Agreed, that's going to change the dynamics largely. Casualties of war were one of the biggest things to restrain warfare. With more and more unmanned fighting being used, the decision to use force (and go to war) could be made much lighter.I actually don't think we'll ever see a true World War III just because of the changing face of warfare.
We are just a few years away from robotic soldiers. IRobot (The people who made the Roomba) has a working model that even uses the metal storm system. I'll just let the Youtube videos speak for themselves. This one isn't as impressive as any of the singular demonstrations, but it shows the full range. Just about 3 minutes.
I figure that we've basically seen the end of massed troop combat. It will all be high-tech fighting and squad to squad soon. That's really going to upset the balance of power though. Interesting times are probably ahead.
Devestating weapon. Dont you just love the incredible ability of our species to obliterate each otherAgreed, that's going to change the dynamics largely. Casualties of war were one of the biggest things to restrain warfare. With more and more unmanned fighting being used, the decision to use force (and go to war) could be made much lighter.
*Head falls into hands* Haven't you people picked anything up from me?Well, the problem it faced at its core really was economic issues from communism.
The hell-hole tyranny they suffered from was standard political greed. But the reason it fell was because communism just doesn't work.
There's really too many reasons to go into for a forum post, but that was the crux of it. Heck, from what I've heard, the only people who still believed in it by the 1980s were some of the East Germans and we saw how that worked out at the end. We actually went over that a few days ago in class. Also saw a lot of interviews with people who had lived through it.
The synopsis was simple. Things weren't all terrible. There was more room for artistic stuff, less worries over work, an active social environoment, etc. There was also crippling tyranny to hold the people in line and keep them from leaving. There was little room for advancement. One was also completely at the mercy of what the government felt was for the greater good...so yeah.
Just won't work unless human nature completely changes.
The transitional phase is socialism. The economic system employed by the soviet union was state capitalism. Oh, and there is no "communist system". It is an economic ideology, but it's just an advanced form of socialism.That's sorta falling into the territory of ridiculous semantics. It was not in any form capitalist.
The price systems were not in effect. The best way to describe it would be a communist state in the "transitional phase" that Marx described. The problem is that they were never actually able to leave the transitional stage and fell apart due to a lack of development.
Also, it is impossible to have socialism in one country alone. Socialists (and communists) are internationalists. It is against our basic ideology.WSM economists said:In supposedly 'socialist' Russia, for example, there still existed wage slavery, commodity production, buying, selling and exchange, with production only taking place when it was viable to do so. 'Socialist' Russia continued to trade according to the dictates of international capital and, like every other capitalist, state, was prepared to go to war to defend its economic interests. The role of the Soviet state became simply to act as the functionary of capital in the exploitation of wage labour, setting targets for production and largely controlling what could or could not be produced.
Well, actually, it's not splitting hairs. The delusion that the Soviet Union employed a system of socialism or communism has denied my party and the entire left of so many votes in the past.Could you split the hair any finer?
You're describing the Soviet Union, not communism or socialism.It's a state run system with the goal of pushing forward the rights of the working (stated goal at least...humans tend to lie).
Lenin completely misunderstood socialism and ended up implementing state capitalism. It's irrelevant what he actually intended to implement.The point is that this was about the closest the world ever came to putting a communist system in place, and it failed.
A communist or socialist system would be controlled by the workers, and by the people of the world. There would be a lot of control by the people, huge democratisation, probably direct democracy for a local area. The local governments would have the majority of power, if there was a form of Government.Please explain how a "true" communist system would be better or even different. As opposed to a government run system, with a non-price based distribution system, and the rights of the worker in mind?
Wrong. That's a myth. Socialism does not mean "everyone gets paid equally". Socialism means fair pay.Regardless, the problems are the same. Communism removes the personal drive to succeed and causes floundering. Here's the example I remember. If you get paid $5 to make small shirts, or $5 to make XL shirts, which are you going to make? The fact that they killed the price system was at the heart of the issue.