Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?

[Eduard]

Actually, if we had meaningful Tort Reform health care costs would drop dramatically.  Since it's not legal to shoot all the lawyers, Tort Reform is the only solution.

love it!


Darth, you have no idea how disturbing it is for some one as myself, who grew up in a socialist country, to read your fantasies about how wonderful socialism would be in America.

[Darth_Budda]

What parts do you find disturbing?

I am arguing from the point that the USSR was not a true democratic Socialist country. From my observations, as a outsider the USSR was lacking in the democratic process. It looked like it was ran in a more bureaucratic  appointed fashion.

Nationalism, authoritarianism or corruption is not what i am arguing for, If that is what you think.

I am always interested in others view points..

I spoke recently to a Armenian-Canadian working in the security industry who spoke highly of the Socialized health care and education. As well as the atomic power that was produced. He saw the problem more as corruption and lack of democracy than Socialism in and of itself. He admits people were poor but most people had what they needed. He thought the major reason why it fell was global economic pressure and the isolation imposed by the west.   

I would love to hear first hand accounts of the FSU.
I find many people on both sides but like to know their reason why.

Also how do you feel that the CP in Russia still holds political ground in Russia. Do you think people just concentrate to much on the good and not on the bad of the former system?

I was actually surprised that my friend held the views that he held. I was expecting he would be against Socialism like so many on this forum are.

[Boethius]

The Nordic countries have been successful in introducing many socialist concepts (Danish socialists introduced many of Plekhanov's concepts to their country), as has France.

 

He thought the major reason why it fell was global economic pressure and the isolation imposed by the west.

   
 
No, it is because the population grew tired of living like beasts.  I think Pope John Paul's role can't be underestimated as well.  There is quite a bit of interconnection. 
 
Ronald Reagan's "evil empire" speech really resonated with people in Kyiv, and, I assume other parts of the USSR.  I am just saying what I observed.  That speech got major play in Soviet newspapers.  Lots of people asked, though not directly, why, if they didn't live in an evil empire, they lived in fear.

[Eduard]

What parts do you find disturbing?

I am arguing from the point that the USSR was not a true democratic Socialist country. From my observations, as a outsider the USSR was lacking in the democratic process.

No shit?!?!?
have you ever heard of a democratic socialist country in the history of humanity? Socialism is a utopian principal that can't work in real life. Just like there are winners and losers under a capitalist system, there are winners and losers in a socialist system, only under socialism losers are the vast majority. hasn't the last 100 years of history teach you guys anything?

[calmissile]

For your entertainment...

http://s1143.photobucket.com/albums/n632/calmissile/Obama/?albumview=slideshow

[Darth_Budda]

No shit?!?!?
have you ever heard of a democratic socialist country in the history of humanity? Socialism is a utopian principal that can't work in real life. Just like there are winners and losers under a capitalist system, there are winners and losers in a socialist system, only under socialism losers are the vast majority. hasn't the last 100 years of history teach you guys anything?

The original split with the American left and Communist Russia in the early 1900's was over this very issue...

The Socialist party of America split from the International Communists because they felt Russia was not going forward in a democratic way...


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

Much of the history of the united states has evolved around a American form of socialism. In fact Women's day was celebrated in the USA years before it was ever celebrated in Russia. Also American Communists in the 1800's were some of the first outspoken critics of Slavery. Yes they pre date the Russian revolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Women%27s_Day

I do not judge all Russians by Stalin,,,

Just like I don't judge democracy by Hitler. He was voted in to power...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933


The United States has been a rather Democratic Socialist country at many times in history. That is the only democratic and Socialist country I know of.

I like to study History,, So I read quite a bit... I try to see things for what they are.. It is better to work for a society were people are generally happy,, Not one That exploits the world more.. Much of our history we were not an imperialist country. But times change....


When communism came to Russia in the early 1900's they had no history of the Democratic process.. They simply traded a absolute monarchy for a dictator. I would say Stalin started out with good intentions but made his transformation into a dictator complete during WWII.

America on the other hand Has a History of democratic rule. So any form of Socialism will be it's own.

Marx is dead, He is simply a historical figure that lived in the 1800's.

American Socialists take more inspiration from Eugene V. Debs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs


EDIT:
Get ready for May Day 2012

[Boethius]

I would say Stalin started out with good intentions but made his transformation into a dictator complete during WWII.

No he didn't.  Early in Bolshevik history, he was the party "enforcer".  He was always a thug, and manipulated the party to ensure he gained succession.  In fact, Lenin saw these tendencies.  Stalin was also an absolute dictator far earlier than WWII.  I suppose one could pin this as "absolute" after the show trials in the 1930's.

Lenin implemented a lot of the organs of terror Stalin utilized.  There was a slowdown during NEP because the Bolsheviks needed to consolidate power and end civil unrest. 

[Eduard]

The original split with the American left and Communist Russia in the early 1900's was over this very issue...

The Socialist party of America split from the International Communists because they felt Russia was not going forward in a democratic way...


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

Much of the history of the united states has evolved around a American form of socialism. In fact Women's day was celebrated in the USA years before it was ever celebrated in Russia. Also American Communists in the 1800's were some of the first outspoken critics of Slavery. Yes they pre date the Russian revolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Women%27s_Day

I do not judge all Russians by Stalin,,,

Just like I don't judge democracy by Hitler. He was voted in to power...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933


The United States has been a rather Democratic Socialist country at many times in history. That is the only democratic and Socialist country I know of.

I like to study History,, So I read quite a bit... I try to see things for what they are.. It is better to work for a society were people are generally happy,, Not one That exploits the world more.. Much of our history we were not an imperialist country. But times change....


When communism came to Russia in the early 1900's they had no history of the Democratic process.. They simply traded a absolute monarchy for a dictator. I would say Stalin started out with good intentions but made his transformation into a dictator complete during WWII.

We must be reading different kinds of history! Stalin transformed into dictator only during WWII???? LOL! Check your facts!
Before the communists did their violent overthrow (October revolution) in 1917, Russia did have a temporary government striving for democracy. The Zar stepped down at that time and there was a possibility of Russia becoming a democratic republic. But communists wouldn't allow that and took power in a violent murderous way. When Lenin died and comrade Stalin came to power was ordering systematic assasinations of the old guard. People who he deemed dangerous for his total control of power. You need to brush up on that part of the history.


Socialism by definition can not be democratic because no other party can be allowed to exist. Voting during those years was easy and fun! You were presented with 2 choices at a voting "booth". 1. are you for Brezhnev 2. are you against Breznev   I don't think any one would dare check the "against" box in those days... oh yes, those wonderful days of socialism! And guess what? They (the power structure, press, teachers in schools, etc.) called it a democratic society! hen East Germany was under socialism (DDR) the second "D" stood for "Democratic"! LOL So while 99.9% of the DDR's population (basically every one except the government/party elite) barely existed, living in poverty and constant fear under the "kind and fair" socialist system, people on the other side of the Berlin Wall who were living under the "evil and unfair" capitalist system of West Germany were prosperous, free and happy.


Hmmm, what's wrong with that picture? I know, I know... you are gonna build a fair and democratis socialist system here in America... that's what they all said right before they grabbed the power.


Just FYI: America's poor, people who are living in "poverty" by the US standarts would be considered "rich" in a socialist society that I grew up in. Most people here, in the US truly don't have a concept of what real poverty is like, just ask any one who grew up in a socialist country, no matter which one...be it USSR, N. Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, China, East Germany - all the same, we have seen how destructive and inhumane socialism really is.


[size=78%]What you and people who believe like you don't take into account is human nature.  Under any social system the same type of people rise to the top and become rulers of countries. They all possess similar leadership qualities: driven, ruthless, among others.[/size]
[size=78%] Once in power they stay in power for life under a socialist system which by definition is not democratic. Show me one socialist country in the world history where this hasn't been true. Any "true believers" like yourself who believe in fairness and justice usually get killed or put away to prisons at the first sign of descent. Only people who are completely devoted to the "great, beloved leader" are allowed to live and prosper. A capitalist democratic system has checks and balances in place in a form of constitution that doesn't allow for such power grab to occur.[/size]
[size=78%]Unless you can radically change human nature, which can not be done, socialism will always wind up being a dictatorship.[/size]

[size=78%]Think about this, you are talking about socialism being fair. But how fair is it to a hard working person who is driven to succeed, who wants to better his/her life and insure a better life for his/her children, who works hard to take away the fruits of his labor and share them with a lazy, apathetic person with no desire to work or better themselves, who would rather get drunk or high than work hard to better themselves and their lives. Socialism assumes that every one will give a 100% of their work, talents and then divide the fruits of their labor evenly. However reality is that it is not a natural state for a human being (or any species for that matter). There will always be  a group of driven people who work hard and the other group who are just the opposite. How fair is it to take away the earnings from the hard working people and give them to the other group just to make things equal? You will create a lot of dissatisfaction and descent among the driven group and will have to get rid of the ones who make trouble. You can't change human nature no matter how much propaganda you subject them to and will have to find ways to suppress descent and dissatisfaction with not being able to get ahead financially. This always happans under the socialist system.[/size]

[Boethius]

Socialism by definition can not be democratic because no other party can be allowed to exist.

Untrue.  Socialism is about economic equality.  Marx and Engels wrote about socialism (a stage toward communism) in terms of economics.  They did not explain how it would be organized.

[Eduard]

any kind of equality is unnatural in the world where to survive equals being the fittest

[Darth_Budda]

any kind of equality is unnatural in the world where to survive equals being the fittest

You sound like Nietzsche...

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

[Darth_Budda]

Untrue.  Socialism is about economic equality.  Marx and Engels wrote about socialism (a stage toward communism) in terms of economics.  They did not explain how it would be organized.

I myself see a difference between Concepts...

Capitalism - Corporatism - Socialism = Economic forms of a Society.

Authoritarian - Religious - Democratic = Ways society elects or not elect people to run said society.

[BC]

The United States has been a rather Democratic Socialist country at many times in history. That is the only democratic and Socialist country I know of.

Plenty of 'em strewn across EU.

You seem to be swinging your bat a bit wildly..

[Muzh]

So does Ed. 

[Boethius]

any kind of equality is unnatural in the world where to survive equals being the fittest

Humans create the worlds they live in.  Everything is possible with intellect and reason.

[Eduard]

Humans create the worlds they live in.  Everything is possible with intellect and reason.

Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Mao all had intellect and they all had their reasons ;-)

[Boethius]

So did the drafters of the Magna Carta and the U.S. Constitution.

[BC]

Humans create the worlds they live in.  Everything is possible with intellect and reason.

..or power and wealth.

[Eduard]

The bottom line is that in the last 100 years socialism was establishes in different countires with very different cultures. It failed miserably everywhere. And when elements of socialism were introduced in Western European countries and here in the US those socialist policies are largely responsible for driving them and us to insolvency and economic crisis.

[Boethius]

So how do you account for Canada, which has cradle to grave publicly funded healthcare, free education, old age supplements, etc.?  It was the only country which did not suffer an economic meltdown in 2008 (though bumps), and its economy is currently in growth mode?

[Eduard]

So how do you account for Canada, which has cradle to grave publicly funded healthcare, free education, old age supplements, etc.?  It was the only country which did not suffer an economic meltdown in 2008 (though bumps), and its economy is currently in growth mode?

Probably because Canada is a capitalist country that implemented only 3 social programs while maintaining the free market system. A true socialist society like the one I grew up in is a utopia that can't work unless every person in that country is honest, hard working and selfless, which is an absurdity.

[Boethius]

The USSR was not a socialist country.
 
The U.S. is not a purely "capitalist" country.

[Eduard]

The USSR was not a socialist country.
 
The U.S. is not a purely "capitalist" country.

the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics wasn't socialist??? Are you saying they lied to us!?!?! )))

[SANDRO43]

the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics wasn't socialist??? Are you saying they lied to us!?!?! )))

Mislabelling . They could be prosecuted for that :

[Darth_Budda]

http://rt.com/news/communists-nato-bases-protests-507/