Close Topic Options

You didn't explain your rationale for such a decision. Politics relies on you explaining why you chose this or that, so do it.

Democratic Socialism is basically Orthodox Marxism. However, Marx never completed his ultimate work, Das Kapital, thus we are left with an unfinished blueprint for Socialism. Lenin attempted to solve the gap by creating a One-Party Representative Democracy and a Centrally Planned Economy. This was modified under Stalin who made it an Oligarchy but it returned to the Leninist model when Stalin died and Khrushchev took over during the De-Stalinization Plan in the Soviet Union. Trotsky died before the end of the Stalinist era and denounced what Stalin had made of the U.S.S.R. that Trotsky himself had aided in the construction of. Trotsky theorized that Socialism without Democracy was as a human without oxygen and it seems his theory was correct, due to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Furthermore, the United Kingdom is an example of a Mixed Planned and Free Economy, just as Sweden. The best examples of Socialism have been the Mixed ones in most, if not all, of Europe. Vietnam, North Korea, China, and Cuba have, under some Socialist principles more or less varying by countries (China the least because the Maoist form of Socialism was an abysmal failure in some cases while a resounding success in others) flourished. If Socialism is such a failure, how did it successfully turn Russia from a Fifth-World nation to a Second in only Five Years? Wherever Socialist practices have been implemented, fantastic growth and increase in economic efficiency and living conditions for all have been enjoyed. Saying it is a failure is laughable.

So I am assuming it is Public (Socialized) Education. I too have had very high statistics in the area of education.

I agree. Spending money is not the issue, accumulating wealth is. In my nation, as well as many others, the prospect of exploiting the labor of others for private gain is sick and perverse and viewed with complete hatred, much like slavery, which we place in to the same category of labor exploitation.

I concur with this, so no arguement from me.

Again, no arguement.

Once again, no disagreement. It seems we have similar social views, if not exactly the same.

That is how welfare is designed to work. I believe the same.

Yet again, in concurrence.

Sounds like a fair plan to me.

Health insurance has been nationalized? Why not have all of the healthcare industry nationalized? A comprehensive public healthcare system is important and nationalization of all healthcare would be more beneficial to all than a partially nationalized one, as history will tell.

Good, good.

Why three written requests? One will do, two doctors must verify, patient must be mentally capable to understand the request. Those are all the provisions I would have.

A strong military is important for imperialists. A capable defense is all that is required, no elaborate grand army. I think military service ought to be a matter of choice, not force. Making people serve in the military may be good for your country's armed forces, but it puts an enormous strain on people and limits freedoms.

Why must they sign the document promising not to use the embryo? What the hell would they use it for? To play catch?

Overall, I must say that your country has many needless restrictions and loads of paperwork. I cannot imagine the overwhelming bureaucracy that must have a stranglehold over your entire government. I'd say more, but I probably have to sign a legal document showing that I understand what I am saying and won't use it in another similar situation.

This post has been edited by Marturia on Jul 31 2004, 12:52 PM

It's more that they have no use for the embryo, and they are donating it to science. This ensures that they can't later sue because scientists are using "their" embryos for research purposes.

If communism is such a sucess, then why did the Soviet Union fall apart? Why did China allow capitalism? The answer is that communism fails to give people the incentives to do good work. In order to distribute the wealth, citizens of the Soviet Union had very high tax rates, which along with high prices on goods (due to bad planning (scarcity) and lack of incentive to do better) caused the average Soviet worker to have to take on an astounding (on average) THREE full time jobs, where they would catch up on their sleep as much as possible. As the Soviet leadership felt that communism was the way of the future, they saw it as their duty to keep up with the "imperialists" militarily. This finally led to the Soviet Union spending more than 25% of it's GDP (the Soviet economic oversight was so bad that no one knows for sure) on it's military, while the US was spending only 6% of it's GDP on it's own military. The American and NATO militaries (and other nations) always had a big technological advantage over their Soviet counterparts (as evidenced in part by the superior quieting and sonars of NATO submarines). I'll shine the spotlight on other parts of the Soviet Union, if you wish.

Ah, well you should have clarified that.

First off, niether of the were Communism, It was Socialism. Second, both of these countries concentrated too much on military might. 25% GDP was spent on it, and their economy couldn't stand that level of abuse. It isn't because Socialism is a failure, it's because they planned their economic goals poorly. That mixed in with the call for Democracy amongst the new generation. Gorbachev was right in assuming that Russia needed more Democracy, but if you take a look at Russia's current state, you'll agree that the last thing it needs is Capitalism. China is only become more Capitalistic because Deng Xiopang thought like you did and he installed Hu Jintao in the leadership who is corrupted by American corporations.

This is true. However, a new system was created in recent years in response to this called "Quota Based Taxation" which effectively neutralizes the lack of incentive by supplying one while maintaining the collective values promoted by Socialism. Ask me for a copy and I'll give you one.

All of this may be true. The planning was poor because it was too centralized, for one. They may have worked hard. However, look at Russia and its citizens after Socialism changed to your great system of Capitalism. Russians have always been overworked since the first stable government was ever formed there and they worked the least under Soviet rule. The growth rate was positive, their population and economy were near equals with the U.S., and diseases were being almost eradicated by Soviet medicine. Now, Russia is in a pitiful state and where can the blame be put? On the Soviet years where industrialization and growth was regular? Sure! It seems to be a loop with you Capitalists. If a Socialist state is doing well, it is thanks to the Capitalists in power before that. If a Capitalist state is doing poorly, its the fault of the Socialists in power before them.

Hey, that's pretty funny. I didn't read all of your message before I began quoting it so we used the same statistics. You are right though. They feared invasion so they thought that keeping up with the U.S. was the #1 priority but the Soviet economy was not strong enough yet to combat the U.S.. Soviet leadership was far too centralized and it was that that ultimately led to its economic demise.

So? This doesn't really prove anything. What they lacked in quality they made up for in quantity. I don't feel having such a gigantic military would benefit anyone in the end, anyhow. You are basically claiming to promote massive militarism which is quite a disturbing thought considering that you intend to content for leadership.

Finally, I must stress that the Soviet state, the only one you seemed interested on pointing out the errors of, was a Marxist-Leninist state and the flaws of the U.S.S.R. reflect those of Marxist-Leninism more than Socialism as a whole. Russia still evolved from a 5th world nation (Worse than Afganistan today) to a 2nd world nation (Similar to Cuba) in only five years. They may have worked a lot, but at least they lived decent lives. Doctors in Russia now are lucky to get the full equivalent of one U.S. dollar for their services PER MONTH. In Soviet Russia, they got much more than that and they were all content, if not happy. Comparing Russia to the U.S. is pointless because Russia was still trying to catch up to the rest of the world. You don't compare an adolescant to an adult and laugh at the former because the latter is wiser, do you? I rest my case, for now.

First, Someone hasn't been reading the names of the ruling parties. In the Soviet Union, it was the COMMUNIST Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU). In China, it was a Maoist form of Communism (still named the Chinese COMMUNIST party), but it was still Communism. Second, Marx himself said that Communism was to be the stage before REAL Socialism. The workers would revolt, then form Communism, and when they were ready, they would form Socialism (in which there was no real government). Third, if they were Socialist, then you have defeated your own argument about how perfect that Socialism is. Governments are made to help their citizens improve their lot in life. That didn't happen in much of the Soviet Union, and it didn't happen (Still hasn't) in much of China, either. If both Communist and Socialist societies are supposed to be classless, then why were their "classes" in two reputedly Socialist (your own words) nations?

I can see that for the Soviet Union, but China has to keep their generals and admirals fat and happy with their own industrial empires so that they don't revolt (in China, power comes from the end of a gun). They've become the new emperors. China doesn't sound very socialist to me. Their government ministers are supposed to be men of integrity and honor. They aren't. Hell, they boff their own secretaries. China has all this new wealth, but they are still a third world nation. The Soviet Union went to a second world nation, but that didn't help the poor people in the peasant huts. Hell, most of the cities in the USSR were so dirty that winter was their best season because the snow hid all the dirt.

AHEM. China openly discourages its people from buying American, but everything that they can sell, they do sell (maybe even some of Mao's virgins (if you know what I mean)). Not just to America, either. That doesn't sound corrupt to me, unless you mean that the government officials themselves are stealing the people's money. Which they have been.

Damn straight. They didn't want another Stalin. Besides which, most of the Politburo members lived well, while their people starved. Doesn't sound like they were doing their job. Is it any wonder that the people wanted to be able to elect people that would actually DO something to improve their lot in life?

There was no way to accurately track the Soviet economy. Hell, CIA had the same budjet reports that the Soviet Politburo got, and they realized much to late that the Soviet system was lying to itself. Neither Communism nor Socialism can defeat human nature. It just gave it freer reign as long as you didn't get caught. With the elephantine Soviet bureacracy, they mostly didn't.

Sounds to me like they would get a tax break if they reached their quota. If they had that in the Soviet Union, it still wouldn't help as there came to be known that (for example) Soviet "plan" antibiotics were filled with distilled water instead of antibiotics, just so they could make their quota. One thing that both Communism and Socialism lack is a clear idea of what will happen if you do something wrong (at least in the Soviet Union; you'd be shot for something like the last example in China).

It isn't just problems with the transition to a truly FREE market economy that is hurting Russia. The size of Russia makes it hard to effectively govern (any wonder why Russia is splintering off a piece at a time?), AND there was so much central planning (5 year plans, anyone?) and corruption in the Soviet economy that no one knew HOW to properly START a market economy.

That may have been true in the cities where most of the medical facilities were, but that was less than true with the poor peasants out in the coutryside tending their little plots (which produced more food than the big Socialist farming Kollectives, by the way).

Their money (the ruble) was almost entirely worthless, as well. Soviet citizens had to use COMECON rubles if they were lucky enough to go abroad. THEY were backed by the hard currency that the Soviet Union got by selling oil and natural gas to Europe. Which reminds me... the Soviets had control of Siberia for 70 years, and they never bothered to go out and explore the mineral resources that were there, even though the make up of Siberia is remarkably like the American state of Alaska. Being that there is a lot of oil in Alaska and NWern Canada, I would bet you that there MIGHT be a huge oil deposit somewhere in Siberia (since it's been theorized that North America broke off of Asia). Something like that would give Russia the hard currency needed to revitalize their entire economy, or at least to start doing that.

The US didn't have the will (or resources) to properly invade the Soviet Union, so their fears were groundless. NATO was formed in order to defend against the Soviet Union, as a matter of fact. Afghanistan showed that the Soviet Union would actually be an agressor, even though the Afghanis had done nothing TO the Soviet Union. A Marxist dictator took power in Kabul, then called for Soviet troops which were ALREADY in Afghanistan. Last time I checked, Marx and Engles didn't much like wars of agression. China is also suspected of looking upon Siberia with covetous eyes.

You contradict yourself:

Ha, ha, ha! You have NEVER read Marx, have you? Socialism comes before Communism, you idiot. Marx himself said that Socialism was the necessairy step between Capitalism and Communism. Only through the people managing the economy would people be able to achieve Communism. Communism is the final evolution of society where all people ideally live in Communes and work selflessly for the common good without need of government or capital. "The goal of Socialism is Communism." -V.I. Lenin.

It did happen in all of the countries you mentioned! You are ignorant of history too? How do you survive in life much less suvive in politics?!?! You need serious reading IMMEDIATELY. Russia was a FIFTH WORLD NATION and became a SECOND. People were homeless, jobless, sick and illiterate in both countries. Socialism brought to them homes, jobs, exemplaryeducation, and fantastic medicine. How do you think China got to over a billion citizens? From having poor standards of living? You are an imbecile. Classes are determined by the ownership of things, basically. The ruling class (Bourgeoisie) owns the means of production, such as businesses and industry. The middle class (Or Petty-Bourgeois) owns smaller means of production, such as a farmer or an artist. And the working class (Proletariat) owns none of the means of production and must sell his or her labor for capital gain. In Socialism, since farming is collectivised, artists work for the state, and the means of produtction have been expropriated in to the hands of all people, then there are no classes.

China isn't very Socialist any more. Since the Capitalist reforms of Deng Xiopang, continued by the former leader Hu Jintau, China has been on a gradual slide down to Capitalism and away from Socialism and thus you have why China is becoming such a disgusting country. The U.S.S.R. was actually not that bad, you are really making a bigger deal out of it than the truth. It was not an ugly country, have you ever seen pictures or actually been there? God forbid you actually know what the hell you are talking about!

Yes, the government officials in newly reformed Capitalist China are thieves and have been thieves since Mao's death. The only Socialists who don't oppose China now are the Chinese government, not the Maoists, and you'll find most of them live in Nepal.

The Soviet Union was not in a constant state of famine, unlike you may be led to believe. The worst was during the first Stalinist plan for collectivization, which really was poor until later years when it picked up. Stalin was an evil man. Lenin said, before his death, in a letter made confidential by Stalin that Stalin was to be removed from his post as General Secretary of the Party because Lenin viewed him as a bad and untrustworthy person and it seems his fears were confirmed. By the way, has Putin helped anyone except himself? He's worse than the supposed Socialist leaders because now Russia is Capitalist and run by the super-rich and the mafia.

Human nature doesn't exist for one. If there is anything history has taught us it is that there is no rigid human nature of which you speak. Please read my other documents on this site or I will be forced to post it again. Human nature, if it does exist, works for Socialism, anyway. The Soviet bureacracy wasn't as bad as you've been told either. Sure, it was pretty bad, but not bad enough to actually hurt the Union. The collapse of the Soviet Union was purely economical. There was voting in the U.S.S.R., the people elected Soviet leaders, but they were only from the CP and now the people have found out far too late (Most of them had to die to discover this) that the Socialism of the U.S.S.R., although it wasn't correct Socialism, was better for them than Capitalism ever can be.

They get taxes lowered by 1% for surpassing the quota and raised by 1% for not meeting it. There are 5% margins on either side for if the products above the quota by 5% were of poor quality, no change would be made in taxes. If products below the quota by 5% are of exceptional quality, again no augmentation in taxes. There are differing levels for all of this when it comes to workers who produce things unable to be measured by that system. This is a clear idea.

They do know how to properly start a market economy because economic experts from around the world have been called to aid in the transition. It actually is no longer transisting, it is a market economy but now just needs to be managed. It is hurting the people and you deny it.

Soviet collective farms were poor. Unlike the Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean, Cuban, Congolese, Angolan, Lybian, and so on farms. They were and are all quite successful. Medical treatment expanded to all people, even those peasants, they just had to travel to the city to get it. The Soviet medicine expanded even to East Germany and the other satellites, so don't pull these lies in front of my face. My grandparents lived in Soviet Poland.

The Soviet government did expand in to Siberia. You are showing your lack of knowledge on history yet again. The big problem for the Soviets was the well below freezing temperatures (Much colder than Alaska, mind you). Few people could survive there. The Soviets did many projects there, they just didn't do it all at once like America did. Sibera is much larger than Alaska.

The Soviet Union probably couldn't handle an invasion of the U.S. either, so both nations feared no real threat and that oversight caused the Soviet collapse. NATO was formed to aid against the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact was made to aid against the United States, many nations joined both. I must tell you time and time again that the Soviet Union was not truly Socialist, for it often defied Marx and Engels and even Lenin at times. China and the former Soviet Union are/were imperialists, plain and simple. By the way, who helped overthrow that Marxist dictator? The United States. Who did we fund, Osama Bin Laden! And who did we install in the Marxists place, the Taliban! I can see that your logic adds up because the TALIBAN was much nicer than the Marxist dictator. Ha, ha, ha!

No I didn't. I said that at the end to make sure you got the point, and apparently you didn't. I said earlier that the Soviet Union and China weren't Communist but Socialist. Look at the names, Communism = Commune-ism. There you have it. Just admit it that you don't know enough about the topci we are discussing and give up your silly arguements agains Socialism and Communist because, as you can plainly see, I know more about both and your facts simply don't hold water. You are just using made up opinions in place of facts at all.

It seems everybody is debating on their campaign threads. No sense in creating a new thread just for debate when we can continue this system. Gives people a look at everybody, I think.

That's what every candidate is doing.

I feel exactly the same. Although you have proven yourself to be not telling the truth here by saying what I italicized above. You haven't given me reasons why you don't agree with ym views, just made up nontruths. You know what I call an intentionally fabricated nontruth? A lie.

Democracy needs Socialism. Capitalism allows for the rich to have more power then the poor. Inequality destroy Democracy. If you allow Capitalism and Democracy to mix, you'll have some parties who are more successful because humongous corporations can put millions of dollars towards their campaigns or perhaps single candidates can buy votes, like our good ol' Right-Wing commander in thief George W. Bush. A private corporation handled votes that year and did everything they possibly could to insure that Bush would be the victor in the state that his brother Jeb is the Governor of. Perhaps you *might* be able to rbing a somewhat better future to AO, but you most certainly won't bring Democracy.

No, you're asking us all our opinions on everything left-of-centre from True Marxist Communism to vague Socialism in our Campaign threads, which we feel obliged to answer.

Social/Communism is a political system, like democracy. Capitalism is a system of finance, trade and commerce. Deal with it.

This post has been edited by Starblaydia on Aug 2 2004, 07:24 AM

Socialism/Communism isn't so much a political system like Democracy, but it is a political ideology that includes Democracy in most of its forms. Democracy is a system of government, not an ideology, philosophy, theosophy, or anything of that sort. Capitalism is indeed an economic system but if coupled with any form of government, it corrupts it. Capitalism + Democracy = Vote-Buying ----- Capitalism + Dictatorship = All people, even the wealthy, are equally oppressed. So, in your words, Starblaydia, deal with it.