Military Technocracy

That is laughable. Human abilities to think reasonably and creatively are limited by abilities of his brain. Human imagination, intellect and creativity have limits. To overcome these limits, humans ("n" level of structural organisation) must merge into collectives ("n+1" level of structural organisation), submitting part of their free will to collective to become more strong, intelligent and efficient. Independance and freedom are borders on the way of intellectual and structural development. Individuality is scourge of humankind which limits our progress.

Trade instead of force? Nonsense. Trade competition is so-called "die-out" form of evolution, the evolution which leads to informational equilibrum (read: STAGNATION); any unpredicted change in enviroment will cause damage or destroy the system (depending on how close the system is to state of equilibrum - more "developed" markets are the most vulnerable ones). Military competition is the only form of self-fueling evolution, which doesn't have any equilibrum points. Wars created THE ENTIRE TECHNOSPHERE of Humankind. Without wars, humans are nothing. You seem to don't have even basic knowledge of history of technology. From scientific standpoint, the only ability to keep scientific and technological progress going is uncompromising, all-out military competition, which cannot be solved by "die-outs" like diplomacy and trade. No matter who will be our enemy - other humans or, even better, chaotic challenges of the universe. Universe is better because it is more powerful and unpredictable. Strengh and unpredictableness of rival is one of main factors of evolution. But the problem is that time scale of individuals and time scale of cosmos are very different. Human life is too short. So, to care about challenges of future, humans must think in terms of collective. Collective is modular and, therefore, is potentially immortal.

I hope that some of people here will care to explain me their pseudo-scientific views.

Vladimir,
Supreme Chairman of Russian Military-Technocratic Party

Post 1

Sunday, November 30, 2003 - 8:11pm

Vladmir,

"I hope that some of people here will care to explain me their pseudo-scientific views."

I am not an administrator of this site, and I do not claim to speak for them. I speak for myself.

I am somewhat puzzled by your claim that the only way to advance technologically is to submit part of one's free will to some collective.

Perhaps my knowledge of technology is more limited than yours (being the Supreme Chairman of Russian Military-Technocratic Party) but whenever I hear about the origins of a piece of technology, it is an INDIVIDUAL who is given credit, an INDIVIDUAL who made the crucial leap, solving the puzzle, and bringing existing knowledge and technology together to create something new.

I do agree with the fact that cretive people can benefit by interacting with other creative people in their fields (or perhaps outside of their fields). A genius in isolation will most likely create nothing new, since building upon the work of others is the most efficient way to push the frontier of technology.

However, you seem to argue that the technological advance was "in the air", so to speak, that "someone" would have invented it, so the particular person who invented it does not matter.

The fact is that collectives have never created anything of worth-- if they appear to have done so, it was because of an individual within that collective.

Post 2

Tuesday, December 2, 2003 - 11:04pm

Vladimir you mentioned
"Wars created THE ENTIRE TECHNOSPHERE of Humankind. Without wars, humans are nothing. You seem to don't have even basic knowledge of history of technology."

I assume what you are saying that without wars we would not have advanced technologically. Then how is it our major technological developments occured during times of peace, e.g. the printing press, the steam engine, spinning & weaving technology and the whole textile industry, the production of iron, to name the major developments. Incidentaly all these developments were the work of individuals.

Of course war did motivate the rapid development of efficient ways of destroying the enemy, e.g. the nuclear bomb, but that is hardly progress.

Post 3

Wednesday, December 3, 2003 - 4:10am

Thank you for your answers, I will try to answer all of them.

"""I am somewhat puzzled by your claim that the only way to advance technologically is to submit part of one's free will to some collective. Perhaps my knowledge of technology is more limited than yours (being the Supreme Chairman of Russian Military-Technocratic Party) but whenever I hear about the origins of a piece of technology, it is an INDIVIDUAL who is given credit, an INDIVIDUAL who made the crucial leap, solving the puzzle, and bringing existing knowledge and technology together to create something new."""

That is logical fallacy which comes from misunderstanding of process of "solving" (invention, discovery, etc). In reality, each "solving" comes from series of stages, distributed both horizontally and vertically. The "father of invention" is usually the one who either did more "well-known" stage, or last stage. Finding the one who has finished the last or most known stage has NOTHING to do with real estimation of significance of role of inventor. Who had more important role in creation of vertical cold launch Soviet SAMs - me, who made theory of such cold launch, my unknown collegue, who made tube-starting SAM, or my successors who made the calculations and invented system for S-400? The answer to this question is PURELY SUBJECTIVE. Even Marxist labor theory is closer to truth here than primitive glorification of "last stage maker".

"""I do agree with the fact that cretive people can benefit by interacting with other creative people in their fields (or perhaps outside of their fields). A genius in isolation will most likely create nothing new, since building upon the work of others is the most efficient way to push the frontier of technology."""

Today it is not the most efficient, it is THE ONLY way.

"""However, you seem to argue that the technological advance was "in the air", so to speak, that "someone" would have invented it, so the particular person who invented it does not matter."""

No, I mean that process of creation is divided on stages, graded both horizontally and vertically (so, it will look like synergetic tree structure), and that's because it is impossible to OBJECTIVELY name the one who did most significant phase. All we can do is make PURELY SUBJECTIVE claims.

"""The fact is that collectives have never created anything of worth-- if they appear to have done so, it was because of an individual within that collective."""

That's lie. Korolyov was nothing without his team of Chief Designers. Chief Designers were nothing without Korolyov. It is symbiosys. You judge society by using some XIX-age categories. Theory of systems and cybernetics are ignored by you, most likely for ideological reasons. Human organisms (n-level structures) form protoorganic structures ((n+1)-level structures). These structures can form more and more complex structures. The reason why many people glorify individuals is that average intellect level of "nation-organism" is very close to intellect of ape. But these people seem to forget that average intellect level of many scientific collectives is higher than intellect level of its members. Nations are just the outdated method of organisation. Soviet Technate - the society we want to build, will have intellect approximately 46-47 times higher, than average human intellect.

And, besides, what is human? He is only a carrier of information. His identity is formed by:
a.)unconditional information (genetic)
b.)conditional information (non-genetic)
Conditional information is not some sort of monolithic identity you want it to see. It is composed from procedures and "sub-programs", that can come from outside (using means of communication). Human is a computer, and his identity is self-replicating "programs". It is these "programs" (ideas) which play real role, not just human bodies (which you call "individuals"). That is basics of social cybernetics.

"Individual" as you call it, is just subjective abstraction, used mostly by various sociological disciplines for sake of statistics. But creation of philosophy, based on glorification of this purely statistical abstraction, is not better than glorification of other statistical abstractions, like "family", or "common good", or "aryan nation".

Ideology of our party is based on what can be objectively measured by mathematics and cybernetics. From point of science, we, Military Technocrats, are more "objective" than you. But of course, we are not fully objective, because coefficient of efficiency cannot be equal to 100%.

Vladimir,
Supreme Chairman of Russian Military-Technocratic Party

Post 4

Wednesday, December 3, 2003 - 4:49am

"""I assume what you are saying that without wars we would not have advanced technologically. Then how is it our major technological developments occured during times of peace, e.g. the printing press, the steam engine, spinning & weaving technology and the whole textile industry, the production of iron, to name the major developments."""

Now, like bolsheviks liked to say, let's start likbez (liquidation of illiteracy).

Steam engine, when it was developed, was not viewed by enterpreneurs as cost-efficient alternative of using animals and sailing ships. The problem is that it has very low coefficient of efficiency, it consumed much fuel, and was costly. The only good side of it is that it can function always, regardless of conditions. Let's take steam ships for example. Steam ship could function without wind, while sailing ship COULD NOT! That is CRITICAL for sea combat! So, goverments started investing in construction of steam ships. Did they improved steam ships? No, but EXPERIENCE OF EXPLOITATION of such steam engines gave us EXPERIMENTAL KNOWLEDGE of work of steam engine, which allowed to improve steam ships and make it cost-effective methods of transportation. After that, private enterpreneurs began widely using steam ships.

What next? Oh, well, textile technologies. This situation is even more funnier. The cost of producing textiles using these technologies, break into two lines of spending: first, cost of textile machinery, and second, cost of producing textiles using these machinery. First line of costs is FIXED, second is variable. So, to make something cheap using this technology, you need to produce it in big numbers. When textile machinery only appeared on scene, it was in such big numbers, that it will be idiotic to produce something civilian. However, such things like equipment of infantry, being economically inefficient, required large production of textiles. And after EXPERIENCE OF EXPLOITATION of textile technologies was already high, the "minimal efficient number" of produced "units" was low enough to be mass-used in civilian spheres.

Same comes to production of iron. Remember what forced societies to use iron instead of "soft" composites of metals? Military confrontation. Iron sword could cut through bronze shield with ease. Entire metallurgic industry was driven by construction of weapons - first, swords and shields, then cannons and armor.

As for printing press, I do not have statistics of distribution of this technology, so I cannot say anything from professional point.

"""Incidentaly all these developments were the work of individuals."""

These individuals just made final stage of invention. That doesn't mean it was the most significant stage of invention.

"""Of course war did motivate the rapid development of efficient ways of destroying the enemy, e.g. the nuclear bomb, but that is hardly progress."""

Hardly progress? Space sattelites (by-product of ICBMs) - hardly progress? Computers - hardly progress? Information networks (both Internet and its Soviet counterpart) - hardly progress? Lasers - hardly progress? Nuclear power plants (first invented in Soviet Union, for future use on ships, submarines, and superheavy bombers) - hardly progress? Jet aviation (today it uses 100% the same principles that military jets, even though it is not always functional, in other words, civilian jets are just modifications of military jets, there is no special construction theories for civilian jets) - hardly progress? Navigation systems (American GPS and Soviet GLONASS) - hardly progress? Cellular communication (by the way, it was first invented in Soviet Union, for use in Red Army and KGB) - hardly progress? Radars (by the way, you may find it funny, but first radar was not invented in Britain, it was invented in Soviet Union - device called "RUS-1", by Soviet scientist Oschepkov) - hardly progress?

If it is not progress, tell me, WHAT IS PROGRESS??? Toilets with automatic heating for rich elite is progress? Pornography is progress? Hamburgers is progress? If it is what you mean, I think you have very sick (in my humble opinion) understanding of progress...

Vladimir,
Supreme Chairman of Russian Military-Technocratic Party

Post 5

Wednesday, December 3, 2003 - 7:37am

Vladmir,

Your point about the contributions of several individuals towards the development of a single piece of technology is well taken. You have a point in that there is no one inventor of the missile (or whatever) since many different people contributed to the design, etc. I don't see how this refutes the idea that the fundamental advances needed to design such a missile were always done by individuals making intellectual leaps.

"The reason why many people glorify individuals is that average intellect level of "nation-organism" is very close to intellect of ape. But these people seem to forget that average intellect level of many scientific collectives is higher than intellect level of its members. Nations are just the outdated method of organisation. Soviet Technate - the society we want to build, will have intellect approximately 46-47 times higher, than average human intellect."

First off, I am curious as to how you quantitatively measure intelligence, of individuals and of collectives. You even go so far as to quote an estimate of how much more intellectual your proposed society will be in relation to the average human intellect. What do these numbers mean, and how do you get them?

Next, the reason you give in this passage for why I may glorify individuals is false. Individuals are imortant because, whether you like it or not, they will ultimately be the basis of any society, even a super-colletive society like yours. Accordingly, I believe that society should be built from the point of view of individuals and not vice versa. Communism (as I'm sure you're aware) was an attempt at building a society from the top down. Look what happened to that.

"And, besides, what is human? He is only a carrier of information. His identity is formed by:
a.)unconditional information (genetic)
b.)conditional information (non-genetic)
Conditional information is not some sort of monolithic identity you want it to see. It is composed from procedures and "sub-programs", that can come from outside (using means of communication). Human is a computer, and his identity is self-replicating "programs". It is these "programs" (ideas) which play real role, not just human bodies (which you call "individuals"). That is basics of social cybernetics."

Surely as the Supreme Chairman of Russian Military-Technocratic Party, you must realise that the complexity of the human brain is far beyond anything we can replicate with computers at the present time. I do not see how your statement that humans are merely programmed entities is anything more than faith.

""Individual" as you call it, is just subjective abstraction, used mostly by various sociological disciplines for sake of statistics. But creation of philosophy, based on glorification of this purely statistical abstraction, is not better than glorification of other statistical abstractions, like "family", or "common good", or "aryan nation"."

Interesting that you don't place "political party" into that mix. You don't think that your party is merely a social group?

I'd say that an individual is pretty easy to objectively define. Hell, I'm one of 'em. So are you. In what way is your party more objective than this?

"Ideology of our party is based on what can be objectively measured by mathematics and cybernetics. From point of science, we, Military Technocrats, are more "objective" than you. But of course, we are not fully objective, because coefficient of efficiency cannot be equal to 100%."

You seem to equate objectivity and some law of thermodynamics here. I would like to know just how this is done. Not to mention the fact that you seem to equate politics with philosophy here.

Regards,

Nate

Post 6

Wednesday, December 3, 2003 - 10:07am

Something else occurs to me about the claim that all technological advances are based upon conflict.

How does this thesis explain the following advances:

(1) George Washington Carver's technique of using peanuts to refertilize nitrogen-depleted crops. This seems not to be related to the military at all.

(2) Henry Ford's invention of mass assembly, which was first used to assemble his Model T cars, and only later used for military purposes.

(3) Jack Kilby's invention of the microchip, which was only put to military applications some time after its invention.

Of couse some (I would concede even most) modern technology is developed strictly for military reasons, but it is folly to suggest that all technology is so developed.

Post 7

Wednesday, December 3, 2003 - 11:02am

A question I have often pondered is how individual is an individual?

It is certainly true that each human instance can make decisions for themselves, but of course there is different views of how this comes about.

Many believe all human volition is 'cause-effect' based, where, due to certain stimuli, we react in a predictable way. If we assume this to be true, then a person's individuality is simply that notion that we would not necessarily act the same way in the same situation, due to different programming. We do exhibit this, hence we are individual.

But then one wonders to what extent are we individual? We all have a unique standard of value, dictated by our subjective reality, which we use when making decisions. The differences between us are (at least in part) due to the differences in our standards of value. We might suppose that two humans facing the same situation with precisely the same standard of value would behave in the same, predictable, manner.

This was what I figure Vladimir was intimating when saying individuality is a social abstraction. Potentially humans can be interpreted as a singular program with different value-assessment functions.

Unfortunately, even if this viewpoint of man's innate sameness is held, the standards of value need to be controlled, if those humans are to work toward a common goal. The unfortunate reality is that we can never be complete objective. The very act of qualitatively quantifying purpose assumes some subjective viewpoint. We can only have degrees of objectivity, which can only be subjectively determined.

Since the justification of a goal will always be subjective, we will always question to some degree the validity of a pursuit. We can never be absolutely sure. Similarly, it is impossible to provide testament to a pursuit's objectivity, since measuring it is subjective.

From these principles it doesn't surprise that the human race has been so embroiled with wars and fighting. When two parties disagree on a pursuit's objective validity, how can they convince each other? For instance, how can the US prove invading Iraq was objectively justifiable?

Such a proof is impossible, due to our individuality, the result of our subjective realities. How individual is an individual?

Post 8

Wednesday, December 3, 2003 - 5:16pm

"A question I have often pondered is how individual is an individual?"

The short answer is that if you feel that you're an individual, then you're an individual. If you see yourself as not being able to tolerate the idea that you are alone in this world (existential angst) and require the snugly comfort of being part of a greater organism then you're not an individual ... you belong to the "Borg". Of course there's the continuous transition between those who are individuals and those who are totally reliant on others for any sort of self image (i.e. social metaphysician).

"... the standards of value need to be controlled, if those humans are to work toward a common goal."
What common goal? Please define "it". Who determines �it�? What if some people don�t accept it? What will be the penalties if individuals don�t accept the controls? "My" goal is to live a happy, independent, self-actualizing, productive life, free of fear, want and compulsion and I will resist those who would attempt to deter me.

Individuals look to finding material prosperity by pursuing their selfish interests and thus the (ostensible) "common goal" of prosperity for the country is accomplished by the "invisible hand" of capitalism. By me, and others like me, pursuing our individual interests, my projection of what a common goal of society is can be accomplished. Either you don't understand, or don't accept these premises.

Post 9

Friday, December 5, 2003 - 10:32am

I was speaking almost entirely hypothetically, presenting an hypotheses.

'it' is the goal of those in charge, the leaders of a society. This was in the context explained below.

When I said the value systems need to be controlled, I was talking in the context of a system like communism, where the goals of the state supersede the goals on the individual, since one of the fundamentals is that people are worth what they can contribute.

At no point did I express solidarity with that idea, or any such similar system.

You defensive reply wasn't a surprise, though. As I have often said, belief in one theory shouldn't exclude thought in other directions.

We should be able to discuss other theories hypothetically.

If Vladimir wishes, I would be interested to know, in his opinion as leader of the Military Technocrat party, and having mentioned plans for a new society, what his thoughts about communism are.

To what degree did it prove to be sucessful, and how would 'his' new society improve upon the old communist ideal.

Note again I do not express solidarity with this new type of society.

Post 10

Friday, December 5, 2003 - 12:17pm

According to you, you don't express solidarity with communism or any other such system but you want to discuss them, hypothetically. Why, unless you think there might be some value in their principles? Do you think that participants in this board haven't heard all the possible arguments in favor of socialism or communism ad infinitum in the media from the time we were children? Do you possibly think that you have some new thoughts that can legitimize socialism?

Why do you think we populate this discussion group?

Post 11

Friday, December 5, 2003 - 12:29pm

vertigo, I have no problem discussing collectivist ideologies and their principles. But if you think there is merit in them, and should be reconsidered for some hidden, previously underdeveloped ideal, you're going to be disappointed.

J

Post 12

Saturday, December 6, 2003 - 2:50am

to Nate:

"""First off, I am curious as to how you quantitatively measure intelligence, of individuals and of collectives. You even go so far as to quote an estimate of how much more intellectual your proposed society will be in relation to the average human intellect. What do these numbers mean, and how do you get them?"""

You ask this question because you are most likely not familiar with Soviet school of cybernetic analysis and theory of invention. Intelligence was measured based on exchange of information inside the system. This methods were previously used to measure intelligence of animals and even plants, it is strange that you are not familiar with them. You can say that one cannot measure such important factor as creativity, but you will be wrong. Soviets invented theory of creativity, which had many applied forms, one of them is TRIZ. So, based on theory of creativity and mathematical measurement of information exchange inside the system, we made complex "intellect-creativity test". It is very important part of our political program, because we are fighting to make such tests mandatory for those who want to take goverment posts.

"""Individuals are imortant because, whether you like it or not, they will ultimately be the basis of any society, even a super-colletive society like yours."""

I agree. Just like cells are basis of any organism.

"""Accordingly, I believe that society should be built from the point of view of individuals and not vice versa."""

Unfortunately, I cannot see logic in your words. The fact that any system is formed by its components doesn't mean these components must have as much freedom as possible. Different situations require different levels of freedom.

"""Communism (as I'm sure you're aware) was an attempt at building a society from the top down. Look what happened to that."""

Because I live in Russia, and have much statistical and technical information about Soviet Union, I can see results of Soviet Communism. Fall of Soviet Union started when leaders dismantled plan system. There was no crisis before Perestroika, Perestroika ITSELF was crisis. And by the way, nature of Perestroika is giving more freedom to individuals. If there would be no Perestroika, it would Western Bloc, not Soviet Union, which would collapse.

Besides, Soviet Communism gave birth to so many fantastic technologies, that we don't need any new technologies in order to:
1.Control 100% of commerical space launch market
2.Control 80-90% of electronics market
3.Control 60% of sattelite navigation market
...and so on...

We created sort of "business-plan" to be used by our goverment and corporations after Military-Technocratic Party takes power in Russia in 2008. It is based on Soviet technologies, and by 2024 we plan to become the ONLY economical and military superpower on Earth. At least that is what maths tell us.

"""Surely as the Supreme Chairman of Russian Military-Technocratic Party, you must realise that the complexity of the human brain is far beyond anything we can replicate with computers at the present time."""

By forming distributed network based on large computer networks, like Internet and its Russian counterparts, we can make system which will be much more complex than human mind. The bad side is that it won't have right software.

So, we have choosen interesting way: we are working on self-replicating virus-like computer programs that are able to change themselves during replication. According to laws of evolution, these programs can evolve to level of human intelligence and even overcome them.

"""I do not see how your statement that humans are merely programmed entities is anything more than faith."""

Faith? You mean, you deny the fact that human brain is nothing more than complex protein-based computer?

"""Interesting that you don't place "political party" into that mix. You don't think that your party is merely a social group?"""

Yes, party is merely a social group. Our party is just INSTRUMENT of reaching our goals. Nothing more.

"""I'd say that an individual is pretty easy to objectively define. Hell, I'm one of 'em. So are you. In what way is your party more objective than this?"""

Well, what tells you that I am individual, and not a group of people, for example? What tells you that I wrote these messages alone? Your method of definition is unscientific.

"""You seem to equate objectivity and some law of thermodynamics here.......Not to mention the fact that you seem to equate politics with philosophy here. """

Theory of systems is universal - it can be applied to physical categories, biological categories, human individuals, societies, philosophies - any SYSTEMS.

"""(1) George Washington Carver's technique of using peanuts to refertilize nitrogen-depleted crops. This seems not to be related to the military at all."""

Yes, it is not related to the military.

"""(2) Henry Ford's invention of mass assembly, which was first used to assemble his Model T cars, and only later used for military purposes."""

Yes, that was one of few inventions that were effective without previous tests.

"""(3) Jack Kilby's invention of the microchip, which was only put to military applications some time after its invention."""

You are wrong here. Microchips were brought to civilian mass-production only after the way of purification of component materials was found. It was found after gaining EXPERIENCE OF EXPLOITATION, which was only after microchips were put to military use. First microchips were very expensive, but they had one thing that make them great for military use - small size. That was crucial for targeting systems in missiles and jets.

"""Of couse some (I would concede even most) modern technology is developed strictly for military reasons, but it is folly to suggest that all technology is so developed."""

I agree. I do NOT claim that military competition is the only way of advancing progress, I claim that it is BEST AND FASTEST way of advancing progress.

Vladimir,
Supreme Chairman of Russian Military-Technocratic Party

Post 13

Saturday, December 6, 2003 - 3:27am

"...Fall of Soviet Union started when leaders dismantled plan system. There was no crisis before Perestroika, Perestroika ITSELF was crisis...."

Oh yeah. Because the Soviet Union was doing SO well before Perestroika. What's your measure of "no crisis"? Midnight raids into your family's home? Oppression of thought and speech? Millions dead, dying, or wishing for death?

It seems "Military Technocrats" are above the slovenly antiquated ideas of personal property, liberty of the mind, and human life.

But I think you're just fooling around with us, "Vlad".

Post 14

Saturday, December 6, 2003 - 5:02pm

Look, Vladmir.

I agree with you that the level of specialization and intricacy required to do anything technological makes it improbable if not impossible to develop new technology. Working together is becoming more and more of an issue because we are discovering more and more about the world. As you say, an individual can only know so much because we do have limited brains.

However, you make the jump from "a collective approach is the most efficient way to develop technology" to "a collective aproach is the best way to solve every problem in life." I don't see why we need to "submit part of one's free will to the collective," as you say, to develop better technology. Applying this kind of reasoning to politics would prove disastrous.

In fact, one of the reasons the US Constitution was drafted so that it -was- nearly impossible to pass a law is to make the government as clumsy, inefficient and -untyrranical- as possible. A totally efficient government might do wonders waging war and developing new technology, but have you stopped to think about what it might do to you?

Nate

Post 15

Saturday, December 6, 2003 - 5:08pm

Let me correct a typo in the first paragraph of my last post:

I agree with you that the level of specialization and intricacy required to do anything technological makes it improbable if not impossible to develop new technology [without working in some kind of group].

Nate

Post 16

Tuesday, December 9, 2003 - 11:19am

to Jeremy:

"""Oh yeah. Because the Soviet Union was doing SO well before Perestroika. What's your measure of "no crisis"?"""

Well, crisis started in late 1985, when Gorbachev came to power.

Let's analyze all parts of Soviet life.

In 1985 year Soviet Union had enough resources for Soviet Army.

By 1982, Soviet troops completely controlled one third of Earth surface, 24 countries and 40% of population of Earth.

In 1977 Soviet Union started installing 440 state-of-the-art intermediate-range nuclear missiles, aimed at Europe and Japan. Americans were forced to spend much money on placing their own intermediate-range missiles in Europe. However, newest Soviet SAM and anti-missile systems, installed in early 1980ies, rendered this missiles USELESS.

Let's check Soviet nuclear arsenal. By middle of 1986 year, USSR had 1410 ground-based strategic missiles. America had only 1017 missiles, France had only 20. Soviet Union had 944 submarine-based strategic missiles, while United States had only 648, England had only 64 and France had only 64 too.

From 1955 to 1991 year Soviet Union produced 242 nuclear-powered submarines. ALL OTHER COUNTRIES ALL TOGETHER, INCLUDING AMERICA produced much less - 221.

Well, maybe Soviet Union had bad ground force? No. It succeeded in mass-production of T-72 family of tanks. In 1982, these tanks easily crushed their American and Israeli counterparts in Lyban, taking almost no loses in tank-to-tank fights. However, the campaign was lost because Soviet allies who used these tanks refused to use Soviet-made counters for "anti-anti-air" defence.

So, in 1985, Soviet Union had 62.000 of such tanks, while entire America had 17.000 tanks, most of them were useless junk like M60!

Well, it was plain stupid to start even CONVENTIONAL war against Soviet Union. American military experts said, that it was IMPOSSIBLE to defeat Soviet CONVENTIONAL forces without mass-use of nuclear weaponry.

Now, let's see CIVILIAN SECTOR.

Soviet Union had best education system in the world. Period. Any man who graduated Moscow Goverment Technology University, for example, is accepted by large technological companies of America without tests. "You finished MGTU? You are in!"

AND THIS SUPERIOR EDUCATION SYSTEM WAS ABSOLUTELY FREE!!!

Health care? ABSOLUTELY FREE!!!

Healthy food? ALMOST AS CHEAP AS FREE (cost loaf of bread in 1985 was 20 copecks)!!!

Sports? Training? Recreation? Clubs? ABSOLUTELY FREE!!!

OH! YES! BY THE WAY! Soviet Union abandoned coupon-based distribution two years after WW2, 1947 (it returned only AFTER Perestroika). "Glorious capitalist" Britain abandanod them only in second part of 1950ies!!! Ha-ha! What economy was in better shape now?

And the most interesting thing is that WHILE AMERICA ROBBED OTHER "LESS-DEVELOPED" CAPITALIST COUNTRIES, MAKING PROFIT, SOVIET UNION WAS NOT MAKING ANY PROFIT ON SOCIALIST COUNTRIES, HE MADE HUGE TRANSFERS OF MONEY, TECHNOLOGY AND WEAPONS ABSOLUTELY FREE, IN TRADITION OF INTERNATIONAL FRIENDSHIP.

Well, and now let's see real economy - production of goods. The trick is that Soviet Union WAS SELF-SUFFICIENT, while United States, WAS NOT SELF-SUFFICIENT. It wasn't able to produce EVEN HALF of what Soviet Union was able to produce! America just bought goods on international market, paying for them with green paper, I mean with dollars.

In all ways, Soviet Union was in brilliant shape, much better than America was. If hard-liners took power and dethroned Gorbachev, America would not see 2000 year. But, well, it is just my humble opinion as mathematician, economist, financist and technologist.

"""Midnight raids into your family's home?"""

Systematic midnight raids were only practised in Stalin era, when Stalin was working hard to uproot subversive elements. It was crude, dirty, but necessary work.

"""Oppression of thought and speech?"""

Ha! Look who is talking! Have you forgot McCarthism? Have you forgot "witch hunt"? Have you forgot how Britain and America denied people in work and emigration?

"""Millions dead"""

Well, according to Walcom Group, Inc., Soviet Union killed only 700.000 persons for political reasons. Of course, that doesn't include millions of Nazi troopers, killed by glorious Red Army, saving your Western ass!

"""dying, or wishing for death?"""

Who was dying or wishing for death? Healthcare was free, food was almost free, there were no organised crime and poverty. Who was dying? Oh, yes, there was criminals, murderers, bandits who were working in labor camps, but in late Soviet Union almost none of them died.

"""It seems "Military Technocrats" are above the slovenly antiquated ideas of personal property, liberty of the mind, and human life."""

You are correct. These ideas are anti-scientific. You consider this ideas to be "natural rights of human", but we claim that HUMAN DOES NOT HAVE ANY NATURAL RIGHTS! Personal property can be nationalised if it is expedient. Using our latest Russian technologies we can gradually "scan" thoughts of target human without even letting him know (so-called "hidden interrogation system"), violating liberty of mind. Human life? If war comes and we will be forced to send our soldiers to certain death, we will do it.

Only expediency of System (civilization) matters.

Post 17

Tuesday, December 9, 2003 - 11:24am

to Nate:

"""However, you make the jump from "a collective approach is the most efficient way to develop technology" to "a collective aproach is the best way to solve every problem in life." """

I never said that! Many problems must be solved individually.

Do you know our favourite slogan? It is: "Trust your FRIENDS. Trust your MACHINERY. Trust YOURSELF."

"Trust YOURSELF" - something you won't expect from primitive collectivistic socialists, eh?

The second slogan, "Za Budusheye!" (can be translated either "Go Future!" or "For Future!") is sort of "ritual greeting" we use to identify who is one of us.

We pay much attention to developing independant individuals. Man must be intellectually independant, he must be able to face problems one-on-one. BUT he must value survival of his civilization HIGHER than survival of himself, he MUST be able to follow orders of those who are more informed and intelligent.

"""In fact, one of the reasons the US Constitution was drafted so that it -was- nearly impossible to pass a law is to make the government as clumsy, inefficient and -untyrranical- as possible. A totally efficient government might do wonders waging war and developing new technology, but have you stopped to think about what it might do to you?"""

Well, I do not care. I care that part of myself, manifistated in civilization I belong to, must survive. Fate of my body is not important. Ideas matter. Bodies do not.

Post 18

Tuesday, December 9, 2003 - 3:00pm

Vlad, you're either seriously insane, or messing around. Either way, I'm laughing my Western ass off.

Post 19

Tuesday, December 9, 2003 - 3:37pm