socialism [Theme] Page 3

With the departure of Stalin, everything was downhill, because it came to power, Khrushchev, who became the spokesman of interests of a certain part of the party-state apparatus, which is the model of the Soviet project and the hard work was not to their liking. They wanted to relax and live happily. It was the pace of the reaction.

Rather, the sun rises in the West, than we abandon socialism.

Why constantly compare the Soviet Union and tsarist Russia? Because tsarist Russia is an oligarchic project, and the Soviet Union is the national project. Now in power - the oligarchs, and they, naturally, are trying to trample into the mud people's project, and his oligarchic, to glorify. First used by historians-liberals, prostitutes, which "proved" that the war was won in spite of Stalin, and now use prostitutes-the black hundred, which "prove" that the war was won, thanks to Nicholas II.

The state is a repressive apparatus, an apparatus of violence, and the law in the state it is the will of the ruling class erected in the law. We - the socialist state; we create a legal system; all who undermine the foundations of the proletarian socialist state - they are criminals in conflict with the law, so be nice on the bench! Tell us about the repression of the Communists. So bourgeois repression - please - it's the law. And they are not under the law?!

To discredit the image of Lenin, Stalin's image, General image of the Soviet era - this is the dream of the entire bourgeoisie, the whole of the world bourgeoisie, because we have, unfortunately, since the time of Gorbachev's perestroika, when it seemed, was in power the Communist party (whose leadership broke straight renegades and as strike-breakers), they performed the social order of the bourgeoisie, that God forbid no one had a positive image of the Soviet experience, the positive image of Lenin, of Stalin, of Soviet achievements. Therefore, it is necessary to reduce the whole of Soviet history to the history of the Gulag, and performs, for example, Mr. Dude.

The Soviet Union could solve problems which under capitalism were not solved: such as universal education, the industrial revolution, the growth of life expectancy and so on. Thus, socialism is a good choice for the "third world", in which the traditional, capitalist way to raise science, education, production technology does not work simply because the national bourgeoisie is interested in making profits only the easiest way - through the sale of natural resources.

... But what to do in the future society, where private capital and small businesses are missing completely? We have a proactive, caring person creates revolutionary technology, then releases a propaganda video clip, which introduces the audience to a specific platform, and he is competing with other videos - is a public vote. Projects that have passed public scrutiny, then are subject to scientific control. Therefore, the project receives the initial reaction of the consumer, and we understand that for people it's interesting; research Department checks the project at ispolnilos. Then given the "green light" and the project comes into production, first in limited quantities. Then going to a secondary reaction of the consumers - the people (again) to vote. Based on these data is governed by the further issue.

The socialist planned economy, despite the fact that it will be the equivalent of the mega-Corporation, it will offer the consumer a choice between brands.

The socialist system of the Soviet Union could produce revolutionary technology, when she staged the corresponding task, for example, space satellite, space flight. The problem was that the bureaucracy knew very well what she wants in the defense and in space, but she had no idea what to improve in the economy until it appeared on the same West.
Thus, if socialism be really democratic, if the population can shift the bureaucracy, if you will work effectively the state program to support innovative solutions, then private ownership can be painless to get rid of.

He hated socialism as well as fascism as would hate any other system, where people lose their individual qualities, mixed together, RUB in the ointment. And that's because people are intimidated, crushed, extracted and emulsified, they are turned into faceless component parts, in an unmarked ingredients.

- Well? As for you socialist?
- You see the glass? The bubbles rise up, everyone has the same chance to rise.
- A peculiar form of socialism.
- A bottle... if you pull out the tube - it's impossible to insert.

State planning - that's the basis on which grow all the main successes of China. Today they are connected somehow with foreign investment and privatization. But the inflow of foreign investment there are no miracles. It has long described a phenomenon called the export of capital. The export of American capital was twice destroyed by the war rebuilt Germany and not just her. Such is the nature of capital: he is always looking for cheap labor - the only source of profit for themselves. The Soviet Union used this feature during the NEP, then to minimize the NEP and start industrialization. Important on someone who "rides": the capital of the party or the party in the capital.

Railway - cordage project that no one private company. But most importantly from the point of view of the business of the railroad unprofitable. However, in China, contrary to market rules, the emphasis is on the railway. There is a huge infrastructure project, whose aim is the development of what is in the textbooks of political economy called the productive forces: roughly, improved equipment, trained people.

Exxon Mobil was ordered Venezuelan oil 50 years, until the nationalization in ' 76. Then what is interesting? Caracas in the era of ehksona and military dictatorships was a prosperous city and all of Venezuela: a rapid housing, expensive cars, Bohemia and glamour. For some, not for all. Then petrodollars is over - the country fell into total misery... However, under Hugo Chavez, the country did not get rid of the oil stranglehold. And still 95% of the income from oil. Still no new industries, no clear state planning. Still maneuvering and compromise with the oligarchy... At some point, even the most compelling and obvious references to a "hairy hand" of the state Department, simply cease to work as stop working any half-measures.