why is the red star still politicaly correct?

communism has been good for cuba, russia, and nicuaraga. These systems have been "good" because they were better than the previous governments.

USA had a better economy. the economy was libertairian(in my opinion) which led to less restrictions and taxes and more competitivness. The country also had a 12% unemployement rate, not to mention no welfare or social programs(on a federal level)

 

Theoritically, communism is the most efficient system of managing the economy.I know well enough to ask such a question.

 

Communism does not give people any incentive to work, because they won't be awarded for progress, positive action, or doing their job right. When people don't get any incentive for excellence, there basically won't be any. Trabant vs Mercedes. Huge apartment blocks vs suburbs. Why try your best when you finish in last place anyway?

As has been pointed, many East Germans tried to flee and died in the attempt. They were fleeing the effects of Communism.

When you think of it, communism has not benefitted anyone apart from an ultra-elite oligarchy - almost like the worst of capitalism. Give me one Communist nation that has been a success?

That's a subjective opinion, and one I disagree with vehemently. Communism is superior neither in theory or practice.

 

I consider it objective. There are incentives like "im helping my community" sort of thing. People all want the same thing $$$$$$$$

 

Yugoslavia worked. hell, they even hosted the olympics in '84. communism has given food and education to those who have not had much of it previously

 

And i may add Yugoslavia had extremly high life standard,free scools,hospitales,great protection for workers,and it expanded economicaly werry good.Main problem in communism is coruption (all companies belong to state,and ppl who lead them,come and go) but it is present in capitalism allso.Communism can work good,but main problem was,that many communism leaders was totalitary dictators,and twist things in werry bad way.

 

Comparing communist countries with capitalist countries and deriving an answer like this is largely useless... I could tell you that in the 70's the USSR had a better economy than Britain, thus communism works better However it doesn't work like that; a political system is not the only means by which production is achieved... Far from it, you have to take in account natural resources, population, human resource managment e.t.c. All of which has nothing whatsoever to do with political choices... Frankly I doubt that Russia could have matched the American Economy even if they were capitalist...

No, the best way to make assumptions upon the economic effects of communism is by looking at countries which have had both communist and capitalist systems of government... Only then can you say "this way was better" because the social situation is largely the same (it is the same country after all)... If you look at the collapse of the Soviet Union for instance, the collapse of communism brought an economic depression to former USSR and Eastern BLoc countries which lasted over 10 years... However now that they have had time to recover and adapt to the capitalist system, the economy is catching up again, and right about now it just higher than what it was in the late 80's... However in Russia's case the collapse of communism was synonymous with a drop in the population (6 million IIRC) due to the collapse of health care services and an exodus of people who were now able to migrate to the west... There was also a large increase in criminal activity and rioting... So there are negative and positive effects of both... Time will tell which system is "better" and in what context... You could probably make a strong case that in communist times Russia was 'safer' but less productive and less wealthy...

 

its really quite simple...people in communist countries have always voted with their feet ...given the slightest chance ,they would flee to...ANYWHERE but where they were...people have been willing to risk being blown up by mines ,machine gunned ,torn to peices by sharks ,and worse ..pol pots border gaurds were fond of trussing arms with wire and stuffing gasoline soaked rags in the mouths of captured escapees then giving them a light to watch them dance a spritely jig (careful ...dont inhale !) remember people have died by the hundreds of thousands trying to become destitute refugees somewhere else....anywhere else...before you say something like "communism aint really so bad " , reflect for a minute on the price ordinary people were willing to pay ,just to leave its loveing embrace. (btw ,often these escapees would flee knowing full well that their parents ,siblings and in laws left behind would face a very harsh retribution simply for being related to the person who fled )

 

RED STAR

To return to thje original post: "Why Is The Red Star Still Politically Correct?"......

Most political movements or parties seek to find a symbol by which they can be identified or differentiated from others.
Some Communist Parties still use the hammer and sickle in third-world countries becauce workers and peasants can identify with it. But most pay lip service, at least, to being democratic.
This symbol was used by the Bolsheviks when they were still underground, before it was tainted by Stalin's murderous regime. There are still a few socialist sects who use the symbol as a way of salvaging it from the bitter memory of Uncle Joe.
Socialists who rejected the Stalinist era sought to find new symbols - a carnation, a rose, a clenched fist, etc.
But the Red Star remains widespread, most recently adopted by the SSP in Scotland. The SSP has more in common, politically, with Old Labour.
Personally I have no problem with the star, it is a simple device and carries no connotations of the USSR.
As time moves on and old symbols become tainted with failure or betrayal, it is increasingly difficult to find a logo that reflects modern ideas.
Indeed, the new 'Solidarity' party in Scotland has yet to find one! It is using just the word!
Any ideas for new sybols of the Left that are NOT tainted????

 

All this talk about the rights & wrongs of Communism, people fleeing from Communism...

People were not fleeing from Eastern Europe from Communism, but from Stalinism. Communism itself is not evil, but what people turn it into often is.

True Communism is very rare - so rare that I don't think it's ever actually happened. Why? Because it requires all involved to be nice, upright, honest people.

Fat chance of that happening...

 

If any1 read more about communism it is basicly utopia.That why comunism movment was so stron on end of 19. century and beggining of 20.

 

Sorry but you are wrong on all counts. Libertarianism does not refer to an economic system but a political philosophy. The US has not had an unemployment rate that high since the Great Depression and there has never been a time in my lifetime when the US did not have welfare programs and social programs on a federal level. Where are you getting your economic information?

 

Maybe but it was far behind from Comunism social program.All scools,coledges,hospitals,medicamens,treatmans,etc was completly and totaly free for all citizens.Newer was in US.

 

That means, grieg, that the economic system resembled a libertarian economic system.They had an unemploiyement rate that high from the black monday in 1987 till the early 90's(90-91).

sry greig bout the welfare. reagan hated the welfare system, but it was never scrapped. his government opposed big government and social programs, so they decreased funding into social programs or stopped funding alltogether.

 

Free?
Nothing was free you just weren't aware of the cost. One of the costs was personal liberty. Another was the opportunity to prosper in proportion to your labor and contributions.

 

I didn't have any problem understanding what you wrote. Would you please back it up with some sources?

Here is a link to the US unemployment rate by month and year:
http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp

I'm well aware of what President Reagan stood for. I voted for him twice.

I also studied economics and I would like to see your source for this Libertarian economic system you refer to.

 

We had alot personal liberty,nobody hold u here,and forced u on something.Only things where u can critic personal liberty was 1 party system,but on Elections (communist party in Yugoslavia had nearly 100% support) ,and some censures on medias.About prosper in communism system,my granpa was colonist after ww II,come from poor region in richer region (agriculture richer,plains,"Vojvodina") and he manage from simple pesant to finish economic coledge,and build home for him and his family,and he he advanced in service to financial Director of oil and natural gass company.Whats r chance in US that pesant withouth mone,connections and good pre-education finish good coledge in US?

 

Lol..you really don't know much about the US do you? Ghetto kids can get into our best universities. All they have to do is apply themselves in school, make good grades and apply for scholarships for a fully paid Harvard education. If your parents work for a living and make a middle class income you can get low interest loans and get into a good school.

ps we have no peasants in the US. Our so-called poor drive expensive automobiles, wear designer clothes and wear solid gold jewelry.
You probably think I'm making this up. If you do, you are wrong.

 

I think this is one of those moments in time where one can step-back and see how dangerous pre-concieved notions can be, eh?
sinissa:
I love you, man. I sense a real naiviety about how things really are here in the West... especially the USA. You do bring a lot to these discussions, and help provide spirited responses... and I think you're working hard to make your english text better. Now if I could have you for a summer in Indiana, I'd have you talking like a true-Hoosier. Or... maybe not.
Lots of freedoms here in the USA. But it's not Utopia. I seriously doubt your country is either. Point is we're sharing information, misinformation and hopefully all parties haven't forgotten you actually CAN learn stuff here you didn't know.
Continue on gentlemen.
This has been a public service announcement.



Tim

 

No, because practice proves that no centralized government can keep track of the needs of a whole country. Planned economy led to constant shortages and surpluses in unexpected corners, as well as a massively top-heavy bureaucratic machine.

Edit: thanks Tim! The PSA above is now Admin-sanctioned.