Why hate socialism so much??????????? (revolution, insurance, Walmart, administration)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What socialist societies make people lazy? And since when does socialism require tax rates like that and government regulation that inhibits entrepeneurship, it doesn't even sound like you're talking about socialism rather capitalism with a well funded safety net. Socialism isn't about taxation and government regulation, it's about social ownership of the means of production.
ALL of them.
laziness is a logical derivative of the society where nobody cares for profit.
Socialist countries a.k.a. USSR and other eastern bloc countries did not pursue profit - and therefore collapsed.
Socialism is a state were there is no privately owned means of production. Means of productions are owned by state and cooperatives.
It is not social ownership of means of production - it is absence of private ownership.
but it has absolutely nothing to do with the realities of soviet union.
Soviet Union was a standard bearer for socialist country, and for a very brief period in 1918 even for communism in it's military state( war communism is another synonym)
the closest resemblance of a mixture between socialist country and a state capitalism is modern China.
But neither USSR, nor China before 80s or any other standard eastern bloc country( or today's North Korea) were state capitalism.
I have absolutely no affiliation with the socialist party of Great Britain, nor am I a Marxist. It's a fact that the Soviet Union ran the country in a capitalist manner, the means of production were not socially owned therefore it is not socialism, the means of production were privately owned by the state therefore it was state capitalism. It was not Communist by the definition of Communism, neither was it's military or it's war economy.
I have absolutely no affiliation with the socialist party of Great Britain, nor am I a Marxist. It's a fact that the Soviet Union ran the country in a capitalist manner, the means of production were not socially owned therefore it is not socialism, the means of production were privately owned by the state therefore it was state capitalism. It was not Communist by the definition of Communism, neither was it's military or it's war economy.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You are repeating absolute nonsense which does not hold either in Marxist, or Lenin's terms - and as I said before - the definitions are set long time before and it is not up to you to redefine them as you feel like it.
Soviet Union was a purest socialist country possible, if one knows what socialism is and is not just talking nonsense as you are.
There was not even a hint of state capitalism in the whole history of Soviet Union ( except some elements during NEP period in 1921-1924).
Can't be bothered hating socialism - can't be bothered even thinking of it. I have learned to tolerate fools...I have no choice there are just so damned many of them these days.
Everybody cares about profit, socialist or not, to deny that is to deny human nature.
State capitalist countries did in fact pursue profit, the Soviet Union was so interested in industrialization because it would profit them.
Socialism means social ownership of the means of production.
I am sorry but this statement just proves you are absolutely ignorant both on definitions of socialism and the history of Soviet Union.
Socialism means COMMON, not social ownership of the means of production, and those are state/governmental and cooperative. But the main definition of socialism is ABSENCE of private ownership of the means of production. Period. It is basically a negative definition
there is no such thing as "social ownership".
learn the terminology first if you want to be taken seriously.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You are repeating absolute nonsense which does not hold either in Marxist, or Lenin's terms - and as I said before - the definitions are set long time before and it is not up to you to redefine them as you feel like it.
Soviet Union was a purest socialist country possible, if one knows what socialism is and is not just talking nonsense as you are.
There was not even a hint of state capitalism in the whole history of Soviet Union ( except some elements during NEP period in 1921-1924).
I don't like Marx, I certainly don't like Lenin, don't understand why I have to speak in their terms. I'm not redefining the definitions I'm using the political definitions of these terms while you seem to be going by the Cold War propaganda definitions.
No it is not, the means of production were not socially owned therefore it is not socialist.
You yourself expressed how co-operatives were socialist, and what do you have against democracy in the workplace?
are you simply DUMB?
cooperatives are not socialist, they are the forms of ownership and happen in societies with different economic structure. In a socialist economy they are the minor form of ownership, as the main form is a government ownership of the means of production.
Ownership can not be socialist, it is the society which can be.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
