Why do you believe that the rich deserve 90% +

[Staidhup]

A person is entitled to receive the fruits of their God given talents and labor, to save, enjoy, pass on or whatever they wish. How could anyone subscribe to the notion that one’s freedom to choose how they live and what they do with their money is of concern to the government? The government is of and for the people not the people as servants to the government. If one thinks otherwise then return to serfdom and cast system of Europe or Asia.

 

[TruthNotBS]

I'm just responding to what you typed: "The government is a social apparatus, organized by the people, to manage their large-scale socioeconomic projects and civil affairs."

I disagree with your characterization of the purpose of government. Seems pretty central to the argument to me.

I prefer freedom.

Forced? By whom? "We the people"?

"Precise and clear"? Stow the pedantic posturing or we're done.

You claimed I want people to "be at the mercy of greedy capitalists", among other things. You're either a mind reader, or you have some other reason to make that statement. I was inviting you to support your claim with quotes. Did you find any? Or did you fail?

You claimed "You don't know what communism actually is, only what you were told by your capitalist masters and a government run by capitalists during the Cold War."

That's pretty empty, as an argument goes. How did you decide that I don't know what communism is??


Looks like you're confusing me with one of your other discussions here.

I do likewise. You wanna be a prick, I can be one right back. But I like to shoot for more worthwhile exchanges.

My biggest beef with communism, or socialism, is the reliance on majority rule. I'm just not a fan. In general, majority rule is a terrible way to make decisions in society, and should be limited to circumstances where it's truly necessary. Otherwise, people should be free to sort things out for themselves.

From what I've seen, communists, socialists, etc .., especially as expressed by guise of modern "Democratic Socialists", want far more majority rule than I'm comfortable with. Notably, they want our economic decisions to be "democratic", but most write ups also suggest that all, or most, social decisions should be decided democratically.

I don't agree. Forcing everyone to conform to the will of the majority should only be employed, or tolerated, when it's vital for us all to be on the same page. Most of the time, it isn't. Most of the time, freedom is better.

I'm just responding to what you typed: "The government is a social apparatus, organized by the people, to manage their large-scale socioeconomic projects and civil affairs."

How does that translate into what you said about an oppressive, totalitarian dictatorship? You're unable to comprehend what you read if from the above statement you inferred a "totalitarian regime". I was clear about the need for democracy or the rule of the people through elections or worker-councils (soviets).

I disagree with your characterization of the purpose of government. Seems pretty central to the argument to me.

Looking at how you misinterpreted my definition of government, you don't know what you're disagreeing with. You're creating strawmen of what I meant.

I prefer freedom.

Me too, but capitalism isn't that, especially when technology significantly reduces or eliminates wage labor.

Forced? By whom? "We the people"?

Hit the ballot box.

"Precise and clear"? Stow the pedantic posturing or we're done.

If you're going to accuse someone of something at least have the courtesy to explain why clearly. Stop making vague statements.

You claimed I want people to "be at the mercy of greedy capitalists", among other things. You're either a mind reader, or you have some other reason to make that statement. I was inviting you to support your claim with quotes. Did you find any? Or did you fail?

I cite facts; if you fail to address them, that's your failure, not mine.

You claimed "You don't know what communism actually is, only what you were told by your capitalist masters and a government run by capitalists during the Cold War." That's pretty empty, as an argument goes. How did you decide that I don't know what communism is??

By the stupid shit that you say.

Looks like you're confusing me with one of your other discussions here.

You're the one who's confused.

I do likewise. You wanna be a prick, I can be one right back. But I like to shoot for more worthwhile exchanges.

I already made my points and presented my claims. Go ahead, debunk them.

My biggest beef with communism, or socialism, is the reliance on majority rule. I'm just not a fan.

Do you prefer minority rule? Rule of a small elitist class? You said earlier that you're for freedom, and now you're against the rule of the people over their government, through elections?

In general, majority rule is a terrible way to make decisions in society, and should be limited to circumstances where it's truly necessary. Otherwise, people should be free to sort things out for themselves.

You want to get rid of the government, is that what you mean? At the moment what you're saying sounds like gibberish. Gobbledygook. The government should be under the heel of the people, through their worker-councils or "soviets". In a democratic socialist society, people have the right to elect their delegates into Congress and the nation's "commissar" or president. They can also recall a delegate or any other government official, for incompetence or corruption.

If we relied on democracy here in America right now, this is what would happen. We wouldn't be sending billions of dollars in weapons to Ukraine, Israhell or Saudi Arabia. We wouldn't still be in Iraq, and Syria nor would we have 700 military bases and installations around the world. All of our Empire's saber-rattling would stop. All Americans and legal residents would have their "Economic Bill Of Rights", ensuring everyone in our society, has the human-right, to food, easy access to at least basic housing, healthcare, education, and a job in the public sector. If we lived in a democracy, we wouldn't have this:

​

And we wouldn't have this:

​

People would make more money, and the cost of living would be lower. We would have more advanced, developed public infrastructure. Better public transit, like bullet trains, less automobile traffic and pollution..etc. We would be using clean, safe nuclear energy, rather than burning coal for electricity. More of our government's money would go into researching and developing new technology, cures for serious diseases..etc.

In other words, we would be much better off, if the majority of Americans ruled over their government rather than a small cabal of capitalist elitists, who only care about their profits and power. They don't care if America gets flushed down the latrine, they have dual citizenship and homes abroad.

Listen to Carlin:

​

From what I've seen, communists, socialists, etc .., especially as expressed by guise of modern "Democratic Socialists", want far more majority rule than I'm comfortable with. Notably, they want our economic decisions to be "democratic", but most write ups also suggest that all, or most, social decisions should be decided democratically.​

​

Marxists don't believe that ALL DECISIONS must be democratic. We elect our leaders and then they make decisions. They may sometimes make decisions we don't like but that doesn't necessarily justify us electing someone else to replace them. Our form of democracy respects its leaders and we don't rebel against someone we elect into office unless there's obvious incompetence and corruption.

At the worker-council level, a committee would be organized to examine the charges against a delegate (i.e. government official), and if the committee determines that there is serious incompetence and corruption, that delegate is recalled and an election is held for the person that will replace them. If the committee rules against the recall, the people can actually form their own committee and replace the people in the committee, with their own people, who are for the recall. There's a legal process within the worker council to do that.

Communism as laid out by Karl Marx, Engels, and Lenin before 1918 (i.e. before the great war following the October Revolution of 1917), was much more democratic than what we have here in the United States right now. Soviet Communism stopped being truly soviet, in the 1920s, due to the US, UK, France and 10 other countries invading Soviet Russia. Over a quarter million foreign troops, invaded the Soviets and led to a "centralization of democracy", in other words, less democracy. There was still democracy in the USSR even during Stalin's era, but it was significantly less than the original Soviet plan, which was the rule of the working class, through worker-councils or "soviets".

I don't agree. Forcing everyone to conform to the will of the majority should only be employed, or tolerated, when it's vital for us all to be on the same page. Most of the time, it isn't. Most of the time, freedom is better.

There's no freedom in chaos. Democracy or rule of the majority is the best we can do right now. However, let me explain to you what the purpose and final objective of communism is. You seem not to be aware of it. You sound like an anarchist, and I agree with the anarchist on many issues. I read all of them, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman, you name it. We Marxist-Leninist communists want exactly the same thing that the anarchists do, we just have a different way of achieving it. Ever heard of the Marxist-Engelic concept of the "withering away of the state"?

[URLunfurl="true"]Withering away of the state - Wikipedia

Notice, how Wikipedia has the "withering away of the state", under Marxism. WOW! Who would know that Marxist communists, like me, want to eliminate state power, and hand everything to the individual consumer?

Communism in general, is defined as:

"A communist society would entail the absence of private property and social classes,[1] and ultimately money[6] and the state (or nation state).[7][8][9]"

There's a distinction between "private" and "personal" property, incase you didn't know that. Private property is that which is being used to exploit others for profit. That's a simple definition of private property. Personal property is everything you own, which you're not using to exploit people for a profit. You're not reducing people to the means of production, to a commodity in a "labor market". Your property is just for your personal use and the use of your family, and friends. Understand?

Again to reiterate, communism is: A society without a state, socioeconomic classes or the need for money.

There are two communisms according to Marx and Engels. The original, primitive, low-tech communism of our ancestors (No state, no socioeconomic classes, no need for money):

And "high-communism"/ high-tech communism (No state, no socioeconomic classes, no need for money, just like our hunter-gatherer ancestors):

​

Democratic Socialism is the initial process of a communist society, that leads to not having a state, socioeconomic classes, or the need for money.

How will humanity rid itself of coercive human relationships (among adults, because children need the "coercive" guidance and leadership of their parents)? Through a socialist, democratic government that empowers the people with advanced technology.

What advanced technology will provide the individual consumer with the option of not needing state-developed and maintained infrastructure, goods, and services?

It's the type of advanced technology that is now being developed, thanks to powerful computers, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, atomic precision manufacturing, the micronization of nuclear energy production, advanced fission and fusion reactors..etc. We're heading into a new world, where the individual consumer, can produce EVERYTHING that they consume, without a capitalist or the state. You will generate your own electricity, you will draw water from the air, you will produce your own food, clothing, healthcare, transportation, education..etc, you name it.

Yes, even your own healthcare. AI, robots, nano-tech.

​

You won't need me, or your other neighbor, or the human specialist and technician, or anyone else.

In the future, thanks to advanced technology, people will be more mobile, able to move, travel, explore, and live in practically any environment. Most people won't want to "settle down", living in one fixed place, they'll rather make their personally owned mode of transportation, whatever that might be, their home. You can live alone as a hermit, with your robots, on some deserted asteroid somewhere, or you can choose to live in a community (i.e. a colony):

​

That's the header image on my profile. A sea colony, with both surface and underwater facilities. Here are other types of communities:

All human relationships between adults will be 100% consensual. You and I don't like the "community administration" that we are living under, because they're becoming intrusive and heavy-handed, so you with your family, and myself, with my family, leave. We have our own mode of transportation, allowing us to move, travel, explore..etc, and we take all of our technology with us. We would never join a community that requires us to give our personal property (including technology assets), to an "administration", a colonial government. We would never join that community, so we have all our personal property and we get out of there.

Now tell me, how the hell will a dictator or king, ever become a tyrant when people can just pack up and go? It's impossible, for anyone to be a freaking dictator, under those conditions. As soon as the leader of the community becomes a heavy-handed, oppressive retard, everyone leaves. Bye-bye, see yah. There's a type of market for governments and colonies. Colonies might compete for members and the way they become attractive to completely independent people is by respecting people's FREEDOM. Those become the most successful colonies. The most civil, freedom-loving, democratic (choosing who's part of the administration)

Again, we communists want what you anarchists and libertarians want, but we just have a different way of achieving it. We see socialism as a vital element in our path to individual freedom.

 

[TruthNotBS]

List its biggest successes.

Awakening the masses to what is possible. Your disingenuous interpretation of history, pretending socialism hasn't accomplished anything is absurd. We wouldn't have labor unions, a 40-hour work week, Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicare, Medicaid..A long list of benefits that were pushed through by leftists. The Todds were shouting "Communism! Communism! Privatize everything! The hell with the working class, let them suffer, place all of the nation's assets in the hands of rich assholes like me!"....

You would be speaking German or Japanese if not for the USSR.

 

[TruthNotBS]

A person is entitled to receive the fruits of their God given talents and labor, to save, enjoy, pass on or whatever they wish. How could anyone subscribe to the notion that one’s freedom to choose how they live and what they do with their money is of concern to the government? The government is of and for the people not the people as servants to the government. If one thinks otherwise then return to serfdom and cast system of Europe or Asia.

That's what capitalism leads to, serfdom. Techno-feudalism.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Awakening the masses to what is possible. Your disingenuous interpretation of history, pretending socialism hasn;t accomplished anything is absurd. We wouldn't have labor unions, a 40-hour work week, Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicare, Medicaid..A long list of benefits that were pushed through by leftists. The Todds were shouting "Communism! Communism! Privatize everything! The hell with the working class, let them suffer, place all of the nation's assets in the hands of rich assholes like me!"....

You would be speaking German or Japanese if not for the USSR.

So, no commie successes? I'm shocked!

 

[TruthNotBS]

Commies had all the public funds.
Tell us about all the awesome commie companies.
What are your 3 favorite commie products?
Trabants?

All of that money should go to building infrastructure, fuck Todd. You already have your mansion and fleet of Ferraris. You'll do just fine.

 

[TruthNotBS]

So, no commie successes? I'm shocked!

You have a reading comprehension problem. Communism is the inevitable successor of capitalism.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

All of that money should go to building infrastructure, fuck Todd. You already have your mansion and fleet of Ferraris. You'll do just fine.

Commies must have some awesome infrastructure!

List the best commie infrastructure.

Besides Chernobyl.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You have a reading comprehension problem. Communism is the inevitable successor of capitalism.

Right. Because technology. Which commies famously suck at.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Awakening the masses to what is possible. Your disingenuous interpretation of history, pretending socialism hasn;t accomplished anything is absurd. We wouldn't have labor unions, a 40-hour work week, Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicare, Medicaid..A long list of benefits that were pushed through by leftists. The Todds were shouting "Communism! Communism! Privatize everything! The hell with the working class, let them suffer, place all of the nation's assets in the hands of rich assholes like me!"....

You would be speaking German or Japanese if not for the USSR.

Russians would all be speaking German, if it weren't for the US beating Stalin's ally Hitler.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Right. Because technology. Which commies famously suck at.

No shithead, because communism doesn't need wage-labor, hence is 100% compatible with advance automation and artificial intelligence. Capitalists inherited plenty of technology that was developed before capitalism, so your argument is stupid. Like most of the stupid shit that comes out of your keyboard.

1. Technological and Scientific Advancements​

• Space Exploration: The Soviet Union was a pioneer in space technology during the Cold War, achieving several historical firsts, including launching the first artificial satellite, Sputnik, and sending the first human, Yuri Gagarin, into space.
• Nuclear Technology: Both the Soviet Union and communist China developed nuclear capabilities rapidly under state-directed programs.
• Medical Advances: The Soviet Union made significant contributions to medical science, including the development of the polio vaccine by Albert Sabin and pioneering work in the fields of laser eye surgery and heart surgery.

2. Education​

• Literacy Programs: Socialist and communist regimes often prioritized education and literacy. For example, Cuba's literacy campaign in the 1960s is noted for its success in significantly reducing illiteracy.
• Access to Education: Many socialist countries provided universal access to education at all levels, increasing educational attainment across their populations.

3. Economic​

• Industrial Growth: The Soviet Union's rapid industrialization under the Five-Year Plans transformed it from a largely agrarian society to a major industrial power.
• Infrastructure Development: Extensive infrastructure projects, including transportation networks and housing, were typical in many socialist states, aiming to improve living standards.

4. Healthcare​

• Universal Healthcare: Many socialist and communist countries implemented universal healthcare systems, aiming to provide all citizens with medical services irrespective of their financial capability.
• Public Health Achievements: Countries like Cuba are recognized for their high doctor-to-patient ratios and for exporting medical expertise to other countries.

5. Social Welfare​

• Social Safety Nets: Communist states often provided extensive social safety nets, including pensions, sick leave, and guaranteed employment, although the quality and effectiveness of these programs varied.
• Gender Equality: Many socialist governments promoted gender equality as a policy goal more aggressively than in many capitalist countries, often integrating women into the workforce and politics.

6. Cultural Contributions​

• Arts and Culture: The state sponsorship of arts under socialist regimes led to the flourishing of specific styles, such as Socialist Realism in the Soviet Union, though often at the expense of artistic freedom.

7. Environmental Initiatives​

• Conservation Efforts: Some socialist states implemented ambitious conservation programs. For example, the former East Germany was among the first to institute environmental protections, though overall environmental records in socialist countries were mixed.

The above are just a few of the successes of socialism. Like I said, if it wasn't for socialism, shitheads like Todd would be speaking Japanese or German now.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Russians would all be speaking German, if it weren't for the US beating Stalin's ally Hitler.

Hitler invaded Russia with four million troops. Seven out of ten German Nazis were fighting on the Eastern front, so you're a retard.

 

[dblack]

How does that translate into what you said about an oppressive, totalitarian dictatorship? You're unable to comprehend what you read if from the above statement you inferred a "totalitarian regime". I was clear about the need for democracy or the rule of the people through elections or worker-councils (soviets).



Looking at how you misinterpreted my definition of government, you don't know what you're disagreeing with. You're creating strawmen of what I meant.



Me too, but capitalism isn't that, especially when technology significantly reduces or eliminates wage labor.



Hit the ballot box.



If you're going to accuse someone of something at least have the courtesy to explain why clearly. Stop making vague statements.



I cite facts; if you fail to address them, that's your failure, not mine.



By the stupid shit that you say.



You're the one who's confused.



I already made my points and presented my claims. Go ahead, debunk them.



Do you prefer minority rule? Rule of a small elitist class? You said earlier that you're for freedom, and now you're against the rule of the people over their government, through elections?



You want to get rid of the government, is that what you mean? At the moment what you're saying sounds like gibberish. Gobbledygook. The government should be under the heel of the people, through their worker-councils or "soviets". In a democratic socialist society, people have the right to elect their delegates into Congress and the nation's "commissar" or president. They can also recall a delegate or any other government official, for incompetence or corruption.

If we relied on democracy here in America right now, this is what would happen. We wouldn't be sending billions of dollars in weapons to Ukraine, Israhell or Saudi Arabia. We wouldn't still be in Iraq, and Syria nor would we have 700 military bases and installations around the world. All of our Empire's saber-rattling would stop. All Americans and legal residents would have their "Economic Bill Of Rights", ensuring everyone in our society, has the human-right, to food, easy access to at least basic housing, healthcare, education, and a job in the public sector. If we lived in a democracy, we wouldn't have this:

​

And we wouldn't have this:

​

People would make more money, and the cost of living would be lower. We would have more advanced, developed public infrastructure. Better public transit, like bullet trains, less automobile traffic and pollution..etc. We would be using clean, safe nuclear energy, rather than burning coal for electricity. More of our government's money would go into researching and developing new technology, cures for serious diseases..etc.

In other words, we would be much better off, if the majority of Americans ruled over their government rather than a small cabal of capitalist elitists, who only care about their profits and power. They don't care if America gets flushed down the latrine, they have dual citizenship and homes abroad.

Listen to Carlin:

​

Marxists don't believe that ALL DECISIONS must be democratic. We elect our leaders and then they make decisions. They may sometimes make decisions we don't like but that doesn't necessarily justify us electing someone else to replace them. Our form of democracy respects its leaders and we don't rebel against someone we elect into office unless there's obvious incompetence and corruption.

At the worker-council level, a committee would be organized to examine the charges against a delegate (i.e. government official), and if the committee determines that there is serious incompetence and corruption, that delegate is recalled and an election is held for the person that will replace them. If the committee rules against the recall, the people can actually form their own committee and replace the people in the committee, with their own people, who are for the recall. There's a legal process within the worker council to do that.

Communism as laid out by Karl Marx, Engels, and Lenin before 1918 (i.e. before the great war following the October Revolution of 1917), was much more democratic than what we have here in the United States right now. Soviet Communism stopped being truly soviet, in the 1920s, due to the US, UK, France and 10 other countries invading Soviet Russia. Over a quarter million foreign troops, invaded the Soviets and led to a "centralization of democracy", in other words, less democracy. There was still democracy in the USSR even during Stalin's era, but it was significantly less than the original Soviet plan, which was the rule of the working class, through worker-councils or "soviets".



There's no freedom in chaos. Democracy or rule of the majority is the best we can do right now. However, let me explain to you what the purpose and final objective of communism is. You seem not to be aware of it. You sound like an anarchist, and I agree with the anarchist on many issues. I read all of them, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman, you name it. We Marxist-Leninist communists want exactly the same thing that the anarchists do, we just have a different way of achieving it. Ever heard of the Marxist-Engelic concept of the "withering away of the state"?

[URLunfurl="true"]Withering away of the state - Wikipedia

Notice, how Wikipedia has the "withering away of the state", under Marxism. WOW! Who would know that Marxist communists, like me, want to eliminate state power, and hand everything to the individual consumer?

Communism in general, is defined as:

"A communist society would entail the absence of private property and social classes,[1] and ultimately money[6] and the state (or nation state).[7][8][9]"

There's a distinction between "private" and "personal" property, incase you didn't know that. Private property is that which is being used to exploit others for profit. That's a simple definition of private property. Personal property is everything you own, which you're not using to exploit people for a profit. You're not reducing people to the means of production, to a commodity in a "labor market". Your property is just for your personal use and the use of your family, and friends. Understand?

Again to reiterate, communism is: A society without a state, socioeconomic classes or the need for money.

There are two communisms according to Marx and Engels. The original, primitive, low-tech communism of our ancestors (No state, no socioeconomic classes, no need for money):

View attachment 938641

View attachment 938642

View attachment 938643

View attachment 938645​

And "high-communism"/ high-tech communism (No state, no socioeconomic classes, no need for money, just like our hunter-gatherer ancestors):

View attachment 938646

View attachment 938647

View attachment 938648

​

Democratic Socialism is the initial process of a communist society, that leads to not having a state, socioeconomic classes, or the need for money.

How will humanity rid itself of coercive human relationships (among adults, because children need the "coercive" guidance and leadership of their parents)? Through a socialist, democratic government that empowers the people with advanced technology.

What advanced technology will provide the individual consumer with the option of not needing state-developed and maintained infrastructure, goods, and services?

It's the type of advanced technology that is now being developed, thanks to powerful computers, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, atomic precision manufacturing, the micronization of nuclear energy production, advanced fission and fusion reactors..etc. We're heading into a new world, where the individual consumer, can produce EVERYTHING that they consume, without a capitalist or the state. You will generate your own electricity, you will draw water from the air, you will produce your own food, clothing, healthcare, transportation, education..etc, you name it.

View attachment 938655
Yes, even your own healthcare. AI, robots, nano-tech.

​

You won't need me, or your other neighbor, or the human specialist and technician, or anyone else.

In the future, thanks to advanced technology, people will be more mobile, able to move, travel, explore, and live in practically any environment. Most people won't want to "settle down", living in one fixed place, they'll rather make their personally owned mode of transportation, whatever that might be, their home. You can live alone as a hermit, with your robots, on some deserted asteroid somewhere, or you can choose to live in a community (i.e. a colony):

View attachment 938637​

That's the header image on my profile. A sea colony, with both surface and underwater facilities. Here are other types of communities:

View attachment 938662

View attachment 938663

View attachment 938664​

All human relationships between adults will be 100% consensual. You and I don't like the "community administration" that we are living under, because they're becoming intrusive and heavy-handed, so you with your family, and myself, with my family, leave. We have our own mode of transportation, allowing us to move, travel, explore..etc, and we take all of our technology with us. We would never join a community that requires us to give our personal property (including technology assets), to an "administration", a colonial government. We would never join that community, so we have all our personal property and we get out of there.

Now tell me, how the hell will a dictator or king, ever become a tyrant when people can just pack up and go? It's impossible, for anyone to be a freaking dictator, under those conditions. As soon as the leader of the community becomes a heavy-handed, oppressive retard, everyone leaves. Bye-bye, see yah. There's a type of market for governments and colonies. Colonies might compete for members and the way they become attractive to completely independent people is by respecting people's FREEDOM. Those become the most successful colonies. The most civil, freedom-loving, democratic (choosing who's part of the administration)

Again, we communists want what you anarchists and libertarians want, but we just have a different way of achieving it. We see socialism as a vital element in our path to individual freedom.

tl;dr

 

[TruthNotBS]

tl;dr

Others will read it. I have people reading it right now..From the US, Western Europe, Latin America, Russia, China, Korea, Singapore. Do you actually think I care if you read my responses to your bullshit? I do it for the sake of others who are truly searching for the truth.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No shithead, because communism doesn't need wage-labor, hence is 100% compatible with advance automation and artificial intelligence. Capitalists inherited plenty of technology that was developed before capitalism, so your argument is stupid. Like most of the stupid shit that comes out of your keyboard.

1. Technological and Scientific Advancements​

• Space Exploration: The Soviet Union was a pioneer in space technology during the Cold War, achieving several historical firsts, including launching the first artificial satellite, Sputnik, and sending the first human, Yuri Gagarin, into space.
• Nuclear Technology: Both the Soviet Union and communist China developed nuclear capabilities rapidly under state-directed programs.
• Medical Advances: The Soviet Union made significant contributions to medical science, including the development of the polio vaccine by Albert Sabin and pioneering work in the fields of laser eye surgery and heart surgery.

2. Education​

• Literacy Programs: Socialist and communist regimes often prioritized education and literacy. For example, Cuba's literacy campaign in the 1960s is noted for its success in significantly reducing illiteracy.
• Access to Education: Many socialist countries provided universal access to education at all levels, increasing educational attainment across their populations.

3. Economic​

• Industrial Growth: The Soviet Union's rapid industrialization under the Five-Year Plans transformed it from a largely agrarian society to a major industrial power.
• Infrastructure Development: Extensive infrastructure projects, including transportation networks and housing, were typical in many socialist states, aiming to improve living standards.

4. Healthcare​

• Universal Healthcare: Many socialist and communist countries implemented universal healthcare systems, aiming to provide all citizens with medical services irrespective of their financial capability.
• Public Health Achievements: Countries like Cuba are recognized for their high doctor-to-patient ratios and for exporting medical expertise to other countries.

5. Social Welfare​

• Social Safety Nets: Communist states often provided extensive social safety nets, including pensions, sick leave, and guaranteed employment, although the quality and effectiveness of these programs varied.
• Gender Equality: Many socialist governments promoted gender equality as a policy goal more aggressively than in many capitalist countries, often integrating women into the workforce and politics.

6. Cultural Contributions​

• Arts and Culture: The state sponsorship of arts under socialist regimes led to the flourishing of specific styles, such as Socialist Realism in the Soviet Union, though often at the expense of artistic freedom.

7. Environmental Initiatives​

• Conservation Efforts: Some socialist states implemented ambitious conservation programs. For example, the former East Germany was among the first to institute environmental protections, though overall environmental records in socialist countries were mixed.

The above are just a few of the successes of socialism. Like I said, if it wasn't for socialism, shitheads like Todd would be speaking Japanese or German now.

Now tell me about Chernobyl and the Kara Sea.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Now tell me about Chernobyl and the Kara Sea.

Dumbass. Are you trying to make a point? Stupid.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Dumbass. Are you trying to make a point? Stupid.

Environmental Initiatives​

Hilarious! Commies never gave a shit about the environment.
Look at the Kara Sea you silly twat.

 

[dblack]

Others will read it.

I understand. When you posted about wanting substantive discussion and "learning from each other" it caught my eye. Thought maybe you were serious. But clearly you're here to run your propaganda firehose instead. BSNotTruth.

Oh well, I tried.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Environmental Initiatives​

Hilarious! Commies never gave a shit about the environment.
Look at the Kara Sea you silly twat.

Fucking please, you are so full of shit:

1. Capitalist Environmental Disasters: Capitalism, especially in its unregulated forms, has led to significant environmental disasters. Some notable incidents include:

• The BP Oil Spill (2010): Also known as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, it is considered one of the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history, releasing approximately 4.9 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
• The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (1989): This spill in Alaska discharged 11 million gallons of oil, devastating local ecosystems and affecting thousands of miles of coastline.
• Love Canal, New York (1970s): Hazardous waste dumped by a chemical company led to widespread health and environmental problems, showcasing the failure of corporate responsibility.
• Bhopal Gas Tragedy (1984, India): Although not in the US, this disaster involved a U.S.-owned company, Union Carbide, and is one of the worst industrial disasters in history, resulting in thousands of deaths and continued health issues due to gas exposure.
• 
  Deforestation of Rainforests: Extensive deforestation, particularly in the Amazon, has been driven by the expansion of agricultural land, logging for timber, and the mining of minerals and oil. These activities are often supported by multinational corporations seeking to maximize profits.

2. Lobbying by Fossil Fuel Industries: The fossil fuel industry has actively lobbied to block environmental regulations and undermine renewable energy initiatives and the building of safe, advanced nuclear plants. Their influence in Congress is well-documented, with substantial financial contributions ensuring that legacy energy technologies prevail over cleaner, safer, more effective, and efficient alternatives.

3. Use of Depleted Uranium: The use of depleted uranium in ammunition by the U.S. military, particularly in conflicts like those in Iraq, has raised significant health concerns. Studies have indicated increases in birth defects and cancer rates in populations exposed to the remnants of this weaponry, suggesting severe long-term health impacts.

​

4. Systemic Issues with Capitalism and the Environment:

Under capitalism, the drive for profits often overshadows environmental concerns, leading to decisions that prioritize short-term gains over long-term sustainability. This model can result in neglect for environmental health, worker safety, and community well-being.

The critique of the fossil fuel industry's role in environmental issues is well-founded, as extensive documentation reveals a persistent pattern of lobbying against robust climate action and regulatory measures that would promote cleaner energy technologies. For instance, despite public claims of supporting climate-friendly policies, oil giants like ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and BP, alongside the American Petroleum Institute (API), have spent hundreds of millions on lobbying activities, with only a fraction directed towards supporting carbon pricing or the Paris Agreement. These companies have been primarily focused on preserving lucrative tax breaks and opposing serious climate legislation (Oversight Dems) (OpenSecrets).

Additionally, the industry has been involved in undermining scientific reports and promoting misinformation about climate change. For example, leaked documents revealed attempts by oil-producing nations and lobbying groups to strip significant findings from UN climate reports that would negatively impact the fossil fuel industry. (DW).

Moreover, legal actions and campaigns have targeted these companies for their misleading public relations strategies, which often exaggerate their investments in renewable energies while continuing substantial investments in fossil fuels (Carbon Brief) (The Nation).

On the legal front, various states and private entities have taken action against these practices. For instance, the state of Minnesota and the city of Hoboken have sued API for what they allege as decades of deceptive practices designed to mislead the public about the risks of climate change (The Nation).

While the Soviet Union, like any large industrial power, had significant environmental challenges, a planned economy offers tools for integrating environmental concerns more directly into industrial and economic planning, potentially avoiding the conflict of interest inherent in capitalist systems where environmental regulation is often at odds with business profits. In other words, Todd has no moral high ground upon which to stand and point his crooked, feculent finger at communists.

 

[TruthNotBS]

I understand. When you posted about wanting substantive discussion and "learning from each other" it caught my eye. Thought maybe you were serious. But clearly you're here to run your propaganda firehose instead. BSNotTruth.

Oh well, I tried.

You're disingenuous in playing the victim. If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. This is a debate board, where we test arguments. Test All Arguments. Stop being a sniffly overly sensitive little booboo-head.