Originally posted by techsouthCapitalism is all the power in the hands of the few.
If leaders were not corrupt, then communism would work fine.
But then again, if leaders were not corrupt, capitalism would work fine too. In fact, we could have kings and emperors and feudal lords, which would all work perfectly well if men were not corrupt.
All you're saying is that the USSR was not a true communist state because the leaders became ...[text shortened]... ally a "win-win" and I can't understand why it is so often viewed as an unfavorable arrangement.
Originally posted by techsouth"All you're saying is that the USSR was not a true communist state because the leaders became corrupt."
If leaders were not corrupt, then communism would work fine.
But then again, if leaders were not corrupt, capitalism would work fine too. In fact, we could have kings and emperors and feudal lords, which would all work perfectly well if men were not corrupt.
All you're saying is that the USSR was not a true communist state because the leaders became ...[text shortened]... ally a "win-win" and I can't understand why it is so often viewed as an unfavorable arrangement.
That's not all the article said. It said that the right was happy to put the communist label on what was happening in the USSR, even though it was really state-run capitalism with corruption thrown in. This mislabeling suited the right, even though it distorted the aims and methods of the the cold war.