"Socialism is not Communism"

SOTF, have you given any thought to what might be in the best interest of the people, as defined by the people themselves.

You throw out labels like, like, like...OK like you're reading them off the back of a card you got in the mail from Rush Limbaugh.

Nobody NEEDS anything to paint the Sistine Chapel but some paint and a Sistine Chapel.

Unless you're advocating a return to feudalism, your post doesn't make much sense at all.

or am I just being PARTISAN again?

the fundamental flaw in socialism and the great error liberals make..well not all because many are just liars and opportunists.... is in understanding the nature of man

the premise upon which the whole of socialism rests, to be workable, is the idea of the perfectibility of man

this premise is against human nature.

the reason capitalism works is because it is aligned with human nature

liberalism denies human nature in so many ways

liberalism is anti-rational and anti-scientific

"Socialism is not Communism"


And I promise not to cum in your mouth.

FTFY or FIFY, your choice. At least now it's accurate. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You shore nailed him again, Whiny. By golly, you shore know howta fix them posts thangs!

Socialism is an economic system, communism is a political system. So you're right about that....I don't really mean that Deb but you just did another cut and paste so we don't know if you're right or wrong about anything. Anyway, communism is just socialism at the point of a gun. Lenin started "war communism" in 1921 because his socialism was not working. They stayed with it until the 1990s. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Political systems and economic systems somehow have to work in tandem with each other. I mean could a Communist Government and a Capitalist economy exist without conflict?


Jim

SOTF, have you given any thought to what might be in the best interest of the people, as defined by the people themselves? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Oh yeah, assup! How about a few examples? Do you mean "the best interest of the people" as defined in the 2010 mid-term elections? Do you mean "the best interest of the people" as it will be defined on Nov. 4?

Anytime libtards get shellacked at the polls, they start whining and saying things like "I can't believe so many people voted against their own self-interest!" - lol.

Only simpletons like assup think "the people" always speak with one voice. And only ideologues presume to know what is "in the best interest of the people". Just like Lenin and Stalin presumed to know what was in the best interest of the people. They used this argument to justify establishing their "dictatorship of the proletariat" that went on to kill millions of dissenters.

.

Socialism/communism is an utopian ideal. Jesus advocated communism for His followers. The problem is, we are not all like Jesus. Communism imposed on people is tyranny, and a lie, because it is against our current state of human nature. Humans are slowly evolving, but to get to the point where it could work is hundreds of generations away. The best start toward that end is allowing people the freedom to make their own decisions, and take responsibility for those decisions. Humans have the capacity for endless generosity and compassion, but it will never develop under government control. Liberty will lead us to Utopia!

This is how to get there, Debbie, IMHO. Thanks for the thought provoking posts.

We are programmed to think that "socialism" means "communism". We must know the media teaches us that. Please have an open mind and read the definition of "socialism" as follows:

The fundamental goal of socialism from the view of Marx and Engels was the realization of human freedom and individual autonomy. Specifically, this refers to freedom from the alienation imposed upon individuals in the form of coercive social relationships as well as material scarcity, whereby the individual is compelled to engage in activities merely to survive (to reproduce his or herself). The aim of socialism is to provide an environment whereby individuals are free to express their genuine interests, creative freedom, and desires unhindered by forms of social control that force individuals to work for a class of owners who expropriate and live off the surplus product.[9] Originally Posted by HoustonMilfDebbie

Perhaps it was the names that communist regimes used to identify themselves that has confused everyone, Debbie!?!?

I have no idea who you've been talking to or what you've been reading, but Socialism is no grand plan. The essential characteristics of Socialism is the denial of personal property rights. Socialism is established by either force or vote. The alleged goals of socialism were the abolition of poverty, the achievement of general prosperity, progress, peace and human brotherhood. Countries such as Soviet Russia, Red China, Cuba and Nazi Germany have all implemented the ideology of socialism with disastrous outcomes. Just think about the past history of these countries. Who in their right mind would want to take a chance on living under Socialism in America.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

+1 . "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" ... "The Socialist Republic of Romania" ... "Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" ... "Socialist Republic of Vietnam" ... etc.

Socialism is an economic system, communism is a political system. So you're right about that....I don't really mean that Deb but you just did another cut and paste so we don't know if you're right or wrong about anything. Anyway, communism is just socialism at the point of a gun. Lenin started "war communism" in 1921 because his socialism was not working. They stayed with it until the 1990s. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The train goes from the Socialism Station to the Communism Station

"Sokolov-Skalja P. P., 1939

"Powerful allegories are a distinctive feature of the poster art. This poster is aimed at general audience including the most down-to-earth people.

"The header says 'The train goes from the Socialism Station to the Communism Station'. Below there is a slogan 'The experienced driver of the Revolutionary Engine – Comrade Stalin'. On the left margin there is a schedule of the Bolshevist Train with stations passed though: Iskra (official newspaper of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, established in 1900), Russian Revolution of 1905, Pravda (the chief newspaper of the Soviet Union, established in 1912, note that the name is written in the same font as the original newspaper’s header), the October Revolution of 1917 and Socialism – no year specified. To the right there is another schedule showing the way the train is currently covering – moving from Socialism to Communism stations."
http://sovietposter.blogspot.com/200...3_archive.html

Michelangelo did not need socialism to paint the Sistine Chapel. Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

Do you understand what system of government Michelangelo he was able to thrive in? Originally Posted by WTF

Gotta back WTF on this one, SOTF. Michelangelo is a poor example because he lived and worked in a theocracy. Even though he was paid (the money coming from the tithes of every day people) for his work in the Sistine Chapel, he was also subjected to a certain amount of Papal coercion to do it.
http://historylessons.net/michelange...sistine-chapel

Communism is actually the purest form of democracy

We haven't actually seen an example of true communism. What the USSR had was not communism, nor is North Korea, nor any other so-called communist regime in the world. We haven't seen a true form of communism since we lived in caves

[SIZE="3"]


Gotta back WTF on this one, SOTF. Michelangelo is a poor example because he lived and worked in a theocracy. Even though he was paid (the money coming from the tithes of every day people) for his work in the Sistine Chapel, he was also subjected to a certain amount of Papal coercion to do it.
http://historylessons.net/michelange...sistine-chapel Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Thank you both WTF and IB, yes I do actually know exactly what I was talking about. My point was very simple. Human nature is and has always been very creative. Socialists would like us to believe that by creating some Utopian society, the creative energies of that society can then be expressed. The problem is, we don't need socialism for that to happen. Cave men drew on cave walls, carved images out of stone and ivory, learned to bake clay figurines, invented the wheel, learned to use fire, and so on.

From the days when we lived in caves, all the way to modern times, human kind has been creative, inventive, and curious. While government can encourage or stifle creativity and inventiveness, no governmental structure is needed to unlock the creative potential of humans. We do pretty well at that all on our own, under any and all systems of government.

That is the point I was making. You have confused political structure - theocracy, with economic structure, but that is ok. Pick any structure you like - monarchy, oligarchy, plutocracy, democracy - creativity and art will flourish in all forms. The idea that socialism is a magical panacea that is especially conducive to creativity where other forms of government are not is ridiculous.

Communism is actually the purest form of democracy

We haven't actually seen an example of true communism. What the USSR had was not communism, nor is North Korea, nor any other so-called communist regime in the world. We haven't seen a true form of communism since we lived in caves Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

Many years ago I read Thomas More's Utopia; which essentially depicts a perfect commune wherein people shared in all that was produced and wherein everyone rotated through jobs and responsibilities so that no one would become too comfortable in a position of power or too despondent in a position of servitude. There was no criminal class. Criminals and those who didn't get with the program were exiled. Kinda like Castro's Mariel boatlift program in 1980. One has to wonder what realm would willingly accept the U.S.' unwanted???

BTW, it's a commonly acknowledged fact that during the "caveman days" there was a non-egalitarian division of labor which the "modern woman" shuns: men did the hunting and the women did most of the gathering and tended to the kids, the cooking and making clothes.

Thank you both WTF and IB, yes I do actually know exactly what I was talking about. My point was very simple. Human nature is and has always been very creative. Socialists would like us to believe that by creating some Utopian society, the creative energies of that society can then be expressed. The problem is, we don't need socialism for that to happen. Cave men drew on cave walls, carved images out of stone and ivory, learned to bake clay figurines, invented the wheel, learned to use fire, and so on.

From the days when we lived in caves, all the way to modern times, human kind has been creative, inventive, and curious. While government can encourage or stifle creativity and inventiveness, no governmental structure is needed to unlock the creative potential of humans. We do pretty well at that all on our own, under any and all systems of government.

That is the point I was making. You have confused political structure - theocracy, with economic structure, but that is ok. Pick any structure you like - monarchy, oligarchy, plutocracy, democracy - creativity and art will flourish in all forms. The idea that socialism is a magical panacea that is especially conducive to creativity where other forms of government are not is ridiculous. Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

Merely pointed out that Michelangelo was a poor example to exemplify "freedom of expression." The work was coerced from the artist and paid for with a tax on the labor and beliefs of others who were not concerned with nor would they in anyway benefit from the work.

Communism is actually the purest form of democracy
We haven't actually seen an example of true communism. What the USSR had was not communism, nor is North Korea, nor any other so-called communist regime in the world. We haven't seen a true form of communism since we lived in caves Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

Correct, what we have "seen" labeled Communism is actually Dictatorship by Committee. Frankly, the human race is pretty incapable of being successful under any type of government other than Benevolent Dictator (which includes some Monarchies). It simply takes only one guy on a power trip to ruin things (including Dictatorships and Monarchies). And don't get me started on committees, I deal with that in the real world. The US govt is a committee and we're a zillion trillion in the red.

Art, enterprise, creativity, etc, will always flourish with sponsorship. Whether suppressed or not, or encouraged or not, by govt, is immaterial. Creativity, etc, simply has a knack for finding sponsors.

Look you pussy ass bitch....just because you spam the forum with the most asinine shit does not mean that I think you are funny with this continuing to have to mention me while doing so. Find another poster to obsess with. Originally Posted by WTF

You should have kept my name out of your whore mouth. You started it. Remember? The answer is NO, I won't voluntarily go into your re-education camp I guess this means we are not going to have a beer?

At one time I thought the Israeli kibbutz was the closest approximation to pure socialism. No private property, everything is shared. However, many of these utopian communities have changed in recent decades. Originally they were agricultural cooperatives. Now many have developed factories and high-tech industries listed and traded on the NASDAQ! And their "compensation" structures have evolved into something that looks more capitalist than socialist:


There are now three kibbutz compensation models. 1) The traditional collective kibbutz, in which members are compensated equally, regardless of what work each member does; 2) the mixed model kibbutz, in which each member is given a small percentage of his salary along with a basic component given equally to all kibbutz members; and 3) the renewing kibbutz, in which a member's income consists solely of his individual income from his work and sometimes includes income from other kibbutz sources.

According to a survey conducted by the University of Haifa 188 of all kibbutzim (72%) are now converted to the "renewing kibbutz" model, which could be described as more individualistic kibbutz.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz


Perhaps the lesson of kibbutzim history is that even in those cases where people have tried to practice socialism in a gentle, non-coercive way it hasn't worked in practice as well as allowing natural capitalist forces to operate.

.

Communism is actually the purest form of democracy

We haven't actually seen an example of true communism. What the USSR had was not communism, nor is North Korea, nor any other so-called communist regime in the world. We haven't seen a true form of communism since we lived in caves Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

With that being said, if true communism ever rears it's ugly head again, I think it would be safe to assume we would live in caves again. Like I've said before, I'll stick with Capitalism until something better comes along.


Jim