btw: according to the East German constitution the GDR government was a "dictatorship of the proletariat", not a socialist government.

Is that where you got the idea to just make crap up as you go along? Because just because those idiots said what the Soviets told them to, certainly doesn't make it true. In fact, it isn't. It was just a socialist dictatorship because of the manner and extent of their use of force.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

btw: according to the East German constitution the GDR government was a "dictatorship of the proletariat", not a socialist government.

Is that where you got the idea to just make crap up as you go along? Because just because those idiots said what the Soviets told them to, certainly doesn't make it true. In fact, it isn't. It was just a socialist dictatorship because of the manner and extent of their use of force.

Well I define socialism as equality in wealth and in chances; and as a true democracy, a democracy from the roots: The People rule either by referendums or other ways of decision-making, and the "government" is just merely representing, and doing what the vast majority of The People decide as long as its for the good of the People. Thus, all "socialist" countries were not yet socialist, but on the way there.

---

Account frozen...

Well I define socialism as equality in wealth and in chances...

That's great that that's how you define it, of course, that isn't how the word is defined. Socialism is significant gov't control, by fiat, over the means and ownership of production. It isn't some sort of diktatorship of the prole, that's just self-serving rhetoric. It's rule by the initiation of force.

...and as a true democracy, a democracy from the roots: The People rule either by referendums or other ways of decision-making, and the "government" is just merely representing, and doing what the vast majority of The People decide as long as its for the good of the People. Thus, all "socialist" countries were not yet socialist, but on the way there.

Heh. They were on their way there. Cute. The problem ALWAYS is: who decides what is for the good of the people, and given that no one can ever decide that centrally, the result is economic failure. Blows rained down from above. And when that doesn't work, the solution is: more blows rained down from above. And when that causes more problems, the solution? You guessed it: More blows rained down from above.

And you think those fools can run your health care. Pfffft.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Even Oscar Wilde pondered about Socialism / Communism:

The chief advantage that would result from the establishment of Socialism is, undoubtedly, the fact that Socialism would relieve us from that sordid necessity of living for others which, in the present condition of things, presses so hardly upon almost everybody. In fact, scarcely any one at all escapes.

Now and then, in the course of the century, a great man of science, like Darwin; a great poet, like Keats; a fine critical spirit, like M. Renan; a supreme artist, like Flaubert, has been able to isolate himself, to keep himself out of reach of the clamorous claims of others, to stand "under the shelter of the wall," as Plato puts it, and so to realise the perfection of what was in him, to his own incomparable gain, and to the incomparable and lasting gain of the whole world. These, however, are exceptions. The majority of people spoil their lives by an unhealthy and exaggerated altruism - are forced, indeed, so to spoil them. They find themselves surrounded by hideous poverty, by hideous ugliness, by hideous starvation. It is inevitable that they should be strongly moved by all this. The emotions of man are stirred more quickly than man's intelligence; and, as I pointed out some time ago in an article on the function of criticism, it is much more easy to have sympathy with suffering than it is to have sympathy with thought. Accordingly, with admirable though misdirected intentions, they very seriously and very sentimentally set themselves to the task of remedying the evils that they see. But their remedies do not cure the disease: they merely prolong it. Indeed, their remedies are part of the disease.

They try to solve the problem of poverty, for instance, by keeping the poor alive; or, in the case of a very advanced school, by amusing the poor.

But this is not a solution: it is an aggravation of the difficulty. The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible. And the altruistic virtues have really prevented the carrying out of this aim. Just as the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being realised by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it, so, in the present state of things in England, the people who do most harm are the people who try to do most good; and at last we have had the spectacle of men who have really studied the problem and know the life - educated men who live in the East End - coming forward and imploring the community to restrain its altruistic impulses of charity, benevolence, and the like. They do so on the ground that such charity degrades and demoralises. They are perfectly right. Charity creates a multitude of sins.

There is also this to be said. It is immoral to use private property in order to alleviate the horrible evils that result from the institution of private property. It is both immoral and unfair.

Under Socialism all this will, of course, be altered. There will be no people living in fetid dens and fetid rags, and bringing up unhealthy, hungerpinched children in the midst of impossible and absolutely repulsive surroundings. The security of society will not depend, as it does now, on the state of the weather. If a frost comes we shall not have a hundred thousand men out of work, tramping about the streets in a state of disgusting misery, or whining to their neighbours for alms, or crowding round the doors of loathsome shelters to try and secure a hunch of bread and a night's unclean lodging. Each member of the society will share in the general prosperity and happiness of the society, and if a frost comes no one will practically be anything the worse.

Upon the other hand, Socialism itself will be of value simply because it will lead to Individualism.

Socialism, Communism, or whatever one chooses to call it, by converting private property into public wealth, and substituting co-operation for competition, will restore society to its proper condition of a thoroughly healthy organism, and insure the material wellbeing of each member of the community. It will, in fact, give Life its proper basis and its proper environment. But for the full development of Life to its highest mode of perfection, something more is needed. What is needed is Individualism. If the Socialism is Authoritarian; if there are Governments armed with economic power as they are now with political power; if, in a word, we are to have Industrial Tyrannies, then the last state of man will be worse than the first. At present, in consequence of the existence of private property, a great many people are enabled to develop a certain very limited amount of individualism. They are either under no necessity to work for their living, or are enabled to choose the sphere of activity that is really congenial to them and gives them pleasure. These are the poets, the philosophers, the men of science, the men of culture - in a word, the real men, the men who have realised themselves, and in whom all Humanity gains a partial realisation. Upon the other hand, there are a great many people who, having no private property of their own, and being always on the brink of sheer starvation, are compelled to do the work of beasts of burden, to do work that is quite uncongenial to them, and to which they are forced by the peremptory, unreasonable, degrading Tyranny of want. These are the poor, and amongst them there is no grace of manner, or charm of speech, or civilisation, or culture, or refinement in pleasures, or joy of life. From their collective force Humanity gains much in material prosperity. But it is only the material result that it gains, and the man who is poor is in himself absolutely of no importance. He is merely the infinitesimal atom of a force that, so far from regarding him, crushes him: indeed, prefers him crushed, as in that case he is far more obedient.

Of course, it might be said that the Individualism generated under conditions of private property is not always, or even as a rule of a fine or wonderful type, and that the poor, if they have not culture and charm, have still many virtues. Both these statements would be quite true. The possession of private property is very often extremely demoralising, and that is, of course, one of the reasons why Socialism wants to get rid of the institution. In fact, property is really a nuisance. Some years ago people went about the country saying that property has duties. They said it so often and so tediously that, at last, the Church has begun to say it. One hears it now from every pulpit. It is perfectly true. Property not merely has duties, but has so many duties that its possession to any large extent is a bore. It involves endless claims upon one, endless attention to business, endless bother. If property had simply pleasures, we could stand it; but its duties make it unbearable. In the interest of the rich we must get rid of it. The virtues of the poor may be readily admitted, and are much to be regretted. We are often told that the poor are grateful for charity. Some of them are, no doubt, but the best amongst the poor are never grateful. They are ungrateful, discontented, disobedient, and rebellious. They are quite right to be so. Charity they feel to be a ridiculously inadequate mode of partial restitution, or a sentimental dole, usually accompanied by some impertinent attempt on the part of the sentimentalist to tyrannise over their private lives. Why should they be grateful for the crumbs that fall from the rich man's table? They should be seated at the board, and are beginning to know it. As for being discontented, a man who would not be discontented with such surroundings and such alow mode of life would be a perfect brute. Disobedience, in the eyes of any one who has read history, is man's original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion. Sometimes the poor are praised for being thrifty. But to recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less. For a town or country labourer to practise thrift would be absolutely immoral. Man should not be ready to show that he can live like a badly-fed animal. He should decline to live like that, and should either steal or go on the rates, which is considered by many to be a form of stealing. As for begging, it is safer to beg than to take, but it is finer to take than to beg. No; a poor man who is ungrateful, unthrifty, discontented, and rebellious is probably a real personality, and has much in him. He is at any rate a healthy protest. As for the virtuous poor, one can pity them, of course, but one cannot possibly admire them. They have made private terms with the enemy and sold their birthright for very bad pottage. They must also be extraordinarily stupid. I can quite understand a man accepting laws that protect private property, and admit of its accumulation, as long as he himself is able under these conditions to realise some form of beautiful and intellectual life. But it is almost incredible to me how a man whose life is marred and made hideous by such laws can possibly acquiesce in their continuance.

However, the explanation is not really so difficult to find. It is simply this. Misery and poverty are so absolutely degrading, and exercise such a paralysing effect over the nature of men, that no class is ever really conscious of its own suffering. They have to be told of it by other people, and they often entirely disbelieve them. What is said by great employers of labour against agitators is unquestionably true. Agitators are a set of interfering, meddling people, who come down to some perfectly contented class of the community, and sow the seeds of discontent amongst them. That is the reason why agitators are so absolutely necessary. Without them, in our incomplete state, there would be no advance towards civilisation. Slavery was put down in America, not in consequence of any action on the part of the slaves, or even any express desire on their part that they should be free. It was put down entirely through the grossly illegal conduct of certain agitators in Boston and elsewhere, who were not slaves themselves, nor owners of slaves, nor had anything to do with the question really. It was, undoubtedly, the Abolitionists who set the torch alight, who began the whole thing. And it is curious to note that from the slaves themselves they received, not merely very little assistance, but hardly any sympathy even; and when at the close of the war the slaves found themselves free, found themselves indeed so absolutely free that they were free to starve, many of them bitterly regretted the new state of things. To the thinker, the most tragic fact in the whole of the French Revolution is not that Marie Antoinette was killed for being a queen, but that the starved peasant of the Vendee voluntarily went out to die for the hideous cause of feudalism.

It is clear, then, that no Authoritarian Socialism will do. For while under the present system a very large number of people can lead lives of a certain amount of freedom and expression and happiness, under an industrial barrack system, or a system of economic tyranny, nobody would be able to have any such freedom at all. It is to be regretted that a portion of our community should be practically in slavery, but to propose to solve the problem by enslaving the entire community is childish. Every man must be left quite free to choose his own work. No form of compulsion must he exercised over him. If there is, his work will not be good for him, will not be good in itself, and will not be good for others. And by work I simply mean activity of any kind.
...

---

Account frozen...

Even Oscar Wilde pondered about Socialism/Communism:

Well thank Jeebus for Oscar Wilde. Where would the state of the world be without the musings of the Wilde one?

"I am Cornholio!" --The Great Cornholio, i.e., Beavis, Beavis and Butthead, MTV, 1992.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

From the very early days up to today thinkers and normal people always tried to find a possibility to get the most social, the most equitable, the most righteous and most agreeable society. Possibilities as an alternative to the corrupt societies called feudalism and capitalism. During the times, a lot of people all over the world gathered and tried such "social experiments", tried to live their dream of "paradise on Earth".

Only those who couldn't join in, who still were full of this sicknesses called greed and egoism, made these experiments fail.
Let's teach the entire nowadays' children generation ways to get rid of egoism, corruption and greed, and to see their neighbor as a human no matter what he or she possesses, and our grandchildren or great-grandchildren will live in a real social society. It's all a matter of education.

---

Account frozen...

From the very early days up to today thinkers and normal people always tried to find a possibility to get the most social, the most equitable, the most righteous and most agreeable society. Possibilities as an alternative to the corrupt societies called feudalism and capitalism. During the times, a lot of people all over the world gathered and tried such "social experiments", tried to live their dream of "paradise on Earth".

"Corrupt societies," why? Because you happen to think they are? Are there corrupt people, sure. That's human nature--there are corrupt Buddist monks but that doesn't make the whole bunch 'em corrupt.

Only those who couldn't join in, who still were full of this sicknesses called greed and egoism, made these experiments fail.
Heh heh. How is that possible? You don't need them. I mean, right? You don't need anyone except those that agree with you.

As noted previously, when some other idiot said:

"Shortages of consumer goods is another 'communist failure' apologists for capitalism love to trot out as 'proof' that their beloved license to plunder and conquer is inherently superior to a more just economic system. Yet time and again they suppress the real reasons these shortages occurred. Recognizing the existential threat that Marxist ideals posed to their Anglo, imperial, and patriarchal plutocracy, the United States ruling class and its allies circled the wagons and imposed crippling economic sanctions on nations attempting to implement communism (i.e. Russia and Cuba)."

The author seems lost. Does it strike you as odd at all, that to hear you tell it, the Soviets and Cuba needed to trade, on the open, laissez-faire, capitalist market to survive? In other words, it was capitalism that kept/keeps those systems alive? Note the irony there? I mean, you seem to understand why economic sanctions are crippling, but can't seem to fathom that those same economic rules apply in communist countries too: they must use the free, capitalist market to obtain what they cannot produce on their own.

Rest assured, Cuba does not buy it's "free" drugs from huge Cuban drug conglomerates...

You see, communists have no need of free trade, right? They just build themselves a wall, and everything should go puffing right along. Let's see, the Soviets had themselves a nice wall, what the hell would they need anything from the outside for? And the Cubans still have themselves a nice wall, why should they need to trade in the laissez-faire capitalist system?

The point is to illustrate why your "social experiments" failed. They failed internally because they deny human nature and the participants all seem to think that everyone will always agree. They don't.

Let's teach the entire nowadays' children generation ways to get rid of egoism, corruption and greed, and to see their neighbor as a human no matter what he or she possesses, and our grandchildren or great-grandchildren will live in a real social society. It's all a matter of education.

You teach your kids whatever the hell you want. I'll teach my kids as I see fit, and I will use lots and lots of examples from history to illustrate my points. Hopefully by then, all the people that feel as you do will have completely isolated yourselves and I won't have to give you a second thought.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

All of us, without exception, act in our own best interests. All of us get to define what is "our own best interest." Best interest (BI) may be money to Fred, leisure to Al, time to hang with family to Grace, something else to me. We make an error when we assume that everyone's BI is mere money or goods. And our BIs change with circumstances and time. For instance, I suspect that sitting senators define BI as an increase in their personal power. That makes power more important, to them, than money, family time, or national defense. After senators retire, I guess other things become BIs.

Socialism, along with a lot of other -isms, requires a strong central government. The problem with strong central gvmts is that they define for their citizens what the citizens BIs must be. The citizens don't get to choose.

---

fantumfighter

Oh, I forgot to mention how much I enjoy the word "greed." What you and I do, of course, is prudent management of our resources; that other guy does greed.

---

fantumfighter

Socialism/Communism are not bad ideas, just extremely hard to translate from paper to reality.

---

Hopefully the cosmos is not trying to reverse the charges.
Moderation in all things.

All of us, without exception, act in our own best interests. All of us get to define what is "our own best interest." Best interest (BI) may be money to Fred, leisure to Al, time to hang with family to Grace, something else to me. We make an error when we assume that everyone's BI is mere money or goods. And our BIs change with circumstances and time. For instance, I suspect that sitting senators define BI as an increase in their personal power. That makes power more important, to them, than money, family time, or national defense. After senators retire, I guess other things become BIs.

Socialism, along with a lot of other -isms, requires a strong central government. The problem with strong central gvmts is that they define for their citizens what the citizens BIs must be. The citizens don't get to choose.

I still think to focus on our own BIs is egoistic.
My grandfather for example, when he retired, he began to repair the bicycles of the youth of the entire village, and taught them how to repair them by themselves. His entire yard looked at times like a work-shop, he spend hours and hours a day with kids firstly unknown to him repairing their bikes, and more hours to search for spare parts for those bikes. He never wanted any money for this service, and when he had to buy some parts he asked for exactly the price he paid for it, not telling that he had to pay shipping costs or to drive to the next big town to get it. And he even refused to take any tip. To him, the most reward were the enthusiasm and gratefulness in the eyes of them kids, and the satisfaction about himself to still have enough skills to repair the bikes even though repairing some of them was more tricky than he was used to do...

---

Account frozen...

All of us, without exception, act in our own best interests. All of us get to define what is "our own best interest." Best interest (BI) may be money to Fred, leisure to Al, time to hang with family to Grace, something else to me. We make an error when we assume that everyone's BI is mere money or goods. And our BIs change with circumstances and time. For instance, I suspect that sitting senators define BI as an increase in their personal power. That makes power more important, to them, than money, family time, or national defense. After senators retire, I guess other things become BIs.

Socialism, along with a lot of other -isms, requires a strong central government. The problem with strong central gvmts is that they define for their citizens what the citizens BIs must be. The citizens don't get to choose.

I still think to focus on our own BIs is egoistic.
My grandfather for example, when he retired, he began to repair the bicycles of the youth of the entire village, and taught them how to repair them by themselves. His entire yard looked at times like a work-shop, he spend hours and hours a day with kids firstly unknown to him repairing their bikes, and more hours to search for spare parts for those bikes. He never wanted any money for this service, and when he had to buy some parts he asked for exactly the price he paid for it, not telling that he had to pay shipping costs or to drive to the next big town to get it. And he even refused to take any tip. To him, the most reward were the enthusiasm and gratefulness in the eyes of them kids, and the satisfaction about himself to still have enough skills to repair the bikes even though repairing some of them was more tricky than he was used to do...

I like your Opa. He sounds like a very nice guy.

---

Hopefully the cosmos is not trying to reverse the charges.
Moderation in all things.

All of us, without exception, act in our own best interests. All of us get to define what is "our own best interest." Best interest (BI) may be money to Fred, leisure to Al, time to hang with family to Grace, something else to me. We make an error when we assume that everyone's BI is mere money or goods. And our BIs change with circumstances and time. For instance, I suspect that sitting senators define BI as an increase in their personal power. That makes power more important, to them, than money, family time, or national defense. After senators retire, I guess other things become BIs.

Socialism, along with a lot of other -isms, requires a strong central government. The problem with strong central gvmts is that they define for their citizens what the citizens BIs must be. The citizens don't get to choose.

I still think to focus on our own BIs is egoistic.
My grandfather for example, when he retired, he began to repair the bicycles of the youth of the entire village, and taught them how to repair them by themselves. His entire yard looked at times like a work-shop, he spend hours and hours a day with kids firstly unknown to him repairing their bikes, and more hours to search for spare parts for those bikes. He never wanted any money for this service, and when he had to buy some parts he asked for exactly the price he paid for it, not telling that he had to pay shipping costs or to drive to the next big town to get it. And he even refused to take any tip. To him, the most reward were the enthusiasm and gratefulness in the eyes of them kids, and the satisfaction about himself to still have enough skills to repair the bikes even though repairing some of them was more tricky than he was used to do...

I like your Opa. He sounds like a very nice guy.

You really would have liked him. Unfortunately he died 5 years ago with the age of 87. I still see him as an example in his honesty and incorruptibility, in his general righteousness, and despite his low tolerance against religions.

---

Account frozen...

All of us, without exception, act in our own best interests. All of us get to define what is "our own best interest." Best interest (BI) may be money to Fred, leisure to Al, time to hang with family to Grace, something else to me. We make an error when we assume that everyone's BI is mere money or goods. And our BIs change with circumstances and time. For instance, I suspect that sitting senators define BI as an increase in their personal power. That makes power more important, to them, than money, family time, or national defense. After senators retire, I guess other things become BIs.

Socialism, along with a lot of other -isms, requires a strong central government. The problem with strong central gvmts is that they define for their citizens what the citizens BIs must be. The citizens don't get to choose.

I still think to focus on our own BIs is egoistic.
My grandfather for example, when he retired, he began to repair the bicycles of the youth of the entire village, and taught them how to repair them by themselves. His entire yard looked at times like a work-shop, he spend hours and hours a day with kids firstly unknown to him repairing their bikes, and more hours to search for spare parts for those bikes. He never wanted any money for this service, and when he had to buy some parts he asked for exactly the price he paid for it, not telling that he had to pay shipping costs or to drive to the next big town to get it. And he even refused to take any tip. To him, the most reward were the enthusiasm and gratefulness in the eyes of them kids, and the satisfaction about himself to still have enough skills to repair the bikes even though repairing some of them was more tricky than he was used to do...

I like your Opa. He sounds like a very nice guy.

You really would have liked him. Unfortunately he died 5 years ago with the age of 87. I still see him as an example in his honesty and incorruptibility, in his general righteousness, and despite his low tolerance against religions.

Sorry for your loss. I only have one grandparent left and we're not sure how much longer she will be with us.

---

Hopefully the cosmos is not trying to reverse the charges.
Moderation in all things.

All of us, without exception, act in our own best interests. All of us get to define what is "our own best interest." Best interest (BI) may be money to Fred, leisure to Al, time to hang with family to Grace, something else to me. We make an error when we assume that everyone's BI is mere money or goods. And our BIs change with circumstances and time. For instance, I suspect that sitting senators define BI as an increase in their personal power. That makes power more important, to them, than money, family time, or national defense. After senators retire, I guess other things become BIs.

Socialism, along with a lot of other -isms, requires a strong central government. The problem with strong central gvmts is that they define for their citizens what the citizens BIs must be. The citizens don't get to choose.

I still think to focus on our own BIs is egoistic.
My grandfather for example, when he retired, he began to repair the bicycles of the youth of the entire village, and taught them how to repair them by themselves. His entire yard looked at times like a work-shop, he spend hours and hours a day with kids firstly unknown to him repairing their bikes, and more hours to search for spare parts for those bikes. He never wanted any money for this service, and when he had to buy some parts he asked for exactly the price he paid for it, not telling that he had to pay shipping costs or to drive to the next big town to get it. And he even refused to take any tip. To him, the most reward were the enthusiasm and gratefulness in the eyes of them kids, and the satisfaction about himself to still have enough skills to repair the bikes even though repairing some of them was more tricky than he was used to do...

I like your Opa. He sounds like a very nice guy.

You really would have liked him. Unfortunately he died 5 years ago with the age of 87. I still see him as an example in his honesty and incorruptibility, in his general righteousness, and despite his low tolerance against religions.

Sorry for your loss. I only have one grandparent left and we're not sure how much longer she will be with us.

Actually, none of my grandparents are alive anymore. Well, they are living in my memories, in my thoughts and in my prayers. I keep them alive that way, as well as I keep my brothers alive in my memories, thoughts and prayers, who died on diseases: the younger one 20 years ago 15 of age, on cancer; the elder one almost 4 years ago aged 41, on an untreated pneumonia.

---

Account frozen...

All of us, without exception, act in our own best interests. All of us get to define what is "our own best interest." Best interest (BI) may be money to Fred, leisure to Al, time to hang with family to Grace, something else to me. We make an error when we assume that everyone's BI is mere money or goods. And our BIs change with circumstances and time. For instance, I suspect that sitting senators define BI as an increase in their personal power. That makes power more important, to them, than money, family time, or national defense. After senators retire, I guess other things become BIs.

Socialism, along with a lot of other -isms, requires a strong central government. The problem with strong central gvmts is that they define for their citizens what the citizens BIs must be. The citizens don't get to choose.

I still think to focus on our own BIs is egoistic.
My grandfather for example, when he retired, he began to repair the bicycles of the youth of the entire village, and taught them how to repair them by themselves. His entire yard looked at times like a work-shop, he spend hours and hours a day with kids firstly unknown to him repairing their bikes, and more hours to search for spare parts for those bikes. He never wanted any money for this service, and when he had to buy some parts he asked for exactly the price he paid for it, not telling that he had to pay shipping costs or to drive to the next big town to get it. And he even refused to take any tip. To him, the most reward were the enthusiasm and gratefulness in the eyes of them kids, and the satisfaction about himself to still have enough skills to repair the bikes even though repairing some of them was more tricky than he was used to do...

I like your Opa. He sounds like a very nice guy.

You really would have liked him. Unfortunately he died 5 years ago with the age of 87. I still see him as an example in his honesty and incorruptibility, in his general righteousness, and despite his low tolerance against religions.

Sorry for your loss. I only have one grandparent left and we're not sure how much longer she will be with us.

Actually, none of my grandparents are alive anymore. Well, they are living in my memories, in my thoughts and in my prayers. I keep them alive that way, as well as I keep my brothers alive in my memories, thoughts and prayers, who died on diseases: the younger one 20 years ago 15 of age, on cancer; the elder one almost 4 years ago aged 41, on an untreated pneumonia.

Only lost one sibling so far. My younger brother was gunned down while he was walking home from a party. The shooter was someone my family had befriended.

Ok, enough doom and gloom. Anybody got any ideas on how to make Socialism/Communism work or at least work better than they have in the past?

Socialized medicine seems to work for the most part. Granted there are horror stories but there are horror stories about private medicine.

Social Security (Yep, boys and girls, it's a Socialist program) is going down the tubes because Congress can't keep it's hands out of the cookie jar.

Extra Credit : Can anyone think of other Socialist programs or groups in the US that are mislabeled as democratic or capitalist?

---

Hopefully the cosmos is not trying to reverse the charges.
Moderation in all things.

Ok, enough doom and gloom. Anybody got any ideas on how to make Socialism/Communism work or at least work better than they have in the past?

Socialized medicine seems to work for the most part. Granted there are horror stories but there are horror stories about private medicine.

Social Security (Yep, boys and girls, it's a Socialist program) is going down the tubes because Congress can't keep it's hands out of the cookie jar.

Extra Credit : Can anyone think of other Socialist programs or groups in the US that are mislabeled as democratic or capitalist?

Stop. The American Social Security Act was created under President Roosevelt, in the 30'S, and I doubt that he was a socialist...

Original by Wikipedia
The Social Security Act was drafted by President Roosevelt's committee on economic security, under Edwin Witte, and passed by Congress as part of the New Deal. It was controversial when originally proposed, with one point of opposition being that it would cause a loss of jobs. Historian Edward Berkowitz subsequently contended that the Act was a cause of the "Roosevelt Recession" in 1937 and 1938. However, the program has gone on to be one of the most popular government programs in American history.

The Act is formally cited as the Social Security Act, ch. 531, 49 Stat. 620 at 15:40 on (14 August 1935), now codified as 42 U.S.C. ch.7. The Act is also known as the Old Age Pension Act. The Act provided benefits to retirees and the unemployed, and a lump-sum benefit at death. Payments to current retirees were (and continue to be) financed by a payroll tax on current workers' wages, half directly as a payroll tax and half paid by the employer.

---

Account frozen...

Ok, enough doom and gloom. Anybody got any ideas on how to make Socialism/Communism work or at least work better than they have in the past?

Socialized medicine seems to work for the most part. Granted there are horror stories but there are horror stories about private medicine.

Social Security (Yep, boys and girls, it's a Socialist program) is going down the tubes because Congress can't keep it's hands out of the cookie jar.

Extra Credit : Can anyone think of other Socialist programs or groups in the US that are mislabeled as democratic or capitalist?

Stop. The American Social Security Act was created under President Roosevelt, in the 30'S, and I doubt that he was a socialist...

Original by Wikipedia
The Social Security Act was drafted by President Roosevelt's committee on economic security, under Edwin Witte, and passed by Congress as part of the New Deal. It was controversial when originally proposed, with one point of opposition being that it would cause a loss of jobs. Historian Edward Berkowitz subsequently contended that the Act was a cause of the "Roosevelt Recession" in 1937 and 1938. However, the program has gone on to be one of the most popular government programs in American history.

The Act is formally cited as the Social Security Act, ch. 531, 49 Stat. 620 at 15:40 on (14 August 1935), now codified as 42 U.S.C. ch.7. The Act is also known as the Old Age Pension Act. The Act provided benefits to retirees and the unemployed, and a lump-sum benefit at death. Payments to current retirees were (and continue to be) financed by a payroll tax on current workers' wages, half directly as a payroll tax and half paid by the employer.

Note the phrase "financed by a payroll tax on current workers' wages". It's not a voluntary program, it's mandatory. All for the greater good of the People. That's socialism.

---

Hopefully the cosmos is not trying to reverse the charges.
Moderation in all things.

Ok, enough doom and gloom. Anybody got any ideas on how to make Socialism/Communism work or at least work better than they have in the past?

Socialized medicine seems to work for the most part. Granted there are horror stories but there are horror stories about private medicine.

Social Security (Yep, boys and girls, it's a Socialist program) is going down the tubes because Congress can't keep it's hands out of the cookie jar.

Extra Credit : Can anyone think of other Socialist programs or groups in the US that are mislabeled as democratic or capitalist?

Stop. The American Social Security Act was created under President Roosevelt, in the 30'S, and I doubt that he was a socialist...

Original by Wikipedia
The Social Security Act was drafted by President Roosevelt's committee on economic security, under Edwin Witte, and passed by Congress as part of the New Deal. It was controversial when originally proposed, with one point of opposition being that it would cause a loss of jobs. Historian Edward Berkowitz subsequently contended that the Act was a cause of the "Roosevelt Recession" in 1937 and 1938. However, the program has gone on to be one of the most popular government programs in American history.

The Act is formally cited as the Social Security Act, ch. 531, 49 Stat. 620 at 15:40 on (14 August 1935), now codified as 42 U.S.C. ch.7. The Act is also known as the Old Age Pension Act. The Act provided benefits to retirees and the unemployed, and a lump-sum benefit at death. Payments to current retirees were (and continue to be) financed by a payroll tax on current workers' wages, half directly as a payroll tax and half paid by the employer.

Note the phrase "financed by a payroll tax on current workers' wages". It's not a voluntary program, it's mandatory. All for the greater good of the People. That's socialism.

Well, that how you imagine socialism. Socialism is, according to Wikipedia, "a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state or community ownership of the means of production."
So this one social program does not mean socialism yet.

---

Account frozen...

Ok, enough doom and gloom. Anybody got any ideas on how to make Socialism/Communism work or at least work better than they have in the past?

Socialized medicine seems to work for the most part. Granted there are horror stories but there are horror stories about private medicine.

Social Security (Yep, boys and girls, it's a Socialist program) is going down the tubes because Congress can't keep it's hands out of the cookie jar.

Extra Credit : Can anyone think of other Socialist programs or groups in the US that are mislabeled as democratic or capitalist?

Stop. The American Social Security Act was created under President Roosevelt, in the 30'S, and I doubt that he was a socialist...

Original by Wikipedia
The Social Security Act was drafted by President Roosevelt's committee on economic security, under Edwin Witte, and passed by Congress as part of the New Deal. It was controversial when originally proposed, with one point of opposition being that it would cause a loss of jobs. Historian Edward Berkowitz subsequently contended that the Act was a cause of the "Roosevelt Recession" in 1937 and 1938. However, the program has gone on to be one of the most popular government programs in American history.

The Act is formally cited as the Social Security Act, ch. 531, 49 Stat. 620 at 15:40 on (14 August 1935), now codified as 42 U.S.C. ch.7. The Act is also known as the Old Age Pension Act. The Act provided benefits to retirees and the unemployed, and a lump-sum benefit at death. Payments to current retirees were (and continue to be) financed by a payroll tax on current workers' wages, half directly as a payroll tax and half paid by the employer.

Note the phrase "financed by a payroll tax on current workers' wages". It's not a voluntary program, it's mandatory. All for the greater good of the People. That's socialism.

Well, that how you imagine socialism. Socialism is, according to Wikipedia, "a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state or community ownership of the means of production."
So this one social program does not mean socialism yet.

I realize that one program does not a socialist country make. What I am trying to say is that, while a number of my fellow (cough, gag) Americans rant and rave against all things Socialist/Communist, they still think that things like Social Security and Unions are Capital ideas.

If more people would take the time to actually look at history and differing forms of government, the world would be a much saner place.

---

Hopefully the cosmos is not trying to reverse the charges.
Moderation in all things.