Progress in sociolist nations....!

[Sinner]

How can we ensure progress and evolution wether it be scientific political or sociol in sociolist nations since and i beleive this as being the main downfall in all postrevolutionary countries and the reason why so many have failed to last.

How can you encourage elit thinkers to generate progress without personal gain since that is the main driving force for human evolution, i mean why would i bother in knew creations if it benefits me nothing and why should i generate knew ideas when they will be rejected by the ruling party.

Providing an education on a national scale is useless if u cannot benefit from this education especially if it intends solely to highlight the merits and ideals of the revolution.

I beleive the main reason that communist countries like the ussr have failed is because they simply ,in their knew structure, were unable to properly benefit its intelectual human resources.

Any thoughts are welcome

[Whitten]

I would argue that most people overestimate the role of capitalists in developing new ideas. How many new technologies, products, research breakthroughs do you think are done by corporate executives?

Most progress in that sense comes from mental labourers, most of whome still sell their labour to the bourgeois,.

[MrDoom]

I beleive the main reason that communist countries like the ussr have failed is because they simply ,in their knew structure, were unable to properly benefit its intelectual human resources.
There have been no communist countries, ever.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

There have been no communist countries, ever.

It would be helpful to ecplain what you mean by that, but since you didnt i will.

Mr doom, means that the definitions of communism (stateless, classless society) conflicts with it existsing within a country or nation state.

Thats an accurate, non propaghandist view.

The amaerican & anti-communist academics will refer to " a communist state" as a nationalised economy (to varying degrees) with a communist party as a main organ of state leadership.

To answer your question though...I would say that the development is Russia or the industrialisation and electrification WAS progress.

The USSR, to ensure its survival, and on the back of two invasions by capitalist powers meant that this progress was in the realm of defense spending. Where its smaller ecnomy has to macth spending of nato.

Anyone looking at soviet military hardware, the mig and the hind will realise the potential of the USSR.

[RNK]

To hammer home a point, we're getting to the stage now that technological development is being stifled by capitalism. Everything is starting to cost too much, and although the capitalists can afford it, they are risking less and less on progressive initiatives. Look at this resurgence in space exploration. During the 1960s, before computers, it took less than a decade to develop and build a massive space program and send men to the moon. Today, with technology infinitely superior to that of the 1960s, we're being told that a similar expedition today is 20-30 years away, and would cost an astronomical amount of money.

Anyway, a Communist society is fully capable of matching these technological leaps with far less trouble than their capitalist counterparts. Also, it is high time that we stop fooling ourselves, and admit that a Communist/Socialist society isn't going to be one of infinite technology and leisure. We're going to have to WORK for our livelihood, damnit, and if that means giving up things like 50,000-inch plasam LSD televisions and SUVs the size of small homes, then so be it!

[forza_che]

Che Guevara argued the way to progress after a revolution was to have a steady transition to socialism.

Cuba and the USSR as later admitted by Lenin and Che fell into economic problems soona after their revolutions from being too quick to demolish the capitalist methods of producing for the population.

Che makes the particular point that although capitalism has been abolished it doesn't mean that quality and technology should be abandoned. The capitalist methods must be continued and taken apart steadily to ensure a steady progress towards socialism.

Building a new society is centred around building a new man. Capitalist motives of greed and personal gain will remain for a while but the revolutionised country must not fall into the hole of trying to be popular with the people (as Russia did) by claiming they would be better off in their new societies.

A new attitude towards work and their fellow men must be established and built into the men of a country. This is done through education and an example set by the government (as done in Cuba) as people are encouraged to forget about greed and work for the sake of society.

Eventually the thoughts of greed and gain will be filtered out in the childen of the revolution and their children. This is the only way to acheive socialism, gradually. It probably is impossible to have any quick introduction into socialism in any country in the world today.