Capitalism/Neo-Conservativism/Neo-Liberalism vs. Socialism or Democratic Socialism

[PoliticalChic]

Marx had a program to prepare people for communism called Scientific Socialism. It was tried by the USSR for a couple of years and dropped. A few years later the USSR dropped communism, Communism never worked but some people used the name to have a revolution and convert a nation to some type of economic and political program they called communism, that had no connection to Marx.
The Republicans did profit, however with the word Socialism, convincing a number of people that socialism leads to communism. It has been a Godsend to the Republican party. It didn't work on Social Security, however. I wonder how many people still believe Social Security will turn America into a communist nation?

"Marx had a program to prepare people for communism called Scientific Socialism."


Marx had a program to prepare people for communism called genocide.

It is the hallmark of every totalitarian view:Communists, Nazis, Fascists, Liberals, Progressives, and socialists....

1. "Early socialists publically advocated genocide, in the 19th and 20th centuries. It first appeared in Marx's journal, Rheinishe Zeitung, in January of 1849. When the socialist class war happens, there will be primitive societies in Europe, two stages behind- not even capitalist yet- the Basques, the Bretons, the Scottish Highlanders, the Serbs, and others he calls 'racial trash,' and they will have to be destroyed because, being two stages behind in the class struggle, it will be impossible to bring them up to being revolutionary." George Watson, Historian, Cambridge University.

a. "The classes and races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way...they must perish in the revolutionary holocaust." Karl Marx, People's Paper, April 16, 1856, Journal of the History of Idea, 1981

b. "Before Marx, no other European thinker advocated racial extermination. He was the first." George Watson.




2. "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky


3. Alas....Roosevelt only got as far as concentration camps.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So you'd rather pay for ER care for the poor, with no preventive medicine?

So what was the USSR, and Cuba today?

I'd rather the 'poor' pay for themselves.

Socialist. As described in the Communist Manifesto, a Communist society has no currency, no social classes, and no government. Everyone is completely equal. That doesn't describe Cuba, Germany, OR the USSR. Those systems were considered "Mess-ups" and the Socialists tried to distance themselves from them by calling them Communism.

Lots of things in the manifesto didn't work out lol. The whole world called them communists. What do you call them lol? You're just being a pain. What do you call the system in Scandinavia? Ay caramba.

Taxes are not stealing. It's the price of citizenship. Let the poor suffer? Enjoy hell.

Of course they didn't, Socialism inherently cannot work, the key components prevent it from functioning. Carl Marx defined Communism, and unless a Nation fits the definition, it's not Communism. In fact, the USSR fits EVERY component of the definition for Socialism as described by Carl Marx. If it fulfills every criteria, then it's obviously Socialism.

Then what would you call taking someone's position against their will? Hmm?

Nobody is obligated to help someone in need, it's called free will. When the government takes someone's money and gives it to someone, regardless of how well off they are, it's thievery. Socialism by definition advocates thievery. In a Capitalist society, everyone has equal opportunity to succeed, and if someone doesn't, it's on them. Everyone also has equal opportunity to recover from their mess-ups, and if they don't that's also on them. This is the real world, nobody is obligated to help, and nobody should be forced to.

The gov't of the old EU, NZ, and Canada etc etc work great. That's socialism, and it works fine. You appear to be a barbarian lol. The way a society takes care for their unfortunate is how they are judged. You will be too. New BS GOP idiocy, that makes you a perfect dupe of the greedy idiot rich a-holle GOP...The world has changed since Karl Marx, dupe.

My 1960 World Book defines socialism as ALWAYS DEMOCRATIC and a (fairer) capitalism. You're in the cold war USA about 1952.

I can help!

Try this tome:

1. The Communists and their Marxist cousins, the Socialists,
have worked for revolution since the advent of the New Deal
twenty-one years ago by infiltrating government offices, labor
unions, schools and colleges, churches, radio and television,
the movies, the publishing business.

2. In an article on socialism in the Encyclopedia Britannica,
Prof. G. D. H. Cole, a leading theoretician and historian of
the British Labor Party, declares: The distinction between socialism as distinguished by various Labor and Socialist parties of Europe and the New World, and communism, as represented by the Russians and minority parties in other countries is one of tactics-and-strategy rather than one of objective.

Communism is indeed only socialism pursued by revolutionary means and making its revolutionary method a canon of faith...."

In The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels stated that
communist ends can be attained "only by the forcible overthrow
of all existing social conditions."

 

[PoliticalChic]

Marx had a program to prepare people for communism called Scientific Socialism. It was tried by the USSR for a couple of years and dropped. A few years later the USSR dropped communism, Communism never worked but some people used the name to have a revolution and convert a nation to some type of economic and political program they called communism, that had no connection to Marx.
The Republicans did profit, however with the word Socialism, convincing a number of people that socialism leads to communism. It has been a Godsend to the Republican party. It didn't work on Social Security, however. I wonder how many people still believe Social Security will turn America into a communist nation?

Communism would have survived without giant military spending. Paranoid, perhaps with good reason.

Gads, you're an imbecile.


Here's the only way communism survives:

Let's take, as an example, Naftly Frenkel, the man who made Stalin's gulags the "success" that they were.
And, of course, I mean "success," in the sense that that it destroyed millions...and gave rise to Hitler's concentration camps.


"Naftaly Aronovich Frenkel...was a Jewish Russian businessman and member of theSoviet secret police. Frenkel is best known for his role in the organisation of work in theGulag, starting from the forced labor camp of the Solovetsky Islands, which is recognised as one of the earliest sites of the Gulag.

He rose rapidly from prisoner to staff member on the strength of his proposal to the camp administration that they link inmates' food rations to their rate of production, the proposal known as nourishment scale (шкала питания).


The story goes that when he arrived at the camp [as a prisoner!] he found shocking disorganisation and waste of resources (both human and material): he promptly wrote a precise description of what exactly was wrong with every one of the camp's industries (including forestry, farming and brick-making).[6]

He placed the letter in the prisoners' 'complaints box' whence it was sent, as a curiosity, toGenrikh Yagoda the secret police bureaucrat who eventually became leader of the Cheka; it is said that Yagoda immediately demanded to meet with the letter's author.[6]Frenkel himself claimed that he was whisked off to Moscow to discuss his ideas with Joseph Stalin and Lazar Kaganovich, one of Stalin's henchmen.....records show that Frenkel met Stalin in the 1930s and was protected by Stalin during the Partypurge years;..." Naftaly Frenkel - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



a. "Frenkel's special talent for improving inmate work efficiency was quickly noticed by the camp officials there, and it was not long before he was ordered to explain his ideas and methods to Stalin personally. His main proposal was to link a prisoner's food ration, especially hot food, to his production, essentially substituting hunger for the knout as the main work incentive.


Frenkel had also observed that a prisoner's most productive work is usually done in the first three months of his captivity, after which he or she was in so debilitated a state thatthe output of the inmate population could be kept high only by removing (killing off) the exhausted prisoners and replacing them with fresh inmates. " The Gulag Communism s Penal Colonies Revisited



Oh.....gulags and useful idiots like you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'd rather the 'poor' pay for themselves.

Socialist. As described in the Communist Manifesto, a Communist society has no currency, no social classes, and no government. Everyone is completely equal. That doesn't describe Cuba, Germany, OR the USSR. Those systems were considered "Mess-ups" and the Socialists tried to distance themselves from them by calling them Communism.

Lots of things in the manifesto didn't work out lol. The whole world called them communists. What do you call them lol? You're just being a pain. What do you call the system in Scandinavia? Ay caramba.

Taxes are not stealing. It's the price of citizenship. Let the poor suffer? Enjoy hell.

Of course they didn't, Socialism inherently cannot work, the key components prevent it from functioning. Carl Marx defined Communism, and unless a Nation fits the definition, it's not Communism. In fact, the USSR fits EVERY component of the definition for Socialism as described by Carl Marx. If it fulfills every criteria, then it's obviously Socialism.

Then what would you call taking someone's position against their will? Hmm?

Nobody is obligated to help someone in need, it's called free will. When the government takes someone's money and gives it to someone, regardless of how well off they are, it's thievery. Socialism by definition advocates thievery. In a Capitalist society, everyone has equal opportunity to succeed, and if someone doesn't, it's on them. Everyone also has equal opportunity to recover from their mess-ups, and if they don't that's also on them. This is the real world, nobody is obligated to help, and nobody should be forced to.

The gov't of the old EU, NZ, and Canada etc etc work great. That's socialism, and it works fine. You appear to be a barbarian lol. The way a society takes care for their unfortunate is how they are judged. You will be too. New BS GOP idiocy, that makes you a perfect dupe of the greedy idiot rich a-holle GOP...The world has changed since Karl Marx, dupe.

My 1960 World Book defines socialism as ALWAYS DEMOCRATIC and a (fairer) capitalism. You're in the cold war USA about 1952.

Thievery is apparently fair. Unless it's being stolen from you, of course, right?

Exactly right!

Here is another of these geniuses:

" Occupy Wall Street Genius Says He’s Against “Private” Property, Not “Personal” Property
.... he wants to keep his iPad 2, naturally, and not share it with the shiftless vagrants fighting over access to one of the three Porta-Potties recently delivered to the now-evacuated camp site in lower Manhattan.

As Samantha Bee from The Daily Show reports, there’s an income “class” that has sprung up at Zuccotti Park: Those sporting the capitalist creations called Apple products as they set up their temporary latte corners, and those annoyingly banging on drum sets all day."
Occupy Wall Street Genius Says He's Against "Private" Property, Not "Personal" Property | Human Events

 

[Pumpkin Row]

You didn't, you didn't even read the comparisons. As usual, Socialists are allergic to facts. Good grief. No wonder you failures haven't learned a single thing throughout history.

Are you some sort of Manchurian Candidate for the right? Those links you provided comparing the US to Norway and US to Sweden actually prove my point. Thanks for doing so. Those economies are far superior to the US's...

Further proof you didn't read it. This just keeps getting sadder and sadder. I even paraphrased it for you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You didn't, you didn't even read the comparisons. As usual, Socialists are allergic to facts. Good grief. No wonder you failures haven't learned a single thing throughout history.

Are you some sort of Manchurian Candidate for the right? Those links you provided comparing the US to Norway and US to Sweden actually prove my point. Thanks for doing so. Those economies are far superior to the US's...

Further proof you didn't read it. This just keeps getting sadder and sadder. I even paraphrased it for you.

The inculcated will not change.
We simply need wait for them to die out, like the Southern Racist Democrats, the Dixiecrats, did.

 

[TheDude]

Do you think Democratic Socialism will always fail and Capitalism is always better or you think there is a inbetween position. I think positive of democratic socialism is welfare for the broad masses. There really arent any homeless in Austria like in America, there arent people who need to beg for donations to get a life important surgery etc. But the negative thing is the mass immigration which is huge cost, but I think in a small homogenous country it can work, where also the citizens are law abiding and disciplined and hard working but if there are many who have mentality they dont want to work but to leech it can get difficult. Also I think capitalism is based on one owns gaining of profit and aggravation of capital, but you cant eat capital, and there needs to be a limit, there needs to be other values driving our societies except ones own profit. so there needs to be some regulations in my opinion. Otherwise I support right to private property etc. and right to start and run a business etc . but with some regulations. Im not communist, Im democratic socialist.

You high?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Do you think Democratic Socialism will always fail and Capitalism is always better or you think there is a inbetween position. I think positive of democratic socialism is welfare for the broad masses. There really arent any homeless in Austria like in America, there arent people who need to beg for donations to get a life important surgery etc. But the negative thing is the mass immigration which is huge cost, but I think in a small homogenous country it can work, where also the citizens are law abiding and disciplined and hard working but if there are many who have mentality they dont want to work but to leech it can get difficult. Also I think capitalism is based on one owns gaining of profit and aggravation of capital, but you cant eat capital, and there needs to be a limit, there needs to be other values driving our societies except ones own profit. so there needs to be some regulations in my opinion. Otherwise I support right to private property etc. and right to start and run a business etc . but with some regulations. Im not communist, Im democratic socialist.

You high?

Seems we live in an age when Occam's Razor no longer applies.

Perhaps Hanlon's Razor applies...“”Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
...or drugs.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Socialists all over the world are giving their countries and their its wealth to strangers at such an alarming rate almost half feel like strangers in their own land and they have no money to buy weapons for ships they have built.....sounds wonderful

 

[regent]

Since the Constitution was ratified America has always had a mixture of socialism and capitalism.

Is this another of your attempts at a paean to Stalin's BFF, Franklin Roosevelt?

No it's simple history of the United States.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Since the Constitution was ratified America has always had a mixture of socialism and capitalism.

Is this another of your attempts at a paean to Stalin's BFF, Franklin Roosevelt?

No it's simple history of the United States.

Sigh.....seems I have to teach you again.

As Thomas Jefferson once wrote regarding the "general Welfare" clause:

To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml
http://www.founding.com/founders_library/pageID.2190/default.asp


It only remains to see if you are so dense that light bends around you.

 

[regent]

Since the Constitution was ratified America has always had a mixture of socialism and capitalism.

Is this another of your attempts at a paean to Stalin's BFF, Franklin Roosevelt?

No it's simple history of the United States.

Sigh.....seems I have to teach you again.

As Thomas Jefferson once wrote regarding the "general Welfare" clause:

To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml
http://www.founding.com/founders_library/pageID.2190/default.asp


It only remains to see if you are so dense that light bends around you.

"Private charities, as well as contributions to public purposes in proportion to every one's circumstances are certainly among the duties we owe to society." Jefferson

"Lliberty and charity ought to govern in all disputes." G. Washingrton

 

[PoliticalChic]

Since the Constitution was ratified America has always had a mixture of socialism and capitalism.

Is this another of your attempts at a paean to Stalin's BFF, Franklin Roosevelt?

No it's simple history of the United States.

Sigh.....seems I have to teach you again.

As Thomas Jefferson once wrote regarding the "general Welfare" clause:

To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml
http://www.founding.com/founders_library/pageID.2190/default.asp


It only remains to see if you are so dense that light bends around you.

"Private charities, as well as contributions to public purposes in proportion to every one's circumstances are certainly among the duties we owe to society." Jefferson

"Lliberty and charity ought to govern in all disputes." G. Washingrton

You need the word 'private' defined for you?
Seriously?

Take a gander at this:
"Americans are world's most charitable, top 1% provide 1/3rd of all donations
Americans are a charitable group, in fact the most generous in the world, according to the new Almanac of American Philanthropy.

The much maligned top 1 percent in the U.S. economy fork over one third of all donations made. Even in death.

"The wealthiest 1.4 percent of Americans are responsible for 86 percent of the charitable donations made at death," said the survey conducted by Public Opinion research."


https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2010&month=01

http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-generosity-of-america/

1. To begin with, charitable giving in America has never been the exclusive province of wealthy people. Throughout our history, Americans from all walks of life have given generously for charitable causes. Indeed, the most generous Americans today—the group that gives the most to charity as a proportion of their income—are the working poor.
2. Today, Americans voluntarily give over $30 billion a year to support higher education, and—thanks in part to philanthropy—America has the best colleges and universities in the world. Even our great flagship state universities depend on private contributions for much of their excellence.
3. Private charitable giving is also at the heart and soul of public discourse in our democracy. It makes possible our great think tanks, whether left, right or center. Name a great issue of public debate today: climate change, the role of government in health care, school choice, stem cell research, same-sex marriage. On all these issues, private philanthropy enriches debate by enabling organizations with diverse viewpoints to articulate and spread their message.
4. We usually hear about charity in the media when there is a terrible disaster. For example, after Hurricane Katrina, we heard about the incredible outpouring of private generosity that amounted to $6 billion. What gets less attention is that Americans routinely give that much to charity every week. Last year Americans gave $300 billion to charity. To put this into perspective, that is almost twice what we spent on consumer electronics equipment—equipment including cell phones, iPods and DVD players. Americans gave three times as much to charity last year as we spent on gambling and ten times as much as we spent on professional sports. America is by far the most charitable country in the world. There is no other country that comes close.

Sound like socialism to you?

 

[regent]

Since the Constitution was ratified America has always had a mixture of socialism and capitalism.

Is this another of your attempts at a paean to Stalin's BFF, Franklin Roosevelt?

No it's simple history of the United States.

Sigh.....seems I have to teach you again.

As Thomas Jefferson once wrote regarding the "general Welfare" clause:

To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml
http://www.founding.com/founders_library/pageID.2190/default.asp


It only remains to see if you are so dense that light bends around you.

"Private charities, as well as contributions to public purposes in proportion to every one's circumstances are certainly among the duties we owe to society." Jefferson

"Lliberty and charity ought to govern in all disputes." G. Washingrton

You need the word 'private' defined for you?
Seriously?

Take a gander at this:
"Americans are world's most charitable, top 1% provide 1/3rd of all donations
Americans are a charitable group, in fact the most generous in the world, according to the new Almanac of American Philanthropy.

The much maligned top 1 percent in the U.S. economy fork over one third of all donations made. Even in death.

"The wealthiest 1.4 percent of Americans are responsible for 86 percent of the charitable donations made at death," said the survey conducted by Public Opinion research."


https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2010&month=01

http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-generosity-of-america/

1. To begin with, charitable giving in America has never been the exclusive province of wealthy people. Throughout our history, Americans from all walks of life have given generously for charitable causes. Indeed, the most generous Americans today—the group that gives the most to charity as a proportion of their income—are the working poor.
2. Today, Americans voluntarily give over $30 billion a year to support higher education, and—thanks in part to philanthropy—America has the best colleges and universities in the world. Even our great flagship state universities depend on private contributions for much of their excellence.
3. Private charitable giving is also at the heart and soul of public discourse in our democracy. It makes possible our great think tanks, whether left, right or center. Name a great issue of public debate today: climate change, the role of government in health care, school choice, stem cell research, same-sex marriage. On all these issues, private philanthropy enriches debate by enabling organizations with diverse viewpoints to articulate and spread their message.
4. We usually hear about charity in the media when there is a terrible disaster. For example, after Hurricane Katrina, we heard about the incredible outpouring of private generosity that amounted to $6 billion. What gets less attention is that Americans routinely give that much to charity every week. Last year Americans gave $300 billion to charity. To put this into perspective, that is almost twice what we spent on consumer electronics equipment—equipment including cell phones, iPods and DVD players. Americans gave three times as much to charity last year as we spent on gambling and ten times as much as we spent on professional sports. America is by far the most charitable country in the world. There is no other country that comes close.

Sound like socialism to you?

Bless the rich that are charitable; bless the government for being charitable.

 

[francoHFW]

So you'd rather pay for ER care for the poor, with no preventive medicine?

So what was the USSR, and Cuba today?

I'd rather the 'poor' pay for themselves.

Socialist. As described in the Communist Manifesto, a Communist society has no currency, no social classes, and no government. Everyone is completely equal. That doesn't describe Cuba, Germany, OR the USSR. Those systems were considered "Mess-ups" and the Socialists tried to distance themselves from them by calling them Communism.

Lots of things in the manifesto didn't work out lol. The whole world called them communists. What do you call them lol? You're just being a pain. What do you call the system in Scandinavia? Ay caramba.

Taxes are not stealing. It's the price of citizenship. Let the poor suffer? Enjoy hell.

Of course they didn't, Socialism inherently cannot work, the key components prevent it from functioning. Carl Marx defined Communism, and unless a Nation fits the definition, it's not Communism. In fact, the USSR fits EVERY component of the definition for Socialism as described by Carl Marx. If it fulfills every criteria, then it's obviously Socialism.

Then what would you call taking someone's position against their will? Hmm?

Nobody is obligated to help someone in need, it's called free will. When the government takes someone's money and gives it to someone, regardless of how well off they are, it's thievery. Socialism by definition advocates thievery. In a Capitalist society, everyone has equal opportunity to succeed, and if someone doesn't, it's on them. Everyone also has equal opportunity to recover from their mess-ups, and if they don't that's also on them. This is the real world, nobody is obligated to help, and nobody should be forced to.

The gov't of the old EU, NZ, and Canada etc etc work great. That's socialism, and it works fine. You appear to be a barbarian lol. The way a society takes care for their unfortunate is how they are judged. You will be too. New BS GOP idiocy, that makes you a perfect dupe of the greedy idiot rich a-holle GOP...The world has changed since Karl Marx, dupe.

You obviously don't know what Socialism is if you're labeling Canada as such. Their industry is all privately owned, and Socialism by definition has all private industry owned by the government. Besides that, Canada ALSO has a worse economy than the United States, and their Healthcare system was so bad, until we destroyed ours, that they were actually coming to the US for OUR healthcare system.

As I stated earlier, New Zealand also has a worse economy than the United States, and the other Nordic Nations that supposedly have a working Socialist system ALSO have worse economies and are also working back towards Capitalism, because even they realize it doesn't work. I'm legitimately surprised, because usually Socialists aren't intelligent enough to learn from failures.

You see, I don't care how other Nations judge us, especially if they use your shallow perspective. "Oh, they let their people take care of themselves instead of babysitting them. How barbaric!". If these adult human beings can't take care of themselves, that's their own fault. A capitalist society is equal opportunity, and if they have no ambition or motivation, then it's their own fault that they fail, and others shouldn't be dragged down for their benefit. In a Socialist society, there's no incentive to take care of yourself, because the government does it for you, and that's one of the key reasons the ideology is worthless. Socialists make the assumption that human beings are too stupid and lazy to take care of themselves, and the fact is that if that is correct, then they don't deserve to live.

Sure, the world has changed, but economics hasn't. Economics will always be the same, and the constant failures of the Socialists will always be a reminder of that: Afghanistan(Twice), Albania(Three times), Angola, Benin, Bulgaria, Cambodia(Twice), Congo-Brazzaville, Czechoslovakia(twice), Ethiopia(twice), Germany, Hungary, North Korea, Mongolia, Mozambique, Poland, Romania, Somalia, Russia, North Vietnam, South Yemen, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, Greece.

That's COMMUNISM, dingbat, outside your tiny bubble. Socialism is ALWAYS democratic. Since about 1935, when the USSR was unmasked. The GOP loves you being a confused twit.

 

[francoHFW]

Social Security, like every Socialist policy, is inherently awful. Some people are just too confused to realize that.

And why is it awful? You sound like if you got brainwashed.

You sound like YOU got brainwashed. It's not the government's job to cover for failures. Every person should be able to make a living for themselves, and the government shouldn't be redistributing money from the successful to cover for those too lazy to help themselves.

I think nowadays people should work less and enjoy the benefits of a high tech society, instead of working more and harder etc. Sweden just introduced the 6 hours week while you in america have the least days off in the year do you think that doesnt affect your health, well being and quality of life? Sweden introduces a six hour work day

Unfortunately, the USA has the most ignorant and misinformed and duped voters in the modern world. Do Europeans know about Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and other radio hosts? That's where GOPers and independants get all this idiocy...

"Unfortunately, the USA has the most ignorant and misinformed and duped voters in the modern world."

That was certainly true in '08 and '12.

But they seem to have taken a quantum leap in educating themselves since.

All Trump had to do to take over the New BS GOP was parrot its bs propaganda. Now he's dumping you twits....Thanks also to Putin and Comey.
How Preservationists Hope to Get 114-Year-Old Steamship Running Up The Hudson River

 

[francoHFW]

Marx had a program to prepare people for communism called Scientific Socialism. It was tried by the USSR for a couple of years and dropped. A few years later the USSR dropped communism, Communism never worked but some people used the name to have a revolution and convert a nation to some type of economic and political program they called communism, that had no connection to Marx.
The Republicans did profit, however with the word Socialism, convincing a number of people that socialism leads to communism. It has been a Godsend to the Republican party. It didn't work on Social Security, however. I wonder how many people still believe Social Security will turn America into a communist nation?

Communism would have survived without giant military spending. Paranoid, perhaps with good reason.

Gads, you're an imbecile.


Here's the only way communism survives:

Let's take, as an example, Naftly Frenkel, the man who made Stalin's gulags the "success" that they were.
And, of course, I mean "success," in the sense that that it destroyed millions...and gave rise to Hitler's concentration camps.


"Naftaly Aronovich Frenkel...was a Jewish Russian businessman and member of theSoviet secret police. Frenkel is best known for his role in the organisation of work in theGulag, starting from the forced labor camp of the Solovetsky Islands, which is recognised as one of the earliest sites of the Gulag.

He rose rapidly from prisoner to staff member on the strength of his proposal to the camp administration that they link inmates' food rations to their rate of production, the proposal known as nourishment scale (шкала питания).


The story goes that when he arrived at the camp [as a prisoner!] he found shocking disorganisation and waste of resources (both human and material): he promptly wrote a precise description of what exactly was wrong with every one of the camp's industries (including forestry, farming and brick-making).[6]

He placed the letter in the prisoners' 'complaints box' whence it was sent, as a curiosity, toGenrikh Yagoda the secret police bureaucrat who eventually became leader of the Cheka; it is said that Yagoda immediately demanded to meet with the letter's author.[6]Frenkel himself claimed that he was whisked off to Moscow to discuss his ideas with Joseph Stalin and Lazar Kaganovich, one of Stalin's henchmen.....records show that Frenkel met Stalin in the 1930s and was protected by Stalin during the Partypurge years;..." Naftaly Frenkel - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



a. "Frenkel's special talent for improving inmate work efficiency was quickly noticed by the camp officials there, and it was not long before he was ordered to explain his ideas and methods to Stalin personally. His main proposal was to link a prisoner's food ration, especially hot food, to his production, essentially substituting hunger for the knout as the main work incentive.


Frenkel had also observed that a prisoner's most productive work is usually done in the first three months of his captivity, after which he or she was in so debilitated a state thatthe output of the inmate population could be kept high only by removing (killing off) the exhausted prisoners and replacing them with fresh inmates. " The Gulag Communism s Penal Colonies Revisited



Oh.....gulags and useful idiots like you.

That's COMMUNISM, stupid dupe. No one here is arguing for that. Socialism in the modern world is always democratic.

 

[francoHFW]

You didn't, you didn't even read the comparisons. As usual, Socialists are allergic to facts. Good grief. No wonder you failures haven't learned a single thing throughout history.

Are you some sort of Manchurian Candidate for the right? Those links you provided comparing the US to Norway and US to Sweden actually prove my point. Thanks for doing so. Those economies are far superior to the US's...

Further proof you didn't read it. This just keeps getting sadder and sadder. I even paraphrased it for you.

The inculcated will not change.
We simply need wait for them to die out, like the Southern Racist Democrats, the Dixiecrats, did.

They are now New BS GOPers. Like you. Ignorance seems to live on.

 

[francoHFW]

Socialists all over the world are giving their countries and their its wealth to strangers at such an alarming rate almost half feel like strangers in their own land and they have no money to buy weapons for ships they have built.....sounds wonderful

WTH?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I'd rather the 'poor' pay for themselves.

Socialist. As described in the Communist Manifesto, a Communist society has no currency, no social classes, and no government. Everyone is completely equal. That doesn't describe Cuba, Germany, OR the USSR. Those systems were considered "Mess-ups" and the Socialists tried to distance themselves from them by calling them Communism.

Lots of things in the manifesto didn't work out lol. The whole world called them communists. What do you call them lol? You're just being a pain. What do you call the system in Scandinavia? Ay caramba.

Taxes are not stealing. It's the price of citizenship. Let the poor suffer? Enjoy hell.

Of course they didn't, Socialism inherently cannot work, the key components prevent it from functioning. Carl Marx defined Communism, and unless a Nation fits the definition, it's not Communism. In fact, the USSR fits EVERY component of the definition for Socialism as described by Carl Marx. If it fulfills every criteria, then it's obviously Socialism.

Then what would you call taking someone's position against their will? Hmm?

Nobody is obligated to help someone in need, it's called free will. When the government takes someone's money and gives it to someone, regardless of how well off they are, it's thievery. Socialism by definition advocates thievery. In a Capitalist society, everyone has equal opportunity to succeed, and if someone doesn't, it's on them. Everyone also has equal opportunity to recover from their mess-ups, and if they don't that's also on them. This is the real world, nobody is obligated to help, and nobody should be forced to.

The gov't of the old EU, NZ, and Canada etc etc work great. That's socialism, and it works fine. You appear to be a barbarian lol. The way a society takes care for their unfortunate is how they are judged. You will be too. New BS GOP idiocy, that makes you a perfect dupe of the greedy idiot rich a-holle GOP...The world has changed since Karl Marx, dupe.

You obviously don't know what Socialism is if you're labeling Canada as such. Their industry is all privately owned, and Socialism by definition has all private industry owned by the government. Besides that, Canada ALSO has a worse economy than the United States, and their Healthcare system was so bad, until we destroyed ours, that they were actually coming to the US for OUR healthcare system.

As I stated earlier, New Zealand also has a worse economy than the United States, and the other Nordic Nations that supposedly have a working Socialist system ALSO have worse economies and are also working back towards Capitalism, because even they realize it doesn't work. I'm legitimately surprised, because usually Socialists aren't intelligent enough to learn from failures.

You see, I don't care how other Nations judge us, especially if they use your shallow perspective. "Oh, they let their people take care of themselves instead of babysitting them. How barbaric!". If these adult human beings can't take care of themselves, that's their own fault. A capitalist society is equal opportunity, and if they have no ambition or motivation, then it's their own fault that they fail, and others shouldn't be dragged down for their benefit. In a Socialist society, there's no incentive to take care of yourself, because the government does it for you, and that's one of the key reasons the ideology is worthless. Socialists make the assumption that human beings are too stupid and lazy to take care of themselves, and the fact is that if that is correct, then they don't deserve to live.

Sure, the world has changed, but economics hasn't. Economics will always be the same, and the constant failures of the Socialists will always be a reminder of that: Afghanistan(Twice), Albania(Three times), Angola, Benin, Bulgaria, Cambodia(Twice), Congo-Brazzaville, Czechoslovakia(twice), Ethiopia(twice), Germany, Hungary, North Korea, Mongolia, Mozambique, Poland, Romania, Somalia, Russia, North Vietnam, South Yemen, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, Greece.

That's COMMUNISM, dingbat, outside your tiny bubble. Socialism is ALWAYS democratic. Since about 1935, when the USSR was unmasked. The GOP loves you being a confused twit.

Communism doesn't exist. Again, Communism is a system with no government, no currency, and no social classes. None of those on the list fit the description. It's all socialism. The fact that you referred to every single failure as Communism only proves my point that Socialists are misusing the word to distance themselves from their failures, and the fact that you called Canada Socialist despite them lacking the components to be considered Socialist proves my point that you'll STRETCH the meaning in order to take credit for only the supposed "Successes". In doing so, you've only proven that you have no idea what Socialism is, and you have no idea what Communism is.

Communism's components are; Common ownership of the means of production and the absence of Social Classes, Money, and the State. In other words, completely equal society in every way imaginable. This system is impossible to implement, therefor Communists do not exist, and Communism is a system that has never been implemented and will never be implemented. Maybe THIS time it'll get through your thick skull.

Socialism's components are; Social control of the means of production and equity. A component shared among all of the Nations listed. Because they all implemented those components, they are therefor defined as Socialist. The fact that all of the above Socialist Nations failed does not change the fact that they are TEXTBOOK implementations of Socialist ideology and the components of Socialism. If you didn't want your ideology's historical failures to be pointed out every time you advocated it, you should have picked an Ideology that actually works.