Why are socialism and Communism hated?

[Wake]

I didnt know Sweden was socialist.... This is new news to me....

Sweden is a socialist democracy, if you are (which I doubt) implying that it is not.

 

[liblady]

Sweden is a socialist democracy, if you are (which I doubt) implying that it is not.

but it's still not a failed state. not by gdp, not by employemnt, not by wages.

 

[Thunder]

Sweden is a socialist democracy, if you are (which I doubt) implying that it is not.

no such form of government exists.

Sweden is a Constitutional monarchy, a representative democracy, which employs the Nordic mixed-economic formula..that includes bits of Capitalism & Socialism.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Sweden is a socialist democracy, if you are (which I doubt) implying that it is not.

Sweeden is a mixed market economy just like us but they have a heavier public sector than us....

 

[crebigsol]

What the hell does Islam have to do anything?

Do you need me to match your IQ level or not? If you don't, I see why you cannot make a connection between a socialist robbery ideology and another ideology by which terrorists feel proud of being identified. If you do, I understand where your anger comes from: exposing a reliable alliance that a bandit gang wants to heavily take advantage but also wants nobody to notice its taking advantage is so inexcusable.

 

[crebigsol]

Woh, what happens to all the socialism lovers in this forum these few days? They have been so unusually quiet, absolutely quiet. Are they too busy supporting the worldwide spread violence of "Occupy properties, infrastructures..." or too busy helping to squelch it? Marx is laughing, Lenin is laughing, Mao is laughing, Che is laughing. Modern socialists: are you laughing or sobbing? This current world affair should be an opportunity that the modern socialists hate to miss: Either to show them to support violence or condemn violence. Mask and lies are competing in showing true value!

 

[crebigsol]

Come back over here, socialists, no matter you have occupied Wall Street or not! At least, if nowhere else, this forum has become a communist society—a one man forum, come back and enjoy sharing. With greatest earnest, I would like to share some knowledge from you about how democratic violence is.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Do you need me to match your IQ level or not?

Ohh so its about my IQ again?

If you don't, I see why you cannot make a connection between a socialist robbery ideology and another ideology by which terrorists feel proud of being identified.

What?
Are you saying Islamofascism and Socialism are the same?

If you do, I understand where your anger comes from: exposing a reliable alliance that a bandit gang wants to heavily take advantage but also wants nobody to notice its taking advantage is so inexcusable.

Islamofascism= socialism now?
Wow...

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Woh, what happens to all the socialism lovers in this forum these few days? They have been so unusually quiet, absolutely quiet. Are they too busy supporting the worldwide spread violence of "Occupy properties, infrastructures..." or too busy helping to squelch it? Marx is laughing, Lenin is laughing, Mao is laughing, Che is laughing. Modern socialists: are you laughing or sobbing? This current world affair should be an opportunity that the modern socialists hate to miss: Either to show them to support violence or condemn violence. Mask and lies are competing in showing true value!

:lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo

This guy is a genius!

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Come back over here, socialists, no matter you have occupied Wall Street or not! At least, if nowhere else, this forum has become a communist society—a one man forum, come back and enjoy sharing. With greatest earnest, I would like to share some knowledge from you about how democratic violence is.

:doh

We find it very hard to have a conversation and debate with someone who only uses catchy rhetoric as a tool and has no idea what socialism actually is... I mean for god sake you think the DPRK and China are socialist! Now that is laughable :lamo

 

[crebigsol]

Ohh so its about my IQ again?

Yes, but not quite. It is your IQ and a greedy as well as vicious ideology that has been able to successfully polarize your IQ.

Are you saying Islamofascism and Socialism are the same? Islamofascism= socialism now?

I hate so much to examine your expression from the angle of IQ, but you keep enticing me to. Are “too (actually a typo of “two”) different ideologies”, “connection”, “taking advantage” some expressions that can lead people to conclude “the same”, “=”?

We find it very hard to have a conversation and debate with someone who only uses catchy rhetoric as a tool and has no idea what socialism actually is... I mean for god sake you think the DPRK and China are socialist! Now that is laughable

Wouldn’t it be more laughable when someone feels he has been able to better define socialism than the gang chiefs who are forcing more than 1.4 billion people to accept their country as a happy socialist country? IQ, IQ, IQ!
I am still waiting to share the experience of democratic violence from some socialists who would come back from Wall St.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Yes, but not quite. It is your IQ and a greedy as well as vicious ideology that has been able to successfully polarize your IQ.

Yep exactly... Its all in my head i cant get it out!!!!!!

I hate so much to examine your expression from the angle of IQ, but you keep enticing me to. Are “too (actually a typo of “two”) different ideologies”, “connection”, “taking advantage” some expressions that can lead people to conclude “the same”, “=”?

:lamo

Wouldn’t it be more laughable when someone feels he has been able to better define socialism than the gang chiefs who are forcing more than 1.4 billion people to accept their country as a happy socialist country? IQ, IQ, IQ!
I am still waiting to share the experience of democratic violence from some socialists who would come back from Wall St.

What the hell?
Again :lamo
Its impossible to have a debate with you

 

[Bardo]

I have repeated many times in this forum. I accept your Socialism =/= communism. A socialist society is a society full of power struggle. Communist society is not, but is a one man society; everyone else who can fight has been wasted in the preceding stage— socialist stage. Both societies are the goal pursued by the same group of people holding the same mindset, no matter how they want to deny.

What do you mean by a "one man society"?

One big benefit I have harvested from this forum is such a discovery: Facing the undeniable failure of the former socialist countries, every modern socialist must swear that his socialist belief has no connection with those who, with the biggest cruelty any one can ever exert in history, have failed. Rejecting the connection on the one hand, they never let go of inheriting their predecessor’s goal of bandit on the other hand: to remove capitalism so that someone can have some possession that needs no corresponding contribution in exchange. If I am wrong, tell me your concept of pure capitalism. The most I can say is that, instead of relying on bloody robbery like their predecessors, the modern socialists rely more on the so called “democratic” but bandit voting. They can rest assure that the number of the “poor” must outnumber the “rich” in the voting; they are destined to all the winning chips

State socialism and Marxist-Leninism do not hold a monopoly on socialist thought. You can lecture me as if you're an authority on socialist theory all you want, but you're never going to acknowledge the difference between democratic socialism and Marxist-Leninism. The differences are large. One allows political freedom and the freedom of association, the other prohibits political activity outside of the party and is authoritarian both economically and socially. It's not a matter of "the poor" over taking "the rich", it's a matter of reorganizing the very structure of an economy in favor of society as a whole by spreading around the decision making power within the economy.

The Soviets, the Chinese, the North Koreans etc achieved collectivization, but they did not establish a bottom-up economy thus they did not achieve socialism. This can be blamed on vanguardism and the lack of political freedom.

Anything can have a first time, let’s start from here. But you must notice that I said they have sporadic socialist gangsters there, I did not say it has been a centralized socialist country.

Alright, what makes these warlords socialists?

This topic is too involved, I cannot go in too much, but do you recall what Clinton once said when he wanted to overhaul the welfare system? ”These people need to realize that the welfare is an aid, not a life style.” It means that he had accepted that a big population relies on it as a life style.

Clinton didn't necessarily want to overhaul the welfare system, I believe the phrase he used was "end welfare as we know it". Under Clinton, the unemployment rate dropped down to 4%, this corresponded with a drop in the rate of people on welfare from 5.5% to 2% of the population. Most people would rather work than collect welfare. And if they would rather collect welfare than work, then they don't deserve any better than welfare.

I really don’t know why all people holding socialist belief must use **** to hide their language while they must declare they are not violent people. If you don’t know, let me repeat: The safety net typified by the welfare system, if not aiming at temporary relief but a life style, is fundamentally an appeasing result similar to paying protection fee but with a more decorated “noble” cloak.

Ok, that's not the same as extortion which you were describing in your earlier post. But yes, it's designed to soften the effects of capitalism which is a sink or swim system. Everyone isn't going to be able to swim 100% of the time, failure for a portion of the population is inevitable under capitalism. These safety nets keep cash in the hands of the poor and unemployed, which means these people are continuing to spend money, thus continuing to contribute to the economy even when they are not earning through employment.

“Soviet standard of living even surpassed American standard of living for a bit in the mid 70s” is a genuine lie from top to bottom. At least, the absolute most population in Soviet was unable to own a house but must rent a dwelling quarter from the government! In 1970, every American family can have a car and one TV set on the average. This is absolutely too much a luxury for the average Soviet family; they feel so lucky if they can join the line and finally have a chance to buy a loaf of bread.

Standard of living typically isn't measured by how many TVs one owns, but thing like overall health, life expectancy, infant mortality, literacy, poverty rates etc. Consumer spending power does go into determining standard of living, but it's not everything. There were no homeless as housing was provided, for a time it was even unlawful to not have a place of residence on paper. The Soviet family in 1980 was much different from the Soviet family in the 1940s-50s. All of this sharply declined in the former soviet states as the USSR disbanded.

Ooops, I forget, you insist that CCCP is not a socialist country. When you found the soviet families so happy, they are not in a socialist country according to you. Sorry, my mistake!

Right, it wasn't a truly socialist country but it implement planned economics.

Oh, yeh, Commonly owned mode! This was what was exactly recorded, emphasized in all constitutions of all the communist countries. If you don’t feel tired, such record can still be clearly found in today’s constitution of China, look into it.

Yeah, that doesn't make it true. China is increasingly capitalist, with an ever growing private sector. In most of these countries, property is owned by the central state, which is in turn operated by the communist party. This comes back to vanguardism and repression of political freedom which is not a prerequisite for socialism.

In some sense, ownership is not as critical as the governing entitlement to a piece of property. As a scenario, let me give you this example: Suppose you own a house. I can be so powerful that I come to your house one night and tell you: “make a bed in the garage for yourself, my wife and I need to sleep in your master bedroom tonight.” You feel you must do it with all the obedience; otherwise a consequence that you don’t want will follow. When I wake up and leave the next day, I tell you: “take good care of YOUR house, I need to see the walls of the living room in yellow color next time I come.” Does ownership of the house still mean anything to you? Possibly you prefer so much that somebody else owns the house and you can enjoy the governing power of the house like I do. Bottom line is: ownership of power determines everything; that is what socialism essence is all about: The toppest boss governs everything that is commonly "owned" by everyone. Toppest boss governs the smaller bosses, the smaller bosses dominate everyone else who is not a boss but owner of property that is commonly owned.

When power is centralized into a "toppest" boss, this gives him the ability to direct public property however he wants. Again, this comes back to vanguardism and centralism and is not something I support. A commonly owned public enterprise would be owned by the public and governed by those who run it, not by a dictator or a "toppest boss". Economic democracy is essential to socialism and is one reason why these communist countries didn't quite get there. They replaced the dictatorship of the dollar with the dictatorship of the party, not the proletariat.

 

[crebigsol]

What do you mean by a "one man society"?

I have said it clearly in the message from which you formulate your question, I have no need to repeat it.

State socialism and Marxist-Leninism do not hold a monopoly on socialist thought. You can lecture me as if you're an authority on socialist theory all you want, but you're never going to acknowledge the difference between democratic socialism and Marxist-Leninism. The differences are large.

As soon as a political system aims at removing capitalism, it would not make it different from any other doing the same thing. No political system, including capitalism, can get away from this LAW: “He who has the gold makes the rule, and he who makes the rule holds the gold.” Socialism is a system that allows someone to concentrate both the rules and the gold in his hand. When the concentration is high enough, vanguardism will appear; nobody can prevent it.

One allows political freedom and the freedom of association, the other prohibits political activity outside of the party and is authoritarian both economically and socially. It's not a matter of "the poor" over taking "the rich", it's a matter of reorganizing the very structure of an economy in favor of society as a whole by spreading around the decision making power within the economy. The Soviets, the Chinese, the North Koreans etc achieved collectivization, but they did not establish a bottom-up economy thus they did not achieve socialism. This can be blamed on vanguardism and the lack of political freedom.

Who has the authority “of reorganizing the very structure of an economy”? It must be the one who has the rule and subsequently holds the gold! What prevents the person, or a group of few, who hold such authority from driving the “reorganization” in the way of satisfying his personal will? What makes that rule and gold in capitalism must corrupt the leading elites but must produce politically pure aristocrat in socialism? What makes that rule and gold must corrupt the leading elite in The Soviets, the Chinese, the North Koreans, which you have no base to define as capitalist countries, but must produce politically pure aristocrat in your socialism? You have no political mechanism to guarantee your democracy to stay in a society that rule and gold have been highly concentrated. The big difference between capitalism and socialism is that rule and gold in capitalism is wider spread among a bigger population and thus democracy naturally permeates in the society; while rule and gold in socialism must be highly concentrated and no genuine democracy but lie is possible. The gradual concentration of rule and gold towards Hugo Chavez has given the most vivid illustration how “elected” socialism is moving. You cannot accept 1% controls the90% of the wealth of the country? Then wait until one family controls 100% of the country!

Alright, what makes these warlords socialists?

Robbery and enslaving!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Clinton didn't necessarily want to overhaul the welfare system, I believe the phrase he used was "end welfare as we know it". Under Clinton, the unemployment rate dropped down to 4%, this corresponded with a drop in the rate of people on welfare from 5.5% to 2% of the population.

I have beautified him by using the word overhaul. Actually he only told the “children” not to concentrate on one candy but try some others, too. Starting from him, socialism “reformation”, or bank robbery, began to take shape in America: Loan began to be given without checking repaying capability of the borrower; “discrimination” on repaying ability began to be forbidden. Unfortunately, Bush continued it with even higher magnitude—when people thought he was from Republic. “Posterity” was not created but bought with money that should have not been entitled by the spender. Today, the poor complaints the government to bail out the rich (I strongly object that), actually the “poor” was bailed rich far earlier, but 20 years ago. What makes today’s poor miserable is that they are not the same group of poor to have been bailed. By the way,let me tell you a little secret: I first learnt the phrase “life style” from clinton’s speech on the welfare issue, otherwise this phrase may still be absent in my poor English vocabulary.

Most people would rather work than collect welfare. And if they would rather collect welfare than work, then they don't deserve any better than welfare. Ok, that's not the same as extortion which you were describing in your earlier post. But yes, it's designed to soften the effects of capitalism which is a sink or swim system. Everyone isn't going to be able to swim 100% of the time, failure for a portion of the population is inevitable under capitalism. These safety nets keep cash in the hands of the poor and unemployed, which means these people are continuing to spend money, thus continuing to contribute to the economy even when they are not earning through employment.

If I can see so many penniless legal immigrants financially surpassing the natively born American citizens, you words “Most people would rather work than collect welfare” must be seriously discounted: At least not to those people whose English is much better than the late comers but also financially trailing behind those immigrants. I did not say a society must exclude the welfare system, I only point out that so many people living on it as a life style, so willingly staying as turkey but complaining the eagle to have failed them. As a matter of fact, the welfare system is playing the role of protection fee on the one hand, it is also a witness of more superiority of capitalism over socialism on the other hand. Socialism has no such money, but must enslave its citizens and boast its unemployment rate to be zero at the same time.

Standard of living typically isn't measured by how many TVs one owns, but thing like overall health, life expectancy, infant mortality, literacy, poverty rates etc. Consumer spending power does go into determining standard of living, but it's not everything. There were no homeless as housing was provided, for a time it was even unlawful to not have a place of residence on paper. The Soviet family in 1980 was much different from the Soviet family in the 1940s-50s. All of this sharply declined in the former soviet states as the USSR disbanded.

I wonder if pieces of bread a person can consume can be included in “Standard of living”. It seems not according to what you described here. The economy of Soviet is getting more and more broke and that is why Gorbachev needed reformation; but with only socialist model? He wished, and alas, Soviet collapsed! And the reformation was needed exactly at the period you said Soviet was so good (different from the Soviet family in the 1940s-50s). I was in one of the Soviet University in 2000. During the winter time, I could not even find some hot water to take a bath but must shivering in cold water. Don’t tell me that soviet has chosen the most prosperous time to get bankrupted.

Right, it wasn't a truly socialist country but it implement planned economics.

So, soviet people were happy (according to you before) but they were not living in a socialist country; When I say socialist country can only bring disaster to its people, you put up the soviet people’s “happiness” to defend socialism. Were they, or were not they, living in socialism? Please do not screw your own point of view with illogical lies.

China is increasingly capitalist, with an ever growing private sector.

So, China was less socialist now, logic thus only allow what you say to mean it was more socialist before. “Growing private sector” can only mean growing capitalism. China was poor before, nobody can deny that, and China is richer now, nobody can deny it either. So, logic can only allow people to conclude that it must be capitalism, absolutely not socialism, that has enable prosperity to the society.

In most of these countries, property is owned by the central state, which is in turn operated by the communist party. This comes back to vanguardism and repression of political freedom which is not a prerequisite for socialism

What do you mean “most”? They were absolutely so until they reform, but then it means capitalism is taking seat. Absolute socialism must end up with absolute vanguardism, which must turn out to be absolute enslaving. Nobody can change it. If you cannot change the corrupting role that rule and gold play in capitalism, you cannot prevent the same role they play in socialism, which has much higher concentration of rule and gold in the hands of even fewer people.

When power is centralized into a "toppest" boss, this gives him the ability to direct public property however he wants. Again, this comes back to vanguardism and centralism and is not something I support.

In the capital society, you can have the freedom to say you don’t support. In the genuine socialist society, you don’t have such freedom. Trotsky had your idea, he got killed by Stalin. It is not up to you whether you support or not. When you are in that bandit wagon, you better be the topmost one or follow the topmost one.

A commonly owned public enterprise would be owned by the public and governed by those who run it, not by a dictator or a "toppest boss".

You just don’t have any political mechanism to prevent the appearance of the toppest boss, but such toppest boss must exist, otherwise the society is a utopian society, which is strongly objected by any socialist.

Economic democracy is essential to socialism and is one reason why these communist countries didn't quite get there. They replaced the dictatorship of the dollar with the dictatorship of the party, not the proletariat.

Until you can find a political mechanism to guarantee what you say here, all what you say here is either a lie or dream talk.

 

[Bardo]

As soon as a political system aims at removing capitalism, it would not make it different from any other doing the same thing. No political system, including capitalism, can get away from this LAW: “He who has the gold makes the rule, and he who makes the rule holds the gold.” Socialism is a system that allows someone to concentrate both the rules and the gold in his hand. When the concentration is high enough, vanguardism will appear; nobody can prevent it.

This is if a socialist movement allows power to be concentrated into a few hands. It doesn't matter if property is public or private, a strong central government can control an economy. Look at Mussolini's Italy or modern day Russia, enterprise is privatized and the government still has it's hand in the economy. The American revolution could have turned into a monarchy, people were clamoring around trying to elect Washington as their king! In order for freedom to correspond with socialism, it must be a decentralized power structure.

Who has the authority “of reorganizing the very structure of an economy”?

The population of a society. As time goes on capitalism will become more and more unjust, leading to more and more want for economic change. Whether it happens in 2012 or in 2050, American capitalism will take a more cooperative and collective form, I guarantee it.

You have no political mechanism to guarantee your democracy to stay in a society that rule and gold have been highly concentrated. The big difference between capitalism and socialism is that rule and gold in capitalism is wider spread among a bigger population and thus democracy naturally permeates in the society; while rule and gold in socialism must be highly concentrated and no genuine democracy but lie is possible. The gradual concentration of rule and gold towards Hugo Chavez has given the most vivid illustration how “elected” socialism is moving. You cannot accept 1% controls the90% of the wealth of the country? Then wait until one family controls 100% of the country!

Again, there is no reason that socialism has to concentrate power into a figurehead.

Robbery and enslaving!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's stupid, and I think you know it. Somalia is not a socialist country, and the band of pirates that rule Somalia are not socialists lol.

Starting from him, socialism “reformation”, or bank robbery, began to take shape in America: Loan began to be given without checking repaying capability of the borrower; “discrimination” on repaying ability began to be forbidden. Unfortunately, Bush continued it with even higher magnitude—when people thought he was from Republic. “Posterity” was not created but bought with money that should have not been entitled by the spender. Today, the poor complaints the government to bail out the rich (I strongly object that), actually the “poor” was bailed rich far earlier, but 20 years ago. What makes today’s poor miserable is that they are not the same group of poor to have been bailed.

Affordable housing is not a bailout.

You realize the financial system underwent massive deregulation under Reagan and continued under Clinton right? Earlier in his presidency, Clinton signed changes to the CRA which required a couple large banks to include affordable housing as a percentage of their lending. This didn't require banks to make risky loans, it required them to include affordable housing projects.

Later in his presidency he signed the repeal to Glass-Steagall, which drastically deregulated the speculative markets. This allowed the banks to speculate, invest and make risky loans with our money. Under Glass-Steagall, the banks were rather timid as they were speculating and investing with their money, and as a result of the repeal they no longer had to worry about losses as they began to bet against credit defaults. It was a win-win for the banks.

Of course as we now know, such rapid deregulation led to a boom in capital flow which inevitably led to a bust in the market when people began to default on their loans, which was instigated through the predatory lending practices of these monolithic banks.

I was in one of the Soviet University in 2000. During the winter time, I could not even find some hot water to take a bath but must shivering in cold water. Don’t tell me that soviet has chosen the most prosperous time to get bankrupted.

There were Soviet universities in 2000?

Standard of living in the Soviet Union was much higher in 1990 than it was in 1950, it's a fact. Just because a nation's financial system is in ruins doesn't mean standard of living is worse off than it was decades before. The US financial system is having a major setback right now, right? Is American standard of living worse off now than it was in 1955 when the economy was booming? No.

So, soviet people were happy (according to you before) but they were not living in a socialist country; When I say socialist country can only bring disaster to its people, you put up the soviet people’s “happiness” to defend socialism. Were they, or were not they, living in socialism? Please do not screw your own point of view with illogical lies.

I didn't say the Soviet people were overjoyed, and I didn't say they achieved socialism. You brought up the USSR as a shining example of true socialism because it was so wretched, and I pointed out that by it's collapse, it was not the poor, wretched place it was in 1950. I didn't use it as an example of the success of socialism. You're twisting my words.

So, China was less socialist now, logic thus only allow what you say to mean it was more socialist before. “Growing private sector” can only mean growing capitalism. China was poor before, nobody can deny that, and China is richer now, nobody can deny it either. So, logic can only allow people to conclude that it must be capitalism, absolutely not socialism, that has enable prosperity to the society.

The communist revolution in China led the way to where they are now. The revolution industrialized the country and made it possible for capitalism to take off the way it did. China wasn't ready for communism anyway, you can't create a successful communist society out of a poor, feudal society. According to Marx, socialism has pick up the pieces of a crumbling, advanced capitalist society when the markets begin to fail. Capitalism has to precede socialism, not vice versa.

What do you mean “most”?

By "most" I mean the Marxist-Leninist countries. USSR, China, Cuba etc and not the social-democratic countries like the Scandinavian nations.

They were absolutely so until they reform, but then it means capitalism is taking seat. Absolute socialism must end up with absolute vanguardism, which must turn out to be absolute enslaving.

I'm not arguing for "absolute" socialism, as in total socialization of the entire economy. You need to separate yourself from this all or nothing, one or the other mentality.

Nobody can change it. If you cannot change the corrupting role that rule and gold play in capitalism, you cannot prevent the same role they play in socialism, which has much higher concentration of rule and gold in the hands of even fewer people.

The whole point is to decentralize power and "gold" from the hands of the few into the hands of the many. You're not getting over the difference between communism and socialism.

In the capital society, you can have the freedom to say you don’t support. In the genuine socialist society, you don’t have such freedom.

Says who?

Trotsky had your idea, he got killed by Stalin. It is not up to you whether you support or not. When you are in that bandit wagon, you better be the topmost one or follow the topmost one.

Trotsky was a Leninist lol.

You just don’t have any political mechanism to prevent the appearance of the toppest boss, but such toppest boss must exist, otherwise the society is a utopian society, which is strongly objected by any socialist.

Cooperative enterprise doesn't require a dictator. It's the whole point of the cooperative enterprise.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Woh, what happens to all the socialism lovers in this forum these few days? They have been so unusually quiet, absolutely quiet. Are they too busy supporting the worldwide spread violence of "Occupy properties, infrastructures..." or too busy helping to squelch it? Marx is laughing, Lenin is laughing, Mao is laughing, Che is laughing. Modern socialists: are you laughing or sobbing? This current world affair should be an opportunity that the modern socialists hate to miss: Either to show them to support violence or condemn violence. Mask and lies are competing in showing true value!

I stopped responding to you because your posts have absolutely no worth, they're largely senseless for the most part. I recommend everyone in this thread to stop responding to you but I don't think they'll listen to me, unfortunately.

 

[crebigsol]

This is if a socialist movement allows power to be concentrated into a few hands.

“If”? Absolutely thankful for your candidness! You expose your bottom line that it is up to socialism whether to allow power to be concentrated into a few hands. No more argument is needed for me to read your confession that there is no political mechanism to prevent the rule and gold to be finally funneled into the few hands, either through bloody robbery, the so called revolution like what Lenin did, or through democratic voting, actually bandit voting, like what Hugo Chavez is doing. It is not whether rule and gold will be funneled into the few hands, it is when and through what process they are funneled; they must eventually concentrate in few hands. If capital must be eventually monopolized in few hands in capitalism, power must also be eventually monopolized in even fewer hands.

It doesn't matter if property is public or private, a strong central government can control an economy. Look at Mussolini's Italy or modern day Russia, enterprise is privatized and the government still has it's hand in the economy. The American revolution could have turned into a monarchy, people were clamoring around trying to elect Washington as their king! In order for freedom to correspond with socialism, it must be a decentralized power structure.

Given Mussolini enough time, he would have converted Italy into a socialist country, although the name is “state capitalism”: nationalize this and nationalize that; Hugo Chavez just practicing this today. Russia, if continuing in today’s direction, sooner or later, it would rename itself with the same title that Lenin and Stalin used. Those who felt itch to elect Washington as a king considered a king system brought them a bigger benefit, this consideration determined what political establishment they wanted in their mind. Fortunately, these few did not prevail. In a way, I don’t complaint about their consideration, they, like you and I, or any socialists who consider themselves so noble as to only fight for the poor, must be subconsciously governed by animal greed. The important thing is to prevent the appearance of some political system that only satisfies such greed of the minimal few at the expense of sacrifice of the maximal populace.

The population of a society. As time goes on capitalism will become more and more unjust, leading to more and more want for economic change. Whether it happens in 2012 or in 2050, American capitalism will take a more cooperative and collective form, I guarantee it.

True, more and more unjust, but do you know what the true culprit who hurl the capitalism into unjust? The laborers! On the one hand, they must buy merchandise at the lowest price in the market, but on the other hand, before the merchandize appears in the market, they much demand the highest pay in the process of manufacturing, injecting the highest cost to the merchandise. Their demand only results some production process that violates both the basic mathematical and physical laws in nature, putting higher and higher pressure on the brake to stop the continuation of manufacturing. What organized labor is doing is just to maximally enforce such brake action against the manufacturing process the biggest time. The devilish effect must sooner or later surfaces up.

Again, there is no reason that socialism has to concentrate power into a figurehead.

When you allow “if” in your confession, you have allowed the existence of reason.

That's stupid, and I think you know it. Somalia is not a socialist country, and the band of pirates that rule Somalia are not socialists lol.

If you cannot accept the pirates being socialist, you must accept socialists being pirates. The only difference is that when a pirate uses the title of “socialist”, he must have a more “civilization” cloak. A genuine socialist must be smarter not to use the title of pirate, but which pirate will use the title “pirate”? Lol. I repeatedly told you that Somali is not a centralized socialist country but full of socialist gangsters while I also told you the concept that socialism is to restore the combination of slavery system and feudal system.

Affordable housing is not a bailout…You realize the financial system … through the predatory lending practices of these monolithic banks.

With the confession from your “if” and since such confession can only lead to conclude that socialism has no political mechanism to prevent power and gold from concentration, I feel I am just doing things too redundant if I would give detail analysis on the above message. I strongly believe that Clinton and Bush belong to the same burrow: relying on the “poor” to have his ballot box bulge. It is this kind of “for the poor” police that releases the socialist genies in the American society and rapidly sinks the American ship of prosperity with acceleration.

There were Soviet universities in 2000?

I must apologize for this mistake in bringing up Russia, but you know who I am talking about.

Standard of living in the Soviet Union was much higher in 1990 than it was in 1950, it's a fact. Just because a nation's financial system is in ruins doesn't mean standard of living is worse off than it was decades before. The US financial system is having a major setback right now, right? Is American standard of living worse off now than it was in 1955 when the economy was booming? No.

You are using a different scale for comparison. The fairer statement should be: in 1955, the living standard in America is better than that of Soviet Union; in 1990, the living standard in America is far superior to that of Soviet Union. Besides, the collapse of Soviet Union is not only on the financial system, it is that the entire political system can no longer sustain itself. When I used the word “bankrupt”, I don’t mean to limit its sense to bankrupt financially but also politically. Just like the so called bailout and stimulus package in America, they not only have led to bankrupt the American financial system, but they are also bankrupting the political and moral system in America. After Reagan and the old Bush, Americans just to have produced all those presidents whose brains are heavily contaminated by socialist ideology, each one is worse than the previous one.

I didn't say the Soviet people were overjoyed, and I didn't say they achieved socialism. You brought up the USSR as a shining example of true socialism because it was so wretched, and I pointed out that by it's collapse, it was not the poor, wretched place it was in 1950. I didn't use it as an example of the success of socialism. You're twisting my words.

I did not twist your words. You cannot deny that I “brought up the USSR as a shining example of true socialism because it was so wretched”, and then you defend it by telling me they had better living standard than America. With that defense, do you want the American people to have a Soviet political system or American political system? You cannot say Soviet is not a socialist country because it is under communist dictatorship but is a socialist country because its people have a better living than American people at the same time. I hope you have the sense of logic to distinguish between lie and dream talk.
Good student of Marx and Lenin, what an expert in using their language; but you still cannot get an A by saying “The revolution industrialized the country and made it possible for capitalism to take off the way it did. China wasn't ready for communism anyway”. Without capitalism, China can only be a political vampire; it cannot produce anything good to the people. So far, you cannot refute that it is capitalism that has made the dirt poor country get out of the socialist economic quicksand. What is the sense to wasted 80 million lives to remove capitalism but only to retain capitalism again? The only sense is that life has no sense to socialism; to socialist gang chiefs, only power matters.

By "most" I mean the Marxist-Leninist countries. USSR, China, Cuba etc and not the social-democratic countries like the Scandinavian nations.

The most you can say is that these few countries are social-capitalist countries because a big section of population is still holding private property and production means. The reason that their capitalist sector can still be found alive is because these few country riding on the existence of the other strong capitalist countries. Wait for some time until the other neighboring strong capitalist countries are succumbed by Islam or socialism, then, these few Scandinavian nations must be capsized by genuine socialism, or less severely, Islam!

I'm not arguing for "absolute" socialism, as in total socialization of the entire economy. You need to separate yourself from this all or nothing, one or the other mentality. The whole point is to decentralize power and "gold" from the hands of the few into the hands of the many. You're not getting over the difference between communism and socialism.

I don’t need to and how can I? Your confession of “if” leads no possibility of the appearance of any political mechanism to prevent the rule and gold from being concentrated into some few hands.

Trotsky was a Leninist lol.

In Stalin’s whole life, he was not found to have said one negative word about Lenin, but Trotky was permanently declared as his uncompromised enemy. Do not replace Stalin to say who is an who is not a Leninist. lol.

Cooperative enterprise doesn't require a dictator. It's the whole point of the cooperative enterprise.

[/QUOTE]
I hope you know what you are talking about. There is so much logic convolution in this statement. The reason the socialists say corporatism must be removed is because they found dictatorship in cooperative enterprise and they cannot bear it. On the other hand, there must be political boss on top of the various cooperative enterprises, otherwise, who would regulate them if they openly produce cocaine, prostitute, racketeering, fake drug, human trafficking, unsafe food… ? However, he who can regulate them must be able to govern them, one way or the other. If there is no political boss on top of them, there would be a Utopian society among them, if there is such boss, rule and gold will move in a direction of concentration until a political mechanism can stop such movement, regardless how you idealize a society, any society, a capitalist one or a socialist one.

 

[crebigsol]

I stopped responding to you because your posts have absolutely no worth, they're largely senseless for the most part. I recommend everyone in this thread to stop responding to you but I don't think they'll listen to me, unfortunately.

The only sense you can accept is the melody from the same choir of yours. When did I find any socialist, or communist, would accept opposite opinion? When they are not powerful enough, they just tell anyone else that their socialist expression must be tolerated and they have the right of expression; when they are powerful enough, they would tell people that any voice they cannot tolerate must be suppressed. With exactly this reason, Hugo Chavez has nationalized so many medias.

 

[crebigsol]

Hi everyone, frankly, I feel a little tired about this forum now, because I strongly feel that the title of this forum is so wrongfully suggested. I almost find no one hates socialism and Communism but fanatically love here. The title can be correct if and only if it is called either
a. why are socialism and Communism loved, or,
b. why are anti-socialism and anti-communism hated.

 

[Wake]

Hi everyone, frankly, I feel a little tired about this forum now, because I strongly feel that the title of this forum is so wrongfully suggested. I almost find no one hates socialism and Communism but fanatically love here. The title can be correct if and only if it is called either

You would be incorrect. Many people here dislike socialism/communism. They've just debated it so much that they get sick of it and the socialists.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

The only sense you can accept is the melody from the same choir of yours. When did I find any socialist, or communist, would accept opposite opinion? When they are not powerful enough, they just tell anyone else that their socialist expression must be tolerated and they have the right of expression; when they are powerful enough, they would tell people that any voice they cannot tolerate must be suppressed. With exactly this reason, Hugo Chavez has nationalized so many medias.

Why cant we debate with you? Is exactly this(you said it best):

would accept opposite opinion?

All you are using is your opinion and no facts...

 

[crebigsol]

You would be incorrect. Many people here dislike socialism/communism. They've just debated it so much that they get sick of it and the socialists.

Thank you for your assurance; but, to my knolwedge, these people are surely hiding themselves well and let the title of this thread be overwhelmingly felt as "why are socialism and Communism loved".

 

[crebigsol]

Why cant we debate with you? Is exactly this(you said it best)

Thank you for finally accepting my point of view and feel difficult to continue with all the lies, self-contradictions you put up.

All you are using is your opinion and no facts...

Ooops, since when do you begin the habit of respecting fact? What kind of fact do you need, the fact that China is not a socialist country, which must be rejected by at least 1.4 billion people and their constitution?

 

[neocon1225]

I am curious as to why people despise socialism and Communism so much. I have my own reasons, but I would rather not post them until I hear from others, lest I corrupt their thought process with the power of suggestion.

Because they are morally bankrupt philosophies that have no basis in reality.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Thank you for finally accepting my point of view and feel difficult to continue with all the lies, self-contradictions you put up.

Your using an opinion not facts... How can we accept a debate when all you are spewing is your opinion on socialism as being a system of slavery?

Ooops, since when do you begin the habit of respecting fact?

Uhhh i do respect facts bud..

What kind of fact do you need, the fact that China is not a socialist country, which must be rejected by at least 1.4 billion people and their constitution?

China isnt a socialist country....
China recently published their economic census and it held that "private enterprises reached 1.98 million, an increase of 49 percent."
How is that at all socialist?