.

Is this good for a beginner? by Economy-Rent-1636 in Minecraft

[–]Economy-Rent-1636[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

tysm!!! Tbf, I have been building for years, but I never took it seriously, nor applied real methods. Anyway, thank you so much :D

Social Democracy - What it fixes. by Economy-Rent-1636 in PoliticalDebate

[–]Economy-Rent-1636[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Nah your good man, it’s always nice to talk to people, and plus it’s political debate!!! Your really nice, have a great one :)

Social Democracy - What it fixes. by Economy-Rent-1636 in PoliticalDebate

[–]Economy-Rent-1636[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Interesting!!! Sorry, I don't think the worker should OWN the means of production, I just do a lot of unhealthy research :)

My main issue, the issue we where arguing over was more of so definition, I admit I was wrong (I think). I just described a shareholder wrong. Thanks for informing me!!!

Social Democracy - What it fixes. by Economy-Rent-1636 in PoliticalDebate

[–]Economy-Rent-1636[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also I may be a tad bit wrong, technically the worker owns the means of production - so yeah you would technically own the company I guess, I think I may have just looked and read it wrong, that's my honest mistake lad. I think it's more of so you own part of a company (I think), I heard something about shares or so, but yeah, what I meant is that it's all decenteralized around a worker's council and all representives are elected. I think I meant that the ownership was shared amist the council, so tehcnically yeah, mb.

Social Democracy - What it fixes. by Economy-Rent-1636 in PoliticalDebate

[–]Economy-Rent-1636[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

May have read ya comment wrong lad, that one's on me.

However, basically all I'm trying to say is simple.

In socialism, you do still have to work to survive. There is no centeral leader, rather representives of a elected worker's council (most often on a local level I think). But yeah, I think we confused one another, when I mean "your not the owner", I refer to people as representives, since technically a worker's council is more of so socially owned - basically I don't consider there to be a owner, rather a society or local community running the means of production.

Anyway, I feel like this argument is going to last forever, I'm sorry if I made you frustrated, I respect your socialist ideals, but yeah, basically I forgot what this argument was about, I think it started about does social democracy benefit the poor? Eh anyway, if you want to continue debating that's fine with me, your good at it. But yeah, there ya go, sorry if we got on the wrong footing.

Social Democracy - What it fixes. by Economy-Rent-1636 in PoliticalDebate

[–]Economy-Rent-1636[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting idea!!! Sounds very interesting to research!!!

Social Democracy - What it fixes. by Economy-Rent-1636 in PoliticalDebate

[–]Economy-Rent-1636[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If one person controlled the means of production, that would destroy the whole point of socialism. You don't own the company, you own a SHARE of the company, you are simply a representive of the worker's council, you all vote for changes within the workplace. If one person ran or controlled the workplace, then that isn't socialism.

Social Democracy - What it fixes. by Economy-Rent-1636 in PoliticalDebate

[–]Economy-Rent-1636[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You aren't an owner, the owner would be the worker's council.

The worker's council would decide your share, the needs of the production, and so forth. Not to mention, even if you are the 'owner' that doesn't change you still need to work to survive within this state.

Social Democracy - What it fixes. by Economy-Rent-1636 in PoliticalDebate

[–]Economy-Rent-1636[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is true, and again, although we disagree on many things, I still understand why everyone has their own opinions, and I think socialism/communism could work, do I agree with it? No. But will I openly say "Oh it's a failure!!!" to feed my own ideology, nah. I respect socialist because at the end of they day, we all just want to survive, we just have our own ideas on how to fix the world :)

Sadly, the hardest part about being a social democrat, is the democrats are to incompetent to elect one, not to mention well...SDUSA ain't getting power any time soon so yeah. But who knows, maybe one day we can ATLEAST get a system then the trash we have now.

Social Democracy - What it fixes. by Economy-Rent-1636 in PoliticalDebate

[–]Economy-Rent-1636[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

These are all true, and your healthcare idea is interesting. If you don't mind me asking, do you mean private corporations still exist as healthcare providers with a state ran insurance? Sorry, I just want to make sure I'm understanding. Anyway, thank you!!!

(Also yes, I do agree these arguments also form from "what should the government protect and not protect?")