Forms of Governments

[Suave]

Originally posted by DREDger
Yeah, a jury of my peers...we'd need a time travel machine for that. Back to a time when most people didn't have bastard children and an exagerated sense of entitlement

yeah, and how many did your hero Koresh father?

Oh now you're just grasping.

First off he was a preacher, something I could be if I didn't have a concious, hardly my hero. As for how many women he knocked up, that's his own business, at least he provided a home for them.

[DREDger]

A whirling Texas purse fight. Be careful boys those are huge frikken Texan purses you are slinging about.

[Xargos]

DREDger, You are welcome to highjack it.  I messed up on the way I presented it anyway.  

FIGHT, FIGHT, I wanna see a FIGHT!

[Sandman]

[Mace2004]

Originally posted by Suave
Ok, now your argument is starting a lot to sound like. "Yeah it's unjust, but whatya gonna do?, just fight them in the appropriate channels."

Yeah, a jury of my peers...we'd need a time travel machine for that. Back to a time when most people didn't have bastard children and an exagerated sense of entitlement



 First it doesn't work. Unless you're someone who is comfortable living on your knees and defering all sense of responsibility onto a parental government. As for an alternative, how about the constitution?

HELP! I'm being oppressed!

[Mace2004]

You were doing real well there laser until you got to this:

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Socialism is possibly the most mis-defined word in human history, especially recently.  Socialism is the thought that you have the right to legislate over other people's personal choices.  And there's a lot more to it then you think.  I.E. Gay Marriage Ban, Fuel Efficient Cars, gun control, state religions, no big companies...

What you're describing can be part of Socialism but that's it.  Socialism defined by anti-capitalism and is anti-personal property.  It was the "worker's" control of the means of production and, at it's core, redistribution of wealth.  In reality the government owns the means of production in the "people's" name and is in charge of the "people's" welfare.  The core principles of socialism are far too evident in the US today even though the fundamentals of socialism have been proven to be failures.

[lasersailor184]

Socialism isn't a form of government.  It's a tool to get to totalitarianism / communism.  


Just because it has been misused so many times doesn't change the real definition of socialism.

[DREDger]

HELP! I'm being oppressed!

For real, take off the tinfoil hat they can't read your thoughts.  I think Hollywood spawned this 'conspiracy anti-government'  mentality.  

Harmless I suppose, as long as it's short of armed insurrection.  Makes things more melodramatic...rather than the humdrum real life.

"I'm only paranoid because everyone is out to get me"--Frank Burns

[Viking]

Originally posted by Mace2004
Socialism defined by anti-capitalism and is anti-personal property.  It was the "worker's" control of the means of production and, at it's core, redistribution of wealth.  In reality the government owns the means of production in the "people's" name and is in charge of the "people's" welfare.  The core principles of socialism are far too evident in the US today even though the fundamentals of socialism have been proven to be failures.

No, that's Communism. I live in a country considered Socialist, and the government or state or law is not "anti-Capitalism", and most definitely not "anti-personal property".

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Xargos
Communism
In a communist country, the government owns all businesses and farms and provides its people's healthcare, education and welfare.

You mistake "Communism" for Soviet Socialism.

Soviet economics was based on collectively owned agricultural enterprises, that were not in any way government controlled.

Key concept: "provides its people's healthcare, education and welfare". All the rest is unimportant.

Funny, but many people who lived here in Soviet times don't understand it. You could pretty well work for yourself (self-employment), earn as much as your health allows, and buy anything for market prices. OTOH if you were a looser - you stick to 120 rubles monthly and stand in a line for cheap sausage.

I was a university student and earned more then most of the above mentioned loosers, 70 rubles scolarship plus 55 rubles half-time programmer. Plus occasional jobs. I didn't go to Student Construction Squads in summer, people earned no less then 3000 rubles there - I went hiking instead.

[lasersailor184]

Soviet economics was based on collectively owned agricultural enterprises, that were not in any way government controlled.

Who do you think controls the collective?

[Boroda]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Who do you think controls the collective?

Collective itself. Otherwise how could it happen that a collective farmer from Ukraine earned as much as my Father, an Engineering corps colonel, doctor of science and professor?

[Viking]

Boroda, the Soviet Ruble was for most of the '70s and '80s about the same value as the US Dollar. 97 kopecks in 1985. The 120 Rubles most of your citizens got per month is less than my daily income, and I'm not well off at all. Those 3000 Rubles you mentioned is less than half my monthly salary.

The reason your father earned less than the farmer is because he was grossly underpaid for his work, just like every other Soviet citizen. I'm afraid the Soviet Union was a workers paradise in name only.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Viking
Boroda, the Soviet Ruble was for most of the '70s and '80s about the same value as the US Dollar. 97 kopecks in 1985. The 120 Rubles most of your citizens got per month is less than my daily income, and I'm not well off at all. Those 3000 Rubles you mentioned is less than half my monthly salary.

The reason your father earned less than the farmer is because he was grossly underpaid for his work, just like every other Soviet citizen. I'm afraid the Soviet Union was a workers paradise in name only.

It wasn't a Workers paradise in any way. Worker got no more then 18% of his earnings in cash.

Why? Because over 2/3 of the industry worked on defence. If only there was a 50% chance of attacking USSR without total nuclear resoponse - all Soviet cities could be burnt down, immediately. So it goes Price for staying alive. No offences please, I understand that this stick has two ends

Then, we got free healthcare of the quality that you can only imagine, free education, free accomodation (me and my Father own flats that are totally worth about $750K now market price, or maybe more).

No doubt that a privately working person got more then a govt employee.

For 120 rubles you could live pretty well and save money. Food and basic consumer goods costed next to nothing, while "luxury" like tape-recorders or colour TVs were quite expensive. Hard to explain. I grew up in an "upper-middle class" family according to Western standards, but I got my first cassete recorder when I was 13, and I earned half of the money myself working in a school summer labour camp (it was fun, I was a carpenter assistant).

As I said many times before: not "good" or "bad". Different. See quote from Chairman Mao in my signature.

[Viking]

Yes I can only imagine the horrors of Soviet healthcare. Face it, you couldn't make the guns and a good living at the same time like the Americans did. You couldn't do it because Communism, especially Stalinism is the most inefficient economic system devised by mankind … Ever. This is why it's going to take generations to build a new and prosperous Russia from 80 years of neglect and mismanagement. Just like it's going to take generations for the otherwise industrious Germans to get eastern Germany up to the same standard of living as the western parts of the country.

I know you believe what you say Boroda, and I really don't what to offend you, but I'm afraid you're deluding yourself if you think going back to the old ways is the right thing for Russia.

And btw. Chairman Mao was thinking of 12 year-old girls when he said that.