Philosophy Now Forum

The Soviet was never anything more than socialist in name. What the Soviet engineered was state controlled and state monopolised capitalism.
Rather that distribute capital and the means of production to the control of the workers, it was the state that monopolised all capital.
Without exception the architects of socialism in the 19thC would not have supported the Soviet state, nor recognised it as socialist.

Socialism is the tendency run the political economy for the use of the people, rather than for the rich; it is the tendency to give the slave access to the fruits of his labour against an overwrought reliance of right of property owners. It's aim is to protect the weak and urge the strong to provide for the health and wealth of the community and not gather resources to itself.

We did not see much evidence of this in Stalin's regime over and above the lip-service he paid to the ideology.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Socialism is the tendency run the political economy for the use of the people, rather than for the rich; it is the tendency to give the slave access to the fruits of his labour against an overwrought reliance of right of property owners. It's aim is to protect the weak and urge the strong to provide for the health and wealth of the community and not gather resources to itself.

You don't understand that free-market capitalsm is the only political/economic system that improves the lives of everyone, not just the rich. Without free-market capitalism, poor people would be destined to be even poorer. For instance, the poorest people in the U.S. would be considered rich by most of the world. Unfortunately, socialism goes against human nature.

Why was this bastard's garbage dredged up from the depths of the hell that he's hopefully gone to?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Why was this bastard's garbage dredged up from the depths of the hell that he's hopefully gone to?

Who are you talking about?

bobevenson wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Why was this bastard's garbage dredged up from the depths of the hell that he's hopefully gone to?

Who are you talking about?

Your memory must be shorter than your manhood.

bobevenson wrote:... For instance, the poorest people in the U.S. would be considered rich by most of the world. Unfortunately, socialism goes against human nature.[/size][/b]

Actually not, as you have some seriously poor people living on your streets.

ANYWAY.... As I said before the moron from Cincinnati chipped in his vitriolic bullshit.


The Soviet was never anything more than socialist in name. What the Soviet engineered was state controlled and state monopolised capitalism.
Rather that distribute capital and the means of production to the control of the workers, it was the state that monopolised all capital.
Without exception the architects of socialism in the 19thC would not have supported the Soviet state, nor recognised it as socialist.

Socialism is the tendency run the political economy for the use of the people, rather than for the rich; it is the tendency to give the slave access to the fruits of his labour against an overwrought reliance of right of property owners. It's aim is to protect the weak and urge the strong to provide for the health and wealth of the community and not gather resources to itself.

We did not see much evidence of this in Stalin's regime over and above the lip-service he paid to the ideology.

ForgedinHell wrote:I have noticed that there are a lot of socialists lurking about on this forum. They seem to take offense with my definition of socialism, which is the use of force by one group of people against another. It is the deprivation of freedom. The socialists whine like babies that I have somehow been unfair in my definition. So, my challange to all you socialists out there is this: State your definition of socialism without it contradicting my definition for socialism.

Capitalism is the use of force to deny freedom. International corporations have no loyalty to their country of origin. They are a dictatorship, not a democracy. Capitalism is based on hereditary rights. I always laugh when someone accuses Obama of being a Socialist. He is the best friend Wall Street ever had. Academia and journalists are Socialists? If I was right wing I's keep quiet about that. The most educated and those whose job is to stay informed about current events are all socialists??
You may want all power to the banks and Wall Street. NOT ME! I want yhe middle class to be empowered.
Unfortunately, the middle class is vanishing because of deregulation. Those that create value are having their money stolen by the elite.
I always laugh at those that concentrate their anger towards government. The government is a puppet. International corporations are the puppeteer. Attack a puppet? Now that is silly.
I would imagine that you would call Reagan and Eisenhower Socialists. That is how far right the right has gone. No power to Amerixan citizens. All power to Wall Street and the banks.
Today, 400 INDIVIDUAL Americans have more then half yhe wealth in yhe USA. I say,lets go back to the Socialist heaven of Eisenhower and Reagan!

Hobbes' Choice wrote:ANYWAY.... As I said before the moron from Cincinnati chipped in his vitriolic bullshit.

Exactly what vitriolic bullshit are you referring to?