[center][img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B8N6L5bIMAAhtap.jpg[/img]

[i]Marxism is always open, always critical, always self-critical.[/i] - Ernest Mandel

[/center]

[hr]

[i]"A fair day at work. Despite the rather simple request, to some it might seem a very far away and difficult situation to grasp. How many centuries had our ancestors, fathers and mothers, toiled away on farmlands? Barely living from day to day and yet being dominated by Kings, Tsars, Emperors and Dukes. This isn't to bad-mouth the times of the past - simply a reminder to the people, that life long ago had been much harder. While one can argue, a peasant wasn't much educated then to make choices that would best benefit him - one can also say, that the 'lord' had no incentive of educating the peasant either. Just three hundred years ago, the Industrial Revolution started and with it a larger push towards progress and equality all across the social classes. For Russia, this happened only two hundred years ago and with bitter resistance."[/i]

[i]"I ask many, how much do they work physically and mentally? How much do they create? How much time do they put into their work? How many times have they sacrificed their health for their work? After answering those questions, ask yourself this. How much are you paid and how much do you think you should be paid? Take the peasant for example - long ago, he was at the bottom of the social class. Poor and filthy. Yet, he produced the most important thing of that time - food for all. Thusly, one can agree that the peasant should be much more better off, than how he is. Sadly this isn't the case. Many times, we have workers of all shape and type - whom work hours upon hours, and are paid almost nothing. This is a notion, that is liable to be present in any country in the world - be they under a monarch, a democracy, a social republic or a communist one. It is rather easy to test for yourself. Ask the nearest person, how much do they earn and how much do they work."[/i]

[i]"I will stress this though. This isn't me calling the 'Workers to Revolt'. No, this is merely an observation of the status of our world. Violence, though necessary isn't the best tool to be utilized in seeking social progress. Oftentimes, it might lead to the destruction of what you are seeking. Nor am I asking for the 'Bourgeoisie' to be overthrown - one has to admit, that those same people are people, like the 'Proletariat'. Or in simply, there isn't much physical difference between a worker and an owner. It is, that problems arise when the Owner tries to utilize his Workers as tools and not as people. Trying to engage in 'Revolution' merely entails you to return the suffering back onto the Owner - namely starting a cycle of vengeance. A Bourgeoisie is a worker like the Proletariat - only they have decided to utilize their mental power over their physical one."[/i]

[i]"In my times, I have come to understand that while we are different. Each of us, have our own political, physical and mental differences. Same goes for the worker and the owner. One has decided to create income through risk, trial and his mind. While the other has decided to create his income through, labor, work and his body. Thus, trying to incite Revolution would in the long term, eliminate all great thinkers - leaving nothing but the ignorant and poor left. The worker and owner often times need each other, to work in unison would benefit both. To work against each other would benefit neither. A worker has taken the choice to work with his body - and thus has an obligation to both work yet also the right not to be exploited. An owner has taken the choice to work with his mind - and thus has the right to his share yet also the obligation to see his workers as people."[/i]

[i]"Achieving unity is a hard and constant progress - as both worker and owner, try to slowly grab more for themselves. In some cases, the owner has more power, in other cases it is the worker. I myself, do believe that lasting change can only be achieved through dialogue and cooperation. Violence only fosters resistance. For both the owner, whom would see his workers less as people - due to the damage caused to him. While the workers, will see the owners less as people - due to the damage caused to him, too. Both, need to admit the faults of the other and both have to make sacrifices for such a goal. But such a goal of synergy might have better results in trying to achieve the Communist Utopia - than violent social revolutions, that leave the state more broken and worse off with a system that is more oppressive than the old."[/i]

[hr]

Arkhangelsk was a rare city to be in, as it was officially part of Socialist Union - thus according to some of the more vocal socialistic states of the world - it would be void of any capitalist structure. But in all honesty, the opposite was true - while it was less prosperous than most capitalist states - it did have a system, that allowed even the lowest worker to have a somewhat decent standard of living and food in their belly, while not destroying trade entirely. It also helped to stimulate what little economy they had, in their region of the divided Russia. Plus, by nature the Union couldn't get everything they needed from within their own lands - thus they needed to trade with others and utilize some form of currency. 

The first eight years, took some time in setting up some form of a stable currency. It was difficult, as they had to build-up a basic building block of a state from scratch and then have it worth something. Nowadays, the ASU utilized a currency called [i]chevronets[/i] - namely a money that was begged to the gold standard. It was as good a thing as any, since it allowed them to trade and have their currency be worth something. Plus, it held a safety net for the people - in case things went awry, they had a way of of redeeming their worth. It wasn't the perfect system - but people could at least get by.

Thus was life Arkhangelsk - as it wasn't so much as they progressed, they merely lived. As far as things went, compared to the rest of Russia it was a good enough situation as any.