How to stop the Government Mafias

[The Flu]

You people don't get it do you? In the end, ALL communism to date just ends up in a government sanctioned and controlled mafia. Russia is STILL controlled by the mafia - and the totaliarian government there did NOTHING to stop it.

I was recently made painfully aware of this by the woman who takes care of my autistic son. She is 69 years old. She works this job because her husband recently died - and had only worked in the US for 15 years - the SS she receives is small.

She told me about how it was living in Riga in Latvia durning the Nazi occupation (Socialists - btw) and then said, "As bad as quartering Nazi officers was and watching the dogs roam the streets looking for hidden Jews, it was better than when the Russians took over. After Russia took over, there was nothing ... and then after there was nothing there was the Mafia. That is why we left - first for Moscow, then when the wall came down, to the US as fast as possible."

You people don't get it do you? The US and the Representative Republic form of government is the most free and most success inducing system ever. Nowhere on earth can you be the poorest of the poor and STILL get cared for no matter what.

Sure, sure.. tell me about all your uninsured and homeless and what not. I work in an emergency room. NOBODY goes without healthcare. We aren't allowed to turn ANYONE away for ANY REASON! We would get shut down by WHO? The govermnent - that's who... if we dared to refuse care to anyone. PPL who can't pay.. DON'T.

Wake up. Commnism is nothing more than a pipe dream. You may all dream of living in happy cooperatives, but Socialists = Mafiosos - end of story. Ask anyone who escapes China, Cuba or any other Socialist nation... where do they go to live their dreams?

The United States of America.

Good luck in all you do, truly - but please realize that there is no such thing as Utopia.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 8 2006, 07:47 PM
You people don't get it do you? In the end, ALL communism to date just ends up in a government sanctioned and controlled mafia. Russia is STILL controlled by the mafia - and the totaliarian government there did NOTHING to stop it.
Which proves totalitarian states suck.




I was recently made painfully aware of this by the woman who takes care of my autistic son. She is 69 years old. She works this job because her husband recently died - and had only worked in the US for 15 years - the SS she receives is small.

She told me about how it was living in Riga in Latvia durning the Nazi occupation (Socialists - btw) and then said, "As bad as quartering Nazi officers was and watching the dogs roam the streets looking for hidden Jews, it was better than when the Russians took over.
:lol: You idiot! Nazism is the exact and complete opposite of socialism/communism.


After Russia took over, there was nothing ... and then after there was nothing there was the Mafia. That is why we left - first for Moscow, then when the wall came down, to the US as fast as possible."
Well yeah, the mafia took over after the USSR fell apart... what does that say to you? As much as I dislike the former USSR and its authoritarianism, practically every Russian (that is not tremendously rich) claims it was better than before, and better than it is now.


You people don't get it do you? The US and the Representative Republic form of government is the most free and most success inducing system ever. Nowhere on earth can you be the poorest of the poor and STILL get cared for no matter what.
:lol: Did you know the US has one of the, if not the worst social insurance systems in the western world? Have you ever been outside the US?


.Sure, sure.. tell me about all your uninsured and homeless and what not. I work in an emergency room. NOBODY goes without healthcare. We aren't allowed to turn ANYONE away for ANY REASON! We would get shut down by WHO? The govermnent - that's who... if we dared to refuse care to anyone. PPL who can't pay.. DON'T.
Of course you wouldn't refuse them, that would be sick! No, you rather treat them, and send them the bill later. Hey, we might even work out a credit arrangement that'll suit you! :rolleyes:


Wake up. Commnism is nothing more than a pipe dream. You may all dream of living in happy cooperatives, but Socialists = Mafiosos - end of story. Ask anyone who escapes China, Cuba or any other Socialist nation... where do they go to live their dreams?
*snore*
You are boring. Socialists=mafiosos? End of story? What? Any evidence for this? Arguments? Anything at all? No? Shut up then.


The United States of America.
Sure, with all these stories about the 'American Dream', they think they're going to make it, going to get rich and famous, have a dozen fancy cars, expensive mansions with overtly large pools and whatnot... only to find out there's no such thing as the American dream, that it's all just a dream and nothing more.


Good luck in all you do, truly - but please realize that there is no such thing as Utopia.
Not yet, kiddo, not yet.

[MrDoom]

Utopia?

No, those are the useless hippies.

[Pirate Utopian]

yeah the world will never be perfect, we can try to come close though

[The Flu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 07:30 PM

Which proves totalitarian states suck.

As are all socialist systems. Socialist = Totalitarian Government. It's autologous ie - one leads from the other. ( I figured you would need the def.)

:lol: You idiot! Nazism is the exact and complete opposite of socialism/communism.

Remember the full name of the Nazi party my forgetful friend: National Socialist German Workers' Party. Sheesh.

Well yeah, the mafia took over after the USSR fell apart... what does that say to you? As much as I dislike the former USSR and its authoritarianism, practically every Russian (that is not tremendously rich) claims it was better than before, and better than it is now.

Nice try. The mafia was in control BEFORE the collapse and my son's caregiver hated it BEFORE the collapse. In an interesting side note, she got a laugh when I said "Peristroika" remarking that nobody in Moscow knew what that word was until long after Yeltisin was in office.

laugh.gif Did you know the US has one of the, if not the worst social insurance systems in the western world? Have you ever been outside the US?
Show me the immigration policy of, say, Sweden. yea.. 'nuff said.

Of course you wouldn't refuse them, that would be sick! No, you rather treat them, and send them the bill later. Hey, we might even work out a credit arrangement that'll suit you! :rolleyes:

No.. they don't GET billed silly. Ok, I take that back, but no attempt is made to collect if they don't pay. If you don't believe it, ask anyone who works for Equifax or any other major credit company if medical collection accounts are vigorously pursued.

*snore*
You are boring. Socialists=mafiosos? End of story? What? Any evidence for this? Arguments? Anything at all? No? Shut up then.

Look around genius. Show me a fully Socialist State that isn't totalitarian. You can't do it. You can talk about France and Canada and Sweden et al, but those are Socilaist Like systems... not Socialist States.

Sure, with all these stories about the 'American Dream', they think they're going to make it, going to get rich and famous, have a dozen fancy cars, expensive mansions with overtly large pools and whatnot... only to find out there's no such thing as the American dream, that it's all just a dream and nothing more.

Only because unlike ANY OTHER Socialist Like system, the US will take ANYBODY regardless of "marketable talent" that is useful to the interested nation. Grow up.

Not yet, kiddo, not yet.

More like not ever given the 100x proven reality that Socialist States degrade IMMEDIATELY into totalitarian systems ruled by local boses: ie Mafia. ...and think about the def. of Mafia here. You are probably missing the point, but why am I surprised?


Which proves totalitarian states suck.

As are all socialist systems. Socialist = Totalitarian Government. It's autologous ie - one leads from the other. ( I figured you would need the def.)


:lol: You idiot! Nazism is the exact and complete opposite of socialism/communism.

Remember the full name of the Nazi party my forgetful friend: National Socialist German Workers' Party. Sheesh.


Well yeah, the mafia took over after the USSR fell apart... what does that say to you? As much as I dislike the former USSR and its authoritarianism, practically every Russian (that is not tremendously rich) claims it was better than before, and better than it is now.

Nice try. The mafia was in control BEFORE the collapse and my son's caregiver hated it BEFORE the collapse. In an interesting side note, she got a laugh when I said "Peristroika" remarking that nobody in Moscow knew what that word was until long after Yeltisin was in office.


laugh.gif Did you know the US has one of the, if not the worst social insurance systems in the western world? Have you ever been outside the US?

Show me the immigration policy of, say, Sweden. yea.. 'nuff said.


Of course you wouldn't refuse them, that would be sick! No, you rather treat them, and send them the bill later. Hey, we might even work out a credit arrangement that'll suit you! :rolleyes:

No.. they don't GET billed silly. Ok, I take that back, but no attempt is made to collect if they don't pay. If you don't believe it, ask anyone who works for Equifax or any other major credit company if medical collection accounts are vigorously pursued.


*snore*
You are boring. Socialists=mafiosos? End of story? What? Any evidence for this? Arguments? Anything at all? No? Shut up then.

Look around genius. Show me a fully Socialist State that isn't totalitarian. You can't do it. You can talk about France and Canada and Sweden et al, but those are Socilaist Like systems... not Socialist States.


Sure, with all these stories about the 'American Dream', they think they're going to make it, going to get rich and famous, have a dozen fancy cars, expensive mansions with overtly large pools and whatnot... only to find out there's no such thing as the American dream, that it's all just a dream and nothing more.

Only because unlike ANY OTHER Socialist Like system, the US will take ANYBODY regardless of "marketable talent" that is useful to the interested nation. Grow up.


Not yet, kiddo, not yet.

More like not ever given the 100x proven reality that Socialist States degrade IMMEDIATELY into totalitarian systems ruled by local boses: ie Mafia. ...and think about the def. of Mafia here. You are probably missing the point, but why am I surprised?

[Jazzratt]

Where do people like you come from? Have you been trapped in the spillage from a tanker full of stupid?



As are all socialist systems. Socialist = Totalitarian Government. It's autologous ie - one leads from the other. ( I figured you would need the def.)
THis shows a complete misunderstanding of the idea of socialism. Also it lacks any backing.



Remember the full name of the Nazi party my forgetful friend: National Socialist German Workers' Party. Sheesh.
And you, mate, are forgetting its actual political ideology: Fascism. A corprotist governmental philosophy and not anything to do with socialism. Bonus points if you can tell me WHY it was called the National Socialist German Workers' Party.



Nice try. The mafia was in control BEFORE the collapse and my son's caregiver hated it BEFORE the collapse. In an interesting side note, she got a laugh when I said "Peristroika" remarking that nobody in Moscow knew what that word was until long after Yeltisin was in office.
This is a political board, not a personal anecdote board. Actual evidence for the idea of russians prefering the old ways. (http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20060828/53212492.html)


Show me the immigration policy of, say, Sweden. yea.. 'nuff said. Why do you need to know the immigration policy of sweden? What has it got to do with social insurance systems?



Only because unlike ANY OTHER Socialist Like system, the US will take ANYBODY regardless of "marketable talent" that is useful to the interested nation. Grow up. I think you forgot the '...up the arse' bit after 'the US will take ANYBODY' . Because it is one of the most exploitative nations on the planet that is keeping an horrendously inefficiant system on its feet.



More like not ever given the 100x proven reality that Socialist States degrade IMMEDIATELY into totalitarian systems ruled by local boses: ie Mafia. ...and think about the def. of Mafia here. You are probably missing the point, but why am I surprised? You got a source for that? Any evidence at all? Something other than what you can pull from your arse would be favourite. Cheers mate.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 9 2006, 12:34 AM
As are all socialist systems. Socialist = Totalitarian Government. It's autologous ie - one leads from the other. ( I figured you would need the def.)
You must've missed the fact that Socialist=/=Totalitarian Government. "Socialism" is the transitional phase between capitalism and communism (anarchism), and is in no way totalitarian. I suggest you either look up the definition of totalitarian or try to read up on what socialism actually is. ;)


Remember the full name of the Nazi party my forgetful friend: National Socialist German Workers' Party. Sheesh.
Yes, that means a lot! :lol: I could call myself a Republican, and fiercely defend gay rights, abortion, euthanasia, drug legalisation, etc.
Would that make me a republican, or just an anarcho-communist calling himself republican?
Is it that hard to get?


Nice try. The mafia was in control BEFORE the collapse and my son's caregiver hated it BEFORE the collapse.

Ah, yet before you claimed this:


After Russia took over, there was nothing ... and then after there was nothing there was the Mafia.
So which one is it?


In an interesting side note, she got a laugh when I said "Peristroika"
I'm sure she did, as it's "perestrojka"


remarking that nobody in Moscow knew what that word was until long after Yeltisin was in office.
Ermm... what exactly are you trying to say here? What is your criticism?


Show me the immigration policy of, say, Sweden. yea.. 'nuff said.
What has that got to do with anything? Could you try staying on topic?


No.. they don't GET billed silly. Ok, I take that back, but no attempt is made to collect if they don't pay. If you don't believe it, ask anyone who works for Equifax or any other major credit company if medical collection accounts are vigorously pursued.
Ah, what a lovely attempt. "Hah, they don't have to pay! Err, well, actually they do, but err... we don't bother them too much for it." :lol:
Do you honestly expect me to believe this? That a credit company would not care to make the most money as possible? Boy, I had no idea the credit companies were so altruistic. I guess that's why so many people with expensive medical bills are, y'know, not poor and all. Gotta love the US! :rolleyes:


Look around genius. Show me a fully Socialist State that isn't totalitarian. You can't do it. You can talk about France and Canada and Sweden et al, but those are Socilaist Like systems... not Socialist States.
:huh: There are no "fully socialist states" that are non-authoritarian. Why? Because there are überhaupt no "fully socialist states". And I take it you indeed have never been outside the US, or at least have never been to Sweden nor France. France socialist? Give me a break.


Only because unlike ANY OTHER Socialist Like system, the US will take ANYBODY regardless of "marketable talent" that is useful to the interested nation. Grow up.
Yes, they can all go work at the McDonalds for 5$ an hour... if they're lucky ;)
And did you just call the US a "socialist like" system? :lol:


More like not ever given the 100x proven reality that Socialist States degrade IMMEDIATELY into totalitarian systems ruled by local boses: ie Mafia. ...and think about the def. of Mafia here.
100x proven? Reality? Immediately degrade into totalitarian systems? Ruled by local bosses? Mafia?
What the heck are you talking about? Because your nanny said something (or at least, so you claim) about mafia controlling Russia?
Honestly, have you even thought before posting this?


You are probably missing the point, but why am I surprised?
Because you didn't expect people to take the time to respond to another load of unfundamented bullshit like this? ;)

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Confused Capitalist
Russia is STILL controlled by the mafia - and the totaliarian government there did NOTHING to stop it.

History and reality says otherwise.

The extreme criminal element that still exists in Russia today was largely and successfully surpressed by the Soviet Government in varying degrees depending on the premier.

It was not until the reinstatement of capitalist "democracy" that this element of society began to take over once the new" democratic" government failed deliver on their promise to increase the standard of living within Russia.

As a matter of fact, the standard of living for the average Russian decreased, and quite dramatically so.

We will agree on one thing however, the current government in Russie most certainly is "totalitarian"; just like their template government in the USA.


She told me about how it was living in Riga in Latvia durning the Nazi occupation (Socialists - btw)

I'm sure living under those whackos was most certainly "difficult" to say the least.

You are however confused about the NAZI political and economic platform in practise; there was nothing "socialist" about it, regardless of what they liked to call themselves.

Take a class once in a while esse, it saves foolish behaviour.


Nowhere on earth can you be the poorest of the poor and STILL get cared for no matter what.

Save for a few Socialist countries, you're right.

Don't bother babbling about the USA son because right now there are over 33 million people living under the poverty line and

Good grief, the government ain't even shy about admitting it!


Sure, sure.. tell me about all your uninsured and homeless and what not. I work in an emergency room. NOBODY goes without healthcare. We aren't allowed to turn ANYONE away for ANY REASON!

Coming from someone whom allegedly works in an ER, to see this level of confusion seems a bit peculiar.

You and I both know that the ER will only stabalise a patient and refer them to a specialist if further care is needed, care that they will not recieve if they do not have insurance or enough cash on hand to pay.

Let's not even talk about what happens to a poor person's credit if they fail to pay for the ER bill.

To this day I have a fractured 5th MC in my right hand (what is referred to as a "boxer's fracture") because I could not afford to see a specialist once the ER released me with nothing more than a sling, a half-cast and a fucking referral to a specialist.

So much for "adequate healthcare" eh?

Take your confused remblings elsewhere kiddo, I suggest a school.

[Avtomatov]

Remember the full name of the Nazi party my forgetful friend: National Socialist German Workers' Party. Sheesh.

I think we call this logical fallacy: Ad Hominem?


Look around genius. Show me a fully Socialist State that isn't totalitarian. You can't do it. You can talk about France and Canada and Sweden et al, but those are Socilaist Like systems... not Socialist States.

hmm well first off their are no fully socialist states. Cuba would be the closest to a socialist state, and its also not totalitarian. Do some research.


More like not ever given the 100x proven reality that Socialist States degrade IMMEDIATELY into totalitarian systems ruled by local boses: ie Mafia. ...and think about the def. of Mafia here.
Hmm, maybe you should learn about the soviet union under lenin. Also, there was little crime under stalin and lenin. Under lenin the soviet union was run by the people.

Under stalin it totalitarian. But, that did not happen immediately as you claim it does. And you must not know much about history, otherwise you would know the bourgeoise revolution in france turned into a dictatorship eventually also. Does that meen all capitalist states IMMEDIATELY degrade into a totalitarian dictatorship? By your logic it does.

[The Flu]

Ok first of all, I didn't start the ad Hominem attacks... and I called someone forgetful where he called me an Idiot - so let's be clear.

Now back to the original topic of the board: Mafia Control in Socialist States.

In talking to my son's caregiver, she says that the Mafia WASN'T largely controlled by the government. What the government did was to suppress the fact that the Mafia was in control. There is a big difference between control of criminal propagana and actual control of the criminal element.

Her husband was a scientist and she worked as an accountant for a very large law firm in Moscow. I think she knows what she is talking about.

As for the "Poverty Line" in the USA... it's a misnomer. The POOREST person in the USA is many times "richer" in every respect than the average middle class individual in any third world country. Not to mention that basic medical care, food and other services are always provided in the USA no matter what misinformed "state aide" workers may tell you. ... I say again that the majority of the USA's "indigent" problem has to do with its ridiculously lazy (if not altogether absent) immigration policy. Yes I am talking about illegals. You simply can't have 150 million "producers" taking care of the naturally indigent people among the other 150 million PLUS the 20 million undocumented - but that's exactly what we DO have.

Like I said, see what the the immigration numbers are for Socialist "Utopias" like Sweden. The only reason "socialism" works in those places is because of their defacto exclusion of ppl that can't "produce".

...Oh and by the way.... she (my son's caregiver) says Lenin was a criminal and is the one who INVITED The Mafia to begin its control vis a vis - Stalin. ;D

I think what you folks need to do is stop reading neatly packaged articles about Socialism and start talking to people who actually FLED those places. Being in the medical field, I have the opportunity to talk to hundreds of people who were actually productive citizens in other parts of the world. You know what they all agree on? The USA may not be ideal, but it beats the hell out of Complete (and even imagined) Government Ecomonic control each and every day of the week.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Comrades, be nice to him, he is putting out arguments in a reasoned and originally un-threatening/stupid fashion, unlike a lot of the other idiots we have around here. :D

[Avtomatov]

As for the "Poverty Line" in the USA... it's a misnomer. The POOREST person in the USA is many times "richer" in every respect than the average middle class individual in any third world country

So you think this has to do with the fact that we live in a capitalist society. Well i suppose if you consider imperialism and exploitation of the third world to be capitalist, then you are right. But not every country can be imperialist and exploitive.


...Oh and by the way.... she (my son's caregiver) says Lenin was a criminal and is the one who INVITED The Mafia to begin its control vis a vis - Stalin. ;D

Where is the proof? Youre sons caregiver is just a victim of anti-communist progaganda. You know people also say Hugo Chavez is a brutal dictator, we know this is not true, and it would be naive to beleive it just because some people say it.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 9 2006, 06:39 PM
Ok first of all, I didn't start the ad Hominem attacks... and I called someone forgetful where he called me an Idiot - so let's be clear.
:lol: "He started it" :lol:


Now back to the original topic of the board: Mafia Control in Socialist States.

In talking to my son's caregiver, she says that the Mafia WASN'T largely controlled by the government. What the government did was to suppress the fact that the Mafia was in control. There is a big difference between control of criminal propagana and actual control of the criminal element.

Her husband was a scientist and she worked as an accountant for a very large law firm in Moscow. I think she knows what she is talking about. So far all you have provided us with as 'evidence' for this 'socialist mafia' is anectodal? This Mafia stuff must be a fairly historically gorundbreaking claim, as I've not heard of it. Could it be that you're making it up as you go along?


As for the "Poverty Line" in the USA... it's a misnomer. The POOREST person in the USA is many times "richer" in every respect than the average middle class individual in any third world country. Shwoing that capitalism is inefficiant on a global scale. Also you forget quite how many people are homeless in your country. You forget some people literally cannot afford both food and shelter.


Not to mention that basic medical care, food and other services are always provided in the USA no matter what misinformed "state aide" workers may tell you. Sorry, do you have evidence you're not making it up? As I'm currently more inclined to believe my working comrades in the US over you - mainly as all you have done is make wild assertions and refused to back them up with anything more substantial than anectdotes about a couple of people you know.


... I say again that the majority of the USA's "indigent" problem has to do with its ridiculously lazy (if not altogether absent) immigration policy. Yes I am talking about illegals. You simply can't have 150 million "producers" taking care of the naturally indigent people among the other 150 million PLUS the 20 million undocumented - but that's exactly what we DO have. Wait, so people are poor because of illegal immagrants coming here? Also where are you getting these 150 million, 150 million and 20 million statistics from. You're also aware that most undocumented immagrants work fucking hard?


Like I said, see what the the immigration numbers are for Socialist "Utopias" like Sweden. The only reason "socialism" works in those places is because of their defacto exclusion of ppl that can't "produce". A) Sweden is not socialist. B) Could you produce mean something approaching, at least, a quasi proffesional document showing a causal relationship between Immigration policy and performance on world markets?


...Oh and by the way.... she (my son's caregiver) says Lenin was a criminal and is the one who INVITED The Mafia to begin its control vis a vis - Stalin. ;D Right. This despite the fact that Lenin was against Stalin gaining control of the party?


I think what you folks need to do is stop reading neatly packaged articles about Socialism and start talking to people who actually FLED those places. Do you suggest we should also talk to the gusanos about Cuba? I would trust a neutral article more than people with a vested interest in discrediting socialism.
Being in the medical field, I have the opportunity to talk to hundreds of people who were actually productive citizens in other parts of the world. You know what they all agree on? The USA may not be ideal, but it beats the hell out of Complete (and even imagined) Government Ecomonic control each and every day of the week. They all know a lot about economics then? They have read through and understood data that points to the inefficiancy of capitalism? They aren't constructs of your imagination?

[The Flu]

It's okay if you don't get it. I figured as much. For over a decade, I've been to message boards where people provide example after example of this or that... finding a "news story" or a "speculative study" to "back up" your argument doesn't make it "true". I have made assertions and all you can do is call me stupid. Typical.

So far NOBODY here has done anything but attack me personally (there's a big difference between calling someone forgetful and being called an idiot)

Show me YOUR evidence to refute the statement that in every Socialist/Communist country, it essentially (if not immeiately) degrades into local factive warfare over resources.

The bottom line is that when individuals are no longer "legally" in control of the resources, (Socialism) those with the might to take control do so... and the government is powerless to stop them because central control of economics is impossible to maintain over the long run without Military threats.

Show me the counter-examples. Please.

[Comrade J]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 9 2006, 06:39 PM
...Oh and by the way.... she (my son's caregiver) says Lenin was a criminal and is the one who INVITED The Mafia to begin its control vis a vis - Stalin. ;D

I think what you folks need to do is stop reading neatly packaged articles about Socialism and start talking to people who actually FLED those places. Being in the medical field, I have the opportunity to talk to hundreds of people who were actually productive citizens in other parts of the world. You know what they all agree on? The USA may not be ideal, but it beats the hell out of Complete (and even imagined) Government Ecomonic control each and every day of the week.
I think what you really need to do is find a new carer for your son.

Thus far you have demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge regarding socialism, communism, the NSDAP, Stalin, Lenin and the US Healthcare system, which is somewhat surprising, considering your job. I think a lot of your incredibly misinformed beliefs are a result of your son's carer's anecdotes, and personally I would not want somebody like this to look after my child, just in case they end up trying to teach them something.

Still, I do appreciate reading a new ridiculous angle at attempting to discredit Communism, the whole Mafia conspiracy thing, although complete and utter deluded bullshit, makes a refreshing change from the "China and Cuba is teh bad lol!1!11" sort of arguments we frequently get.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 9 2006, 09:14 PM
It's okay if you don't get it. I figured as much. For over a decade, I've been to message boards where people provide example after example of this or that... finding a "news story" or a "speculative study" to "back up" your argument doesn't make it "true". I have made assertions and all you can do is call me stupid. Typical.
What's to 'get'. Yes you have made assertions, you have not backed these up with actual, verifyable evidence.



So far NOBODY here has done anything but attack me personally (there's a big difference between calling someone forgetful and being called an idiot) Read my posts and ignore the insults, you'll notice it still makes sense. Unless you count asking for evidence or refuting your claims as 'personal attacks'.


Show me YOUR evidence to refute the statement that in every Socialist/Communist country, it essentially (if not immeiately) degrades into local factive warfare over resources. You're the one making the claim, you're the one who needs to produce evidence. I would happily producing anything to counter any real evidence you have.


The bottom line is that when individuals are no longer "legally" in control of the resources, (Socialism) those with the might to take control do so... and the government is powerless to stop them because central control of economics is impossible to maintain over the long run without Military threats. The bottom line has been pulled from your arse. Is this happening in Cuba? Do you have evidence of it happening in Cuba? Simply because you fear efficincy in economics does not mean it won't work.


Show me the counter-examples. Please. I just did. Do you have any non-gusano proof of a 'cuban mafia'?

[JazzRemington]

I wonder if this individual understands that Mafias, in the modern sense, originated in Capitalism.

[Vinny Rafarino]

In talking to my son's caregiver, she says that the Mafia WASN'T largely controlled by the government. What the government did was to suppress the fact that the Mafia was in control. There is a big difference between control of criminal propagana and actual control of the criminal element.

I suggest telling the old wind bag to take a class because her historical revisionism is to the level of complete absurdity.


Her husband was a scientist and she worked as an accountant for a very large law firm in Moscow. I think she knows what she is talking about.

Considering that Lenin turned toes up to the daisies in the early twenties coupled with the fact that you claim she knows personal information about Lenin's political decisions then your son's "caregiver" must be near 100 years old. (If she even exists that is :lol: )

Perhaps a class won't help her with her historical revisionism; you can't help senility with lessons.

I would also ask myself if it was wise to have such an elderly lady taking care of your son.


As for the "Poverty Line" in the USA... it's a misnomer. The POOREST person in the USA is many times "richer" in every respect than the average middle class individual in any third world country

You're confused again.

Perhaps you are not aware of what it means to live below the poverty line. Your government places the statistics and their explanations right on their website. I suggest you check them out before you make yourself look even more foolish.

Considering that you can afford a "caregiver" (and this cat talks about "lazy immigrants" :lol: ) I doubt you can even fathom it.

In addition, changing the subject to something irrelevant and incomparable won't help you.


I say again that the majority of the USA's "indigent" problem has to do with its ridiculously lazy (if not altogether absent) immigration policy. Yes I am talking about illegals. You simply can't have 150 million "producers" taking care of the naturally indigent people among the other 150 million PLUS the 20 million undocumented - but that's exactly what we DO have.


Anything else you want blame on "immigrants"? Perhaps:

The hole in the ozone?

Bad hair days?

Shitty drivers?

English food?

Rain on game day?


Being in the medical field, I have the opportunity to talk to hundreds of people who were actually productive citizens in other parts of the world.

Being a custodian in the ER does not qualify as "being in the medical field". Since you ignored my corrections to your ignorant medical observations, I doubt you do anything else.

Unless you work in the mess that is; hey, doctors gotta eat too. :lol:

[Labor Shall Rule]

It is a known fact that crime arises out of uncertain social conditions. You can look at the origins of the Chinese Triads and Tongs, the Japanese Yakuzas, the Sicillian Mafioso, the Russian mob, the Albanian mafia, the Italian Camorra, the American mafia, the Jamaican Yardies and Posses, and the Mexican and Colombian cartels, and you can find a common trait in every single one of them-these organized crime groups have origins in places of terrible political strife, economic inequality, and general oppression.

The Russian mafia did not rise through socialism, but rather through the introduction of capitalism to Russia. Examine these statistics on Russian mafioso membership gathered by leading law enforcement agencies:
1985-91 790 members
1994 5700 members
1997 8,200 members
2000 60,000 members
1985, the year in which neo-liberal reforms was introduced to Russia. 1994-2000, the years in which there has been growing economic and political inequality within Russia. Any logical person would come to the conclusion that various organized crime groups have actually benefited greatly from capitalism in the last decade.

As for Mexico and Colombia, there are no arguments against why organized crime has arised there. Ever since economic globalization has began, crime has risen dramatically. The tourist industry on the US-Mexican border is virtually dead due to the rise of crime. Pablo Escobar, a man who was known to be the richest drug dealer in the history of the world, even admitted that his first naive crime spree as a pickpocket and scammer started out of his economic desparity. Both major drug cartels in Colombia, were known for their roots in the impoverished urban centers of Medillin and Cali.

As for socialist "connections" with the mafia, I think that is really hilarious. The Sicillian mafia was renowned for it's control of public offices during the late 19th century, and during the later post-WW2 era. Various far right groups, including the mafia, was used to intimidate and corrupt the 1947 elections in that country, placing the unpopular Christian Democrat party in power. They assasinated Communist Party officials, and put down thousands of strikes and even armed revolts amongst the peasants. Salvatore Guiliano, a sort of peasant bandit that crusaded against the landowning class of Sicily, was personally executed by Gaspare Pisciotta, his cousin that was associated with the Messina mob. In the later 1970s when there was another threat from the left, the mafia was again put to use against the people of Italy. The historically important mass demonstrations across Sicily in 1985 against the power of the mob, was widely lead by various Communist, anarchist, and a small handful of liberal groups. Look at Mao Tse Dong. A few months after the creation of the PRC in 1949, organized crime virtually died.

[The Flu]

Meh.. I'm just tired of all the "finding of articles on the internet" stuff that everyone pulls on message boards. I was hoping for a real dialogue, but it has turned into this tit for tat. You can find statistical evience for every diametrically opposed argument under the sun

In response to the post IMMEDIATELY above me, I will restate, The USSR was a master at NOT releasing the real numbers on the Criminal Activity - mostly because they were INVOLVED in it. Do you suspect that those "numbers" gleaned from a randomly googled web sites are accurate?

Do you think that Organized Crime dies after a coup because it dies? or because the militarist regeime replaces it with its own people and then suppresses the information about the "new crime" ?

Ask yourself why Leonid Brezhnev was the last of the "old party" and why things changed so rapidly after Gorbachev got in office.

You probably know less than you think you do.

THIS is why I am asking YOU all for real evidence. Instead of telling me and my "friends" how much less of person I am/we are, convince ME that Socialism is a good thing.

Show me the great Socialist States... Bring them on.

And of course.. I am always happy to hear how my son's caregiver is an "old bag" and "uneducated" ... I wonder, was Carnegie a Socialist? ... I doubt it. ;)

[The Flu]

...ok sry for double post...but then.. I'm not a socialist, so I'm bad that way...

I suggest telling the old wind bag to take a class because her historical revisionism is to the level of complete absurdity.

...and your "proof"

Perhaps a class won't help her with her historical revisionism; you can't help senility with lessons.

...She is 69. You never heard stories from your parents? Wow, you socialists lead rather sanitary lives

I would also ask myself if it was wise to have such an elderly lady taking care of your son.

...I would ask you to make your own determinations about who can and can't care for YOUR kids.. but then again, in a socialist system, such choices are usually made FOR you.

You're confused again.

...No YOU are confused. Get REAL numbers please.

Perhaps you are not aware of what it means to live below the poverty line. Your government places the statistics and their explanations right on their website. I suggest you check them out before you make yourself look even more foolish.

Considering that you can afford a "caregiver" (and this cat talks about "lazy immigrants" laugh.gif ) I doubt you can even fathom it.

In addition, changing the subject to something irrelevant and incomparable won't help you.

... the "care" is provided by the state since my son is disabled. , as it would be to anybody if any economic status in the USA. wink.gif

Anything else you want blame on "immigrants"? Perhaps:

The hole in the ozone?

Bad hair days?

Shitty drivers?

English food?

Rain on game day?

...Um socialist regeimes are the ones that usually make stuff up for general consumption. I will leave the hyperbole to you.

Being a custodian in the ER does not qualify as "being in the medical field". Since you ignored my corrections to your ignorant medical observations, I doubt you do anything else.

Unless you work in the mess that is; hey, doctors gotta eat too. laugh.gif

...and your job (if you have one) is? I will address your silliness about whatever it is you think you said about medical issues in a future post.

[Vinny Rafarino]

If you are unable to figure out how to use the "quote" buttons, please feel free to ask for some help Mr. Confused.



Originally posted by Confused Balloon
..and your "proof"

Proof of what?

That your servant's recital of history is not accurate?

Any 100 level history class can show that; ever heard of college?


She is 69. You never heard stories from your parents? Wow, you socialists lead rather sanitary lives

So you admit that her accounts are mere speculations based on her memories of conversations that occured decades ago?

Don't try that one in a court room jack.


No YOU are confused. Get REAL numbers please.

Are you attemting to say that the statistics posted on the US governments website are inaccurate?

And that your own speculations are somehow more reliable than the numbers provided by the government you are supporting?

Hmmmm. How quaint.


the "care" is provided by the state since my son is disabled. , as it would be to anybody if any economic status in the USA. wink.gif

Thank goodness for social welfare! :lol:


..and your job (if you have one) is?

It consists of too many hours of work for too little pay and it's also irrelevant to the discussion.


I will address your silliness about whatever it is you think you said about medical issues in a future post.

Can you even remember that far back?

[The Flu]

What's funny is how you all have completely missed the point that Hegemonic Governmental control is the ONLY thing that keeps crime in check in "non-freedom-based" societies - and in the end, that is the very definition of a "mafia".

Let's use the word, syndacate, instead to describe those organizations (be they the recognized government or the "underground criminal powerhouses") that are in charge of a nation's economic destiny.

Whether it's the government purposely keeping shelves bare to unsettle the populace (80's Russia) or non-government crime syndacates, the result is the same. In a society where people are not free to COMPETE with one another (with a basic safety net I agree must be in place) there is no incentive for REAL improvement of goods and services simply competition for "control" of the economy that exists in situ.

Someone please step up to the plate with something other than a piecemeal, point by point attack of the minutae of my choice of words. Address the ISSUE for once, not the anecdotes.

I realize that you are probably used to having a kind of "bully on the playground" control of these boards... let's see if you can rise above. I have faith in you. (and for a capitalist atheist - that's saying something)

[superiority]

In the end, ALL communism to date just ends up in a government sanctioned and controlled mafia
What communism to date? Attempts have been made at implementing socialism, but it has never really been achieved (according to a Marxist definition -- I'm not just No True Scotsman'ing). The Paris Commune is perhaps the closest anyone has ever come, and that did not degrade into a mafia.


Russia is STILL controlled by the mafia
Russia is a capitalist country. Russia was never a communist country.


She told me about how it was living in Riga in Latvia durning the Nazi occupation (Socialists - btw)
The Nazis were not socialists. They were called the National Socialists, but it was a fascist ideology, heavy on the inferiority of non-German races. Nazism is far-right and heavily anti-communist. Read the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazis) for more information.


The US and the Representative Republic form of government is the most free and most success inducing system ever.
If by success you mean 'unjust privilege and authority over others', then yes, I have to agree with you.


Nowhere on earth can you be the poorest of the poor and STILL get cared for no matter what.
The welfare state is not inherent to capitalism. Rather, it is concessions made to the left to try and convince the worst off that their current living conditions are 'good enough' and that no real revolution is needed. In a purely capitalist system, those unable to produce capital or sell their labour, for whatever reason, are left to rot.


Socialists = Mafiosos - end of story
It's clear a lot of thought went into this. The depth and insight of your arguments has certainly convinced me. Vive la profit!


Good luck in all you do, truly - but please realize that there is no such thing as Utopia.
You think we should give up ideals of justice and equality because people like you think it's too hard?


Remember the full name of the Nazi party my forgetful friend: National Socialist German Workers' Party. Sheesh.
Remember the actual policies of the Nazi party, my forgetful friend: racism, nationalism, violent anti-Communism, abolition of trade unions, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, cult of personality around Hitler, corporatism. Sheesh.

I'll take logical fallacies for $400, Alex...

Show me the immigration policy of, say, Sweden. yea.. 'nuff said.
Bzzzzzzt!! What is non-sequitur?


Show me a fully Socialist State that isn't totalitarian. You can't do it. You can talk about France and Canada and Sweden et al, but those are Socilaist Like systems... not Socialist States.
Show me a fully Socialist State. You can't do it. You can talk about China, and North Korea, and Cuba, but those are socialist-like systems. Not Socialist states.


Only because unlike ANY OTHER Socialist Like system, the US will take ANYBODY regardless of "marketable talent" that is useful to the interested nation. Grow up.
So...you don't have a problem with the social inequality, then? You see nothing wrong with people living in gutters?


More like not ever given the 100x proven reality that Socialist States degrade IMMEDIATELY into totalitarian systems ruled by local boses: ie Mafia. ...and think about the def. of Mafia here. You are probably missing the point, but why am I surprised?
See, here's this amazing debating ability showing again...talking about a "100x proven reality" without at any point referring to any proof? Brilliant!


As are all socialist systems. Socialist = Totalitarian Government.
Staying on message even though you're completely wrong: I like that. Have you ever thought about entering politics?


In talking to my son's caregiver
So you know she's reliable.


Her husband was a scientist and she worked as an accountant for a very large law firm in Moscow. I think she knows what she is talking about.
What is 'appeal to authority'?


As for the "Poverty Line" in the USA... it's a misnomer. The POOREST person in the USA is many times "richer" in every respect than the average middle class individual in any third world country.
Well, yes, the point of exploiting someone (in this case, the exploitation of developing nations by imperialist powers) is to end up better off than them.


Not to mention that basic medical care, food and other services are always provided in the USA
If you can pay, that is.


You simply can't have 150 million "producers" taking care of the naturally indigent people among the other 150 million PLUS the 20 million undocumented - but that's exactly what we DO have.
You've got it the wrong way around, man. The 150 million "producers" are taking care of the richest people, not the "indigents". The capitalists sit around, while the workers do all their work for them. Also: "naturally indigent"? So you admit there are some people who, no matter how hard they work, are unable to succeed in America?


Like I said, see what the the immigration numbers are for Socialist "Utopias" like Sweden. The only reason "socialism" works in those places is because of their defacto exclusion of ppl that can't "produce".
See what the immigration numbers are for capitalist "utopias" like the USA. The only reason "capitalism" works in those places is because of the constant influx of people so desperate to survive that they'll forgo their rights to join the workforce and create more capital for the people on top.


...Oh and by the way.... she (my son's caregiver) says Lenin was a criminal and is the one who INVITED The Mafia to begin its control vis a vis - Stalin. ;D
Wow, is she psychic or something? Impressive how she knows all about what Lenin did, considering she was born after he died. Oh, wait I forgot, her husband was a scientist and she was an accountant at a law firm. Of course she would know these things.


I think what you folks need to do is stop reading neatly packaged articles about Socialism and start talking to people who actually FLED those places. Being in the medical field, I have the opportunity to talk to hundreds of people who were actually productive citizens in other parts of the world. You know what they all agree on? The USA may not be ideal, but it beats the hell out of Complete (and even imagined) Government Ecomonic control each and every day of the week.
I think what you need to do is stop reading neatly packaged articles about socialism. I fail to understand the connection between "Complete (and even imagined) Government Economic control" and a system that requires abolition of the state.


finding a "news story" or a "speculative study" to "back up" your argument doesn't make it "true". I have made assertions and all you can do is call me stupid. Typical.
Yeah, this "evidence" stuff is overrated. If I want to make stuff up based on my own misunderstandings, I should have the right to have everybody else believe me!


So far NOBODY here has done anything but attack me personally
You missed out the part where everybody responded to your claims.


Show me YOUR evidence to refute the statement that in every Socialist/Communist country, it essentially (if not immeiately) degrades into local factive warfare over resources.
Show me your evidence to support the statement that in every socialist/communist country, it essentially (if not immediately) degrades into local factional (I think that's what you meant) warfare over resources. Also, show me your evidence that you can spell.


The bottom line is that when individuals are no longer "legally" in control of the resources, (Socialism)
What?! The definition of socialism is that workers are "legally" in control of what they create!


In response to the post IMMEDIATELY above me, I will restate, The USSR was a master at NOT releasing the real numbers on the Criminal Activity - mostly because they were INVOLVED in it. Do you suspect that those "numbers" gleaned from a randomly googled web sites are accurate?
Hah! The evidence contradicts what I said! That proves I'm right, and that the government was in on it, too!


You probably know less than you think you do.
God, I hope you know more than I think you do. It saddens me to think people could actually be that stupid.

As a side note, ad hominem is not merely a personal attack or insult. It is when one side argues that some claim made by the opposition is false because of some undesirable quality of the opposition. e.g. You are an idiot, therefore you are wrong. However, saying you are wrong, therefore you are an idiot is, I believe, valid formal logic provide one adheres to a certain definition of idiot.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Confused Blimp
Someone please step up to the plate with something other than a piecemeal, point by point attack of the minutae of my choice of words. Address the ISSUE for once, not the anecdotes.


Why?

Hitherto you have failed to answer questions that have directly refuted your juvenile yet somehow quite "cute" rhetoric.

And I mean "cute" in a "little jimmy still thinks the Easter Bunny left him candy" kind of way of course.

Either get busy defending your "faith" (good luck!) or get busy sticking your head in your ass....I don't care wich one but please get busy doing something.

Either that or take a hike jack.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

I don't know if my opinion will be cared about/listened to, or if it will even make sense ( cause I'm tired as heck right now), but here it goes, for the "Theory" part Mr. Flu is asking about.

On the Mafia Degeneration:

When the revolution comes, the Mafia and crime groups will fight tooth and nail to resist , as such a threat is a direct threat to their bourgeois luxuries and etc.

I agree with Mr. Flu when he says often crime groups and the goverment are linked, as goverments from other nations have no problems with sponsering criminals/terrorists to do their bidding,instead of sending their own military over. Examples: US Support of Osama Pre-9/11, Current US Support of Terrorist Cuban groups attacking Cuba in various ways, etc. Some say Chavez is supporting Columbian Guerilla Drug smugglers/terrorists, and the list runs on and on.

Back to the degernation: When the revolution comes, it means that the people themselves are fed up, and, quoting Father Gapon of the 1905 Revolution, "are willing to die than to bear more sufferings", then they won't be feared into submission by the crime bossess once they have lost thier fear of death.

No matter how many soldiers the Mafia has, the people will always be stronger, and it is likely much of the Mafia-Lower-Class will revolt too against the Mafia when they see the inevitable destruction of the Mafia. In Russia, 60,000 Mafia men against 200,000,000 angry russians who have just captured goverment tanks, helicopters, bombs, and guns, doesn't seem very favorable to the Mafia. Count in perhaps 1/3 of the Mafia revolting/hesitating? Easy victory.

Now about the establishment of new Mafias/factionalism: People have often said that communism cannot work on a "United Communist World" because factionalism/nationalism will play out and people will get angry and attack each other, and this is true up to a degree, but we will see once it plays out.

If The societies were organized more like large-scale communes, like Paris in 1871, then the societies would be relatively less factionalist. People would be united by physical need, not idealistic ambition.

To Be Continued, as I'm getting really tired right now...

[Avtomatov]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 10 2006, 12:00 AM
Meh.. I'm just tired of all the "finding of articles on the internet" stuff that everyone pulls on message boards. I was hoping for a real dialogue, but it has turned into this tit for tat. You can find statistical evience for every diametrically opposed argument under the sun

In response to the post IMMEDIATELY above me, I will restate, The USSR was a master at NOT releasing the real numbers on the Criminal Activity - mostly because they were INVOLVED in it. Do you suspect that those "numbers" gleaned from a randomly googled web sites are accurate?

Do you think that Organized Crime dies after a coup because it dies? or because the militarist regeime replaces it with its own people and then suppresses the information about the "new crime" ?

Ask yourself why Leonid Brezhnev was the last of the "old party" and why things changed so rapidly after Gorbachev got in office.

You probably know less than you think you do.

THIS is why I am asking YOU all for real evidence. Instead of telling me and my "friends" how much less of person I am/we are, convince ME that Socialism is a good thing.

Show me the great Socialist States... Bring them on.

And of course.. I am always happy to hear how my son's caregiver is an "old bag" and "uneducated" ... I wonder, was Carnegie a Socialist? ... I doubt it. ;)
hmm, ive been reading about Freud and his psychoanalysis. I beleive you are suffering from:

Denial:
Denial occurs when someone fends off awareness of an unpleasant truth or of a reality that is a threat to the ego.

Rationalization:
Rationalization involves constructing a logical justification for a decision that was originally arrived at through a different mental process.


Also, I think youre justifications for your beliefs are very weak.

And could it possibly be that the reason you are tired of people providing statistics, is because you have nothing to back up your beleifs? You want to convince us that we are wrong, perhaps first you should learn to provide a valid argument.

[unema-]

Remember the full name of the Nazi party my forgetful friend: National Socialist German Workers' Party. Sheesh.
You were done r i g h t t h e r e... :wub:

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 9 2006, 10:14 PM
For over a decade, I've been to message boards where people provide example after example of this or that... finding a "news story" or a "speculative study" to "back up" your argument doesn't make it "true".
Whereas posting random jibberish with no arguments/articles/sources whatsoever to back it up does make it "true", of course :lol:


Show me the counter-examples. Please.
Show me the examples. Please.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 10 2006, 01:05 AM


Someone please step up to the plate with something other than a piecemeal, point by point attack of the minutae of my choice of words. Address the ISSUE for once, not the anecdotes.



Whether it's the government purposely keeping shelves bare to unsettle the populace (80's Russia) or non-government crime syndacates, the result is the same. In a society where people are not free to COMPETE with one another (with a basic safety net I agree must be in place) there is no incentive for REAL improvement of goods and services simply competition for "control" of the economy that exists in situ.

Someone please step up to the plate with something other than a piecemeal, point by point attack of the minutae of my choice of words. Address the ISSUE for once, not the anecdotes.

I realize that you are probably used to having a kind of "bully on the playground" control of these boards... let's see if you can rise above. I have faith in you. (and for a capitalist atheist - that's saying something)

Ah, finally, it degrades to another one of these simple arguments! This makes it a lot easier.

People have more incentive to work than just competition, infact, a lot of people work less when there is a large competitor. People work for other reasons which are stronger than playful competition: Idealistic notions (WOrking for the people), and also to feed their own families (Which is the main reason anyone works at all).

Very few people would just like to go out and work based only on competition - they work cause they have to, not for "fun". The falsity of capitalism is that they believe people can work, for "Fun", as if this money thing is all just a playful game we can come to and leave whenever we want.

[Herman]

THIS is why I am asking YOU all for real evidence. Instead of telling me and my "friends" how much less of person I am/we are, convince ME that Socialism is a good thing.

YOU HAVEN'T SHOWN ANY EVIDENCE OR SOURCES, THUS YOUR IDIOTIC AND SHORT ARGUMENTS MEAN NOTHING EITHER TO US OR TO ANYONE!

I'm writing in capital letters so that you READ this first, before you say anything else.

[Rollo]

I didn't read the entire thread, but why does one man control an army? The army could just shoot the man and bam tyrant gone.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Quoting from "Confessions of a Economic Hit man" -


"I wish it were that simple - a globe wide conspiracy of buisnessman who could be targed"

:ph34r: The Bourgeosie are very clever at hiding themselves often, so no one knows who they are :ph34r:

[Qwerty Dvorak]

In the end, ALL communism to date just ends up in a government sanctioned and controlled mafia.
The emphasised words invalidate this entire thread.

[The Flu]

It's almost pavlovian how people with an inability to argue the substance of the argument always reduce themselves to this sentence by sentence deconstruction of out-of context points. (See all of the above)

My defense of my argement is the same: give me ONE example of a sustained socialist STATE that hasn't a) suppressed the extent of it's internal criminal element or b) merely legitimated the syndicated criminal element by allowing it to use power among local polities.

You CAN'T do it.

Once again.. everything above this post is ad-hominem, sweeping generalization, bullshit and deep down you know it, you just don't have a STATE to back your liquefactive necrotic ideas up... Or maybe it's more like granulomatous necrosis since you guys wall yourselves off from the rest of the reality. :blush:

Show me the STATE! You do know what I mean by "state" right?

[The Flu]

I have to add a thank you to Revolutionary Marxist for actually explaining his point and not just attacking my intelligence (at least three posts ago) ;)

In response to the idea that "the people are always stronger [than the syndicates]" this pre-supposes that the people are willing to risk life and limb to oppose the syndicate. They usually are not.

Someone else posited that "how could one man be in charge" and again, it's the same reason: fear. The syndicates rise to the top of socialist states because the people have no individual freedoms granted among them to oppose them. You can talk about how a socialist state "SHOULD be" but so far, this is what they ARE. As a bad and overused example, Stalin murdered some of his own family and party to replace them with individuals that would be loyal to him and the revised "cause". And finally, three generations later, the oldest Stalinists died out and Gorbachev came to office and saw the writing on the wall... He could no longer exert the kind of power necessary to control the government syndicates that started with Stalin!

As for the idea that people work to make their useful "contribution" - that's true in a CAPITALIST society - not a socialist one.

The bottom line is that execellence is borne out of competition it's a biological imperative. NOBODY purposely takes the path of GREATEST resistance - except in the case of some (not necessarily pathological) personality issues. The reason that fully socialist systems fail to produce economically is because, if the safety net is the MEANS to the end, why bother doing things better? You can SAY people want to do their best, but what IS your best? I argue that you do your best when you have incentive, be it money or some other external motivator. Genetically, altruism barely extends to immediate family members and evaporates in times of extreme stress. (It's one of the fundamental theories of why religion started - but I digress)

Anyway... keep up the good work of not finding that Socialist State that works for me and I will continue to not give sources mostly because you probably have immediate prejudices to anyting I can find on the net anyway... ;)

[Avtomatov]

Anyway... keep up the good work of not finding that Socialist State that works for me and I will continue to not give sources mostly because you probably have immediate prejudices to anyting I can find on the net anyway...

Excuses. Excuses are not good enough, we need sources. YOU FAIL.

Everytime we refute something, everytime you ask for examples we give you them. And then you say that you wanted something else. You just ignore the examples we give you.


My defense of my argement is the same: give me ONE example of a sustained socialist STATE that hasn't a) suppressed the extent of it's internal criminal element or b) merely legitimated the syndicated criminal element by allowing it to use power among local polities.
My favourite example is Cuba. But we have already shown you statistics on the USSR. The thing is, how can you prove that the USSR had mafias and we are all wrong about it? We have statistics, you are just arbitrarily stating that it had huge mafias which ran the country.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 10 2006, 09:59 PM
It's almost pavlovian how people with an inability to argue the substance of the argument always reduce themselves to this sentence by sentence deconstruction of out-of context points. (See all of the above)

My defense of my argement is the same: give me ONE example of a sustained socialist STATE that hasn't a) suppressed the extent of it's internal criminal element or b) merely legitimated the syndicated criminal element by allowing it to use power among local polities.

You CAN'T do it.

Once again.. everything above this post is ad-hominem, sweeping generalization, bullshit and deep down you know it, you just don't have a STATE to back your liquefactive necrotic ideas up... Or maybe it's more like granulomatous necrosis since you guys wall yourselves off from the rest of the reality. :blush:

Show me the STATE! You do know what I mean by "state" right?
*sigh*

We should really make it a rule that people can be warned for ignoring every other post, and reposting the same ignorance over and over again.

:rolleyes:

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

My defense of my argement is the same: give me ONE example of a sustained socialist STATE that hasn't a) suppressed the extent of it's internal criminal element or b) merely legitimated the syndicated criminal element by allowing it to use power among local polities.

Paris Commune, 1871, when the people of Paris revolted and declared Socialism or Death.

That is a perfect working example of socialism. All Criminals were sent into labor/shot (including war criminals), and a socialist economic system/dictatorship of the proletariat set up.

[Herman]

Anyway... keep up the good work of not finding that Socialist State that works for me and I will continue to not give sources mostly because you probably have immediate prejudices to anyting I can find on the net anyway...

Give them anyway. I'd rather know that YOU'RE USING SOURCES rather than NOTHING, making YOUR arguments mean NOTHING.


Someone else posited that "how could one man be in charge" and again, it's the same reason: fear. The syndicates rise to the top of socialist states because the people have no individual freedoms granted among them to oppose them. You can talk about how a socialist state "SHOULD be" but so far, this is what they ARE.

The same can be said about the old monarchies where liberals dreamt of democracy but in response to their ideals, others said: "but it doesn't work".


As a bad and overused example, Stalin murdered some of his own family and party to replace them with individuals that would be loyal to him and the revised "cause". And finally, three generations later, the oldest Stalinists died out and Gorbachev came to office and saw the writing on the wall... He could no longer exert the kind of power necessary to control the government syndicates that started with Stalin!

Claims without sources. Therefore I will ignore this.


As for the idea that people work to make their useful "contribution" - that's true in a CAPITALIST society - not a socialist one.

Wrong. It is NOT true in a capitalist society. It IS true in a socialist one.


The bottom line is that execellence is borne out of competition it's a biological imperative.

What biological imperative? Can you prove this? Do you have any evidence of a part of the DNA where it clearly makes us "compete" with each other? No? Then shut up.


The reason that fully socialist systems fail to produce economically is because, if the safety net is the MEANS to the end, why bother doing things better? You can SAY people want to do their best, but what IS your best? I argue that you do your best when you have incentive, be it money or some other external motivator.

Who said this wasn't true in a socialist state? In communism, people will probably do things for the good of society, but not in the stage of socialism. It's too early. Besides, it is in YOUR interest to work in order to get money, buy food, luxuries and survive. All the government (chosen democratically) does is ensure no one exploits the other nor takes advantage of him/her.


Genetically, altruism barely extends to immediate family members and evaporates in times of extreme stress. (It's one of the fundamental theories of why religion started - but I digress)

Altruism does not exist. Nor does ANY human nature of any kind. The only 'human nature' which can be said to be in us, is our reaction to the physical world, the self-interest (by this I mean the needs of food, shelter and so on. In other words, the most basic of needs are 'human nature', no more than that).

[Phugebrins]

"It's almost pavlovian how people with an inability to argue the substance of the argument", etc.
If you look, people have been responding in depth to the question of the Mafia in the USSR and its role throughout history in general.
However, since you clearly do not want to support your assertion or permit others to back up their criticism the debate, by necessity, starts and stops with your claim that the USSR was infested with mafia whose existence was covered up by the state, and others' disagreement. Your evidence for this is anecdotal, but you refuse to permit questioning the merits of anecdotal evidence. Other possible sources of evidence include official statistics, which you claim to be falsified and discount. That leaves us with interpolation: You've basically ignored socialists pointing out the historical precedents. What, then, can we discuss? Surely, you don't expect us to expect us as canonical fact your entirely baseless and really quite surprising assertion, just because you claim to have heard it from someone who used to live in the USSR?

To me, it looks like your argument has no substance to begin with.

[The Flu]

1. The Soviet suplied numbers are completely un-reliable AND only apply to Moscow if they apply at all. In other words: the non-government syndicates are only controllably at the core of the government.

2. I never ignored anything. I made the initial assertion that Socialist States quickly denegrate into local syndicates and used some anecdotal examples as "support".

Then I sat back and watched as the kind and gentle socialists berated me and my aquaintances in every way possible - both with - and mostly without cause.

Look at the name of the dam board geniuses. I was ASKING if it is possible to stop Syndicates from taking over socialist states and as yet... NOT ONE big brained socialist can find me a place on planet earth where the socialist STATE is thriving and fulfilling the promise of making man ".... immeasurably stronger, wiser and subtler; his body will become more harmonized, his movements more rhythmic, his voice more musical. The forms of life will become dynamically dramatic. The average human type will rise to the heights of an Aristotle, a Goethe, or a Marx." - Trotsky.

3. The paris example proves MY assertion. Making everyone who doesn't agree with you a criminal is one definition of how a syndicate operates- and I'm not surprised that you think that shooting and jailing dissidents is a good example of how tu run a socialist state.

Just one thing to close this silly thread. You consistently failed to see how the Socialist State and it's coercion of the individual was itself a syndicate (ie organized criminal element) Sure I initially called it "the Mafia", and I apologize if you were blinded by that term. I still contend that centrally eventually and regionally especially the government ALWAYS quickly loses control of people and tacitly gives control to the criminal element. Which.. if you think about it... is capitalism. In fact, I contend that the only reason that the USSR stayed afloat as LONG as it did was because of black market capitalism. But you probably just think it's cause they didn't shoot enough dissidents, right?

Take care. :P

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

God, I love trolls like you ^_^

[The Flu]

Now I am a troll? This is perfect. I am getting exactly what I expected. You can't argue with the substance, so you (continue as you did from the very first post) to attack me and not my arguement.

Oh, you think you are arguing with the substance when you post these point for point deconstructions of my grammar and anecdotes... but if you look closely, all the arguments against me pretty much say, "You're wrong because you are stupid and didn't find us several unverifiable internet articles saying the same thing."

Read this if you can... (and weep)

http://mises.org/econcalc/Ch1.asp

Start paying attention during the 5th paragraph on page 1.

You will notice how this self acclaimed "liberal institution" (whatever that means) sheds light on the difference between consumption goods and production goods and how the former are "up for exchange" in a socialist state in a way that production and its means are not.

This essay doesn't say it implicitly, but this forms the basis for "syndicated local control" of consumption goods. Try as you might, you cannot divorce yourself from the simple fact that different people have different means of valuation for consumables. Even the state cannot place a homogenous control on this (unless you do what some of you seem to advocate and shoot the outliers)

The enterprising individual WITHIN the socialist state (and his friends) know this difference in valuation and ultimately exploit smaller then increasingly larger surpluses in consumption goods until they have control over a niche.

It is pathomenmonic that these local syndicates fly under the State's radar - so it's not surprising that you found no evidence for organized crime in the USSR then increasing influence as that government collapsed and information was more "disclosable".

I am admitting (once again) that I used a lot of anecdotes and quipped back at the nibblers myself... but I hope you can see how my assertions are not only valid, but likely inescapable in any socialist state that doesn't just plain shoot everyone whose production or needs falls one or two standard deviations from its established means.

I doubt anyone will respond to this. You've pre-judged me for substantive reasons I have yet to guess.

[The Flu]

And to RedHerman...

It's not my fault you don't understand the second law of thermodynamics or it's implications on competition within biological systems.

Try this: http://web.unbc.ca/~chenj/thermo.pdf

Oh.. this might help.. when he says "evolution" at the end of the abstract.... be sure you know what that means.

Sure... sure you can go with: In biology, evolution is the change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by shifts in the allele frequencies of genes.

But ask yourself, "What drives this shift in allele frequencies?" It is, of course another concept with which you may be unfamilliar called Natural Selection.

From Wikipedia: Natural selection comes from differences in survival and reproduction. It preferentially selects for different mutations (allele frequencies) based on differential fitnesses.

Differential fitness? you say. Oh yea - that is competition for limited resources.

Now it all comes so clear doesn't it?

Are all socialists creationists, btw? Did you guys miss this in class? Just curious.

[Herman]

But ask yourself, "What drives this shift in allele frequencies?" It is, of course another concept with which you may be unfamilliar called Natural Selection.

From Wikipedia: Natural selection comes from differences in survival and reproduction. It preferentially selects for different mutations (allele frequencies) based on differential fitnesses.

What does this have to go with greed? Absolutely nothing. In fact, you've proven my point. Human beings must indeed look to themselves and others in order to SURVIVE. Why do you think society was created? Because as humans we need to protect each other and help each other. Perhaps we don't think for others, but we sure do think of ourselves, which is why socialism can work. The need to cooperate will allow this to happen.


Differential fitness? you say. Oh yea - that is competition for limited resources.

Now it all comes so clear doesn't it?

No, it doesn't come clear, because, like i've said before, it has nothing to do with greed. Nor does it mean 'competition for limited resources'. You do realize that this definition refers to a whole group of species and not to the individual animal itself within the species? So according to your logic, we humans should have killed each other long ago, since we should have been competing with each other for 'limited resources'. Has it happened? No. Therefore, your logic is flawed.

[bezdomni]

The problem with your argumentation is if somebody offers statistics that are contrary to your asserts on preconceived ideas, they are "unreliable" or "false" in some manner. You then request us to back up our arguments with some sort of "substance", like numbers or statistics...

This is clearly idiotic, because we can't back up an argument with statistics that you won't agree with. You might as well be asking us to add 2 and 2 and come up with 5, even though all statistics and reasoning lead us to conclude that 2 and 2 are four.

And in case you haven't noticed, Russia is even more controlled by the gangs now than ever. Furthermore, your assertion that Lenin (the criminal) "invented" the method of controlling people with a mafia boarders on a conspiracy theory. Let me guess, he was also funded by the jews? nazis? Whom?
:P

You seem to not understand that YOU have to back all of your wild claims up, since you are the one making them. And no, your possibly nonexistant maid doesn't count as "proof" of anything aside from your inability to back up your assertions with REAL substance.

You make the next mistake of calling the nazi party a socialist party. Just because somebody calls themself something does not make it so. I could call you a bloody master of rhetoric, but it would simply be untrue.

You also seem to forget that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany fought a war together, because Nazis and Communists hate eachother, since communism seeks the liberation of humanity while nazism seeks its enslavement. You really don't even have to take a class, you just have to read a book or know one thing about history to figure this out.

Another thing, I have never met a Russian that thinks the USSR was half as bad as your 100 year old caretaker, or whomever, does. One of my best friends is a Russian Marxist; she and her family always say that Russia has gone down the craphole since the collapse of the USSR.

Any more "arguments"?

[Red Ivan]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 8 2006, 06:47 PM

Wake up. Commnism is nothing more than a pipe dream. You may all dream of living in happy cooperatives, but Socialists = Mafiosos - end of story. Ask anyone who escapes China, Cuba or any other Socialist nation... where do they go to live their dreams?

The United States of America.


What?

We have Millions of homeless running all over the place?

Not everyone makes it to the top.

And if they do it's usually by standing on the head of another.

[Rollo]

Question: How to stop a dictator

Answer: Gun

[The Flu]

For the record. I was only half-heartedly involved in this board at first, so my apologies to anyone who feels neglected. That said, let’s get this argument going.

To each according to his posts.

RedHerman: I never said anything about greed. I said that there was a biological imperiative towards competition. You said there wasn’t. Then I provided sources to prove it. I realize it is in the nature of some folks here to reject decades upon decades of empirical observation. I think you can incorporate this new data into your paradigm.

I’m not sure where you get the idea that we “should have killed one another off a long time ago”. Cooperation is a feature of species (and individuals) within an ecosystem if it aids survival, and its one argument as to the differential success of humans. And exchange is among the fundamental reasons that this cooperation exits. You have something I want/need that I can’t easily make/get on my own. I have something in kind. We trade. This is capitalism – not socialism. There also is a huge difference between biological imperatives and social ones. A distinction I’m happy to ‘splain if you feel the need.

Snotskyist: I freely admit that I was using andectodal evidence and I said I would stop. I also concede that one person offered one tiny set of statistics, but from where and compiled by whom? I just can’t trust numbers coming from the USSR. I think it’s a valid criticism to examine the source of the data and reject it as biased. This is totally different than doing the whole, “ I reject your reality and substitute my own.”

To ignore the socialist underpinnings of the initial Nazi movement is a case of rjecting reality on order with denying the holocaust. You aren’t one of those people, are you? I didn’t think so. The Nazi party had the best socialist intentions to start with. They wanted all Germans to work together towards a common, better and more efficient Germany (which was struggling to overcome the economic devastation of WWI) . However, it quickly became obvious to some that the only way to get full economic participation out the richest “Germans” was to … well… eliminate them. A large piece of the wealth sector were Jewish: easy target. So the demoniaztion began in earnest. Once Jews were on the run, (and their money building defensive and offensive weaponry) neighboring nations became clear and easy targets. Make no mistake, the majority of the German people saw what they were doing as bringing the gifts of the German Socilaist way of life to the world. It was the crazy leaders who were hell bent on something “bigger”.

I wonder too, have you ever met a Russian who was an adult in the former USSR and had a job there and is now a productive member of a Western Capitalist society? I’m not so sure you can pony that one up to the bar.

RedIvan: http://coe.west.asu.edu/homeless/myths.htm

This might give you a better idea about the Homeless in the US. I agree with their numbers. 3 million give or take at any one time. That works out to 1% of the population.

Rollo: The real way to stop a dictator in times past was give his people the freedom to choose whether or not to own a gun for personal use and whether or not to purchase it and use it in defense of his own liberty. Having usefully past the time where that was necessary in most parts of the world, the way to stop a dictator becomes clear. Endogenously, you give people economic freedom. Exogenously, you rely on nations with endogenous freedom to remove the dictator and foster in economic feedom.

I want you all to know that I am not now and never have decried socialist systems. As a medical practitioner in the US, I think we are headed towards and need a single payor system that is fair. Yes I am an advocate for Social Medicine for the most part.

I just don’t think that a Socialist STATE is tenable in any way for reasons already stated.

[KC]

2. I never ignored anything. I made the initial assertion that Socialist States quickly denegrate into local syndicates and used some anecdotal examples as "support".

To make assumptions like that you would need evidence to back it up (not just "anecdotal examples"). Moreover, you would have to define "socialist" and you would also have to prove that every state that has been socialist according to the definition has degenerated beause of the fact that it was socialist. Once you do that we can begin a debate on this issue.


NOT ONE big brained socialist can find me a place on planet earth where the socialist STATE is thriving and fulfilling the promise of making man ".... immeasurably stronger, wiser and subtler; his body will become more harmonized, his movements more rhythmic, his voice more musical. The forms of life will become dynamically dramatic. The average human type will rise to the heights of an Aristotle, a Goethe, or a Marx." - Trotsky.

There are no socialist states and there hardly have ever been.


3. The paris example proves MY assertion. Making everyone who doesn't agree with you a criminal is one definition of how a syndicate operates

No, that is how class society operates, especially in a time of revolutionary upheaval.


and I'm not surprised that you think that shooting and jailing dissidents is a good example of how tu run a socialist state.

Shooting and jailing dissidents is a good way to run any state, regardless of who is in control of it.



Just one thing to close this silly thread. You consistently failed to see how the Socialist State and it's coercion of the individual was itself a syndicate (ie organized criminal element)

Define "socialism" and list the "socialist states" that you are referring to.


In fact, I contend that the only reason that the USSR stayed afloat as LONG as it did was because of black market capitalism.

That's a really simplistic analysis (oh, and it's wrong, too).



Read this if you can... (and weep)

http://mises.org/econcalc/Ch1.asp

Mises knows about as much about socialism as you do about constructing a coherent argument.



But ask yourself, "What drives this shift in allele frequencies?" It is, of course another concept with which you may be unfamilliar called Natural Selection.

From Wikipedia: Natural selection comes from differences in survival and reproduction. It preferentially selects for different mutations (allele frequencies) based on differential fitnesses.

Differential fitness? you say. Oh yea - that is competition for limited resources.

Actually, Darwin's theory on natural selection had little to do with competition between species and had more to do with competition between animal and nature. Your (mis)conception of Darwin's theory of natural selection is easily proven wrong by a simple observation of events occurring in nature where animals cooperate to survive.

Mutual Aid (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html)


I realize it is in the nature of some folks here to reject decades upon decades of empirical observation.

And this coming from someone that skewed Darwin's theory of natural selection to fit their argument...

:rolleyes:


I wonder too, have you ever met a Russian who was an adult in the former USSR and had a job there and is now a productive member of a Western Capitalist society? I’m not so sure you can pony that one up to the bar.

Actually, I work with someone that was.

[The Flu]

Khayhembii: If you look at the name of the BOARD – it is a question, not an edict. I didn’t barge in here insisting that I had some magical insight. I said, “Is it possible…” In other words, I was asking for the negative to your assertion – namely that you show me the place where Socialist States DON’T degenerate into underground economies for consumables.

I’m glad you agree that there are no functioning socialist states. I guess that after the dissidents are all shot, they soon fall to internal economic pressure (from syndicates) for consumables. So you support my thesis. Thanks.

As to the Paris example. If you read, he was holding that up as an example of a viable Socialist State. So thank you again for the support.

And since you agree that shooting and jailing dissidents is a GOOD way to run a state, I suggest that a socialist state IS the place for you. Perhaps you can set one up after you kill all those that don't agree with you. In a free capitalist society, we let dissidents run for office so we can make fun of them later when the political tides change.

Socialism is when “the ownership of the means of production is solely at the discretion of the State and individuals all work towards production for the maintenance of the state and its peoples.” ie - 1. you and everyone else works. 2. The fruits of your labor are funneled into a collective meta non-economy. (which really is an economy) 3. The products of this labor are then re-distributed as the State sees fit based on it's criteria of individual need.

I was asking for some states to examine from the good people of these boards… I can’t find one that works myself (and apparently neither can you – see your own reply)… so I was hoping for some help here.

As for black market capitalism – show me how economic exchange with the West DIDN’T keep the USSR afloat for decades. They sold stuff to somebody, didn’t they?

As for the Mises essay – I knew someone would discredit the “institution” as soon as I read it’s “about us” page. You didn’t read the essay did you. They know their way around a thesaurus – that’s for sure. I know it’s hard to read such prose and shift your paradigm at the same time.

I’m not sure why you bring up Darwin. I know that the misnomer “survival of the fittest” has been invoked against socialism by thinkers before us – I wasn’t using it that way and I think it’s clear what I meant if you read the context. You took biology – when? Maybe Darwin was still contemporary for your professors.

You work for a former Soviet who actually had a job and now works in the West you say? Is this a for profit company? Just curious.


Oh by the way... read this. You won't, and even if you do, you will miss it's instructive application, but go ahead and try it. Pay close attention to the dates listed for various activities here and there...

http://andrsn.stanford.edu/Other/redmaf.html

[The Flu]

To everyone else...

This article supports every last one of my assertions, and I didn't even know it existed until about 20 minutes ago.

http://andrsn.stanford.edu/Other/redmaf.html

Notice the dates listed and how "underground economic activity" is actually seen to be the cause for the rapid spread of "the mafia" once the USSR collapsed.

In other words, the "crime syndicate" machinery was already there and fuctioning (as I said time and again) and it just turned MORE aggressive when the markets opened up - hence the previously reported low numbers during Soviet rule, and their rapid rise as "capitalism" is introduced.

[bezdomni]

I just can’t trust numbers coming from the USSR.
Then I just won't trust any of your numbers.


I think it’s a valid criticism to examine the source of the data and reject it as biased.
Numbers aren't biased, interpretations are.


To ignore the socialist underpinnings of the initial Nazi movement is a case of rjecting reality on order with denying the holocaust. You aren’t one of those people, are you?
Uh, I am certainly not a holocaust denier.


The Nazi party had the best socialist intentions to start with. They wanted all Germans to work together towards a common, better and more efficient Germany (which was struggling to overcome the economic devastation of WWI) .
Can you name any political movement that hasn't wanted all people to work better for a more efficent country? If you can, they certainly were not successful.

However, the Nazi party did not aim to overthrow the ruling class (since fascism is a ruling class movement), put the workers in power or create a classless society. In fact, the Nazis did the exact opposite.

That is not to say that the Nazis didn't try and appear as socialists. The National Socialist Worker's Party of Germany sounds socialist, but their ideas are about as far away as you can get. Why the hell do you think they killed communists and invaded the USSR?

The Nazis needed support of the workers, so they masqueraded as leftists when their real interests were in protecting the senile ruling class by any means necessary. They scapegoated the jews, the communists, the gypsies...etc for their own shortcomings (it was capitalism that ruined germany, not an ethnic group).

The fact is, there is NOTHING remotely socialist or revolutionary about the nazis. To make a comparison between revolutionary communists and reactionary fascists is to grossly misunderstand both ideologies.


However, it quickly became obvious to some that the only way to get full economic participation out the richest “Germans” was to … well… eliminate them. A large piece of the wealth sector were Jewish: easy target. So the demoniaztion began in earnest. Once Jews were on the run, (and their money building defensive and offensive weaponry) neighboring nations became clear and easy targets. Make no mistake, the majority of the German people saw what they were doing as bringing the gifts of the German Socilaist way of life to the world. It was the crazy leaders who were hell bent on something “bigger”.
Nowhere do you mention the goal of the nazi party to destroy capitalism and create a classless society.

If they don't want a classless society, they ain't communist. ;)


I wonder too, have you ever met a Russian who was an adult in the former USSR and had a job there and is now a productive member of a Western Capitalist society? I’m not so sure you can pony that one up to the bar.
My friends parents grew up in the USSR and say it was a hell of a lot better then than it is now. They moved to the US eight years ago. Since they are still Russian citizens (and not US), only her father is allowed to work at the moment, since he is the only one who has a visa. He does something for the space administration, I am not sure what. Her mom is working on a masters degree in mathematics.

A NASA employee and a mathematician. Productive enough for you?

[The Flu]

Soviet Pants: (my bad for calling you Snotskyist earlier. I was working offline and saw your post title - not your screen name)

So now I am supposed to trust your anecdotes about your friend's parents? .... ok. Unlike you to me, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and take you at your word. Strange idea, that. Did you read the Stanford article I posted immediately above your most recent post? Your friend's parents no doubt represent those, "more productive and specially treated" citizens that it is talking about. No wonder they loved it! What's not to love when you are getting special treatment on the backs of the subjugates. (as happens in all socialist states - and systems too)

As for the "trust in numbers issue" I just got done (immediately above you, again) talking about how those numbers appear to be skewed by the way "organized crime" was defined in the USSR. Your friend's parents, no doubt, grew up thinking the system of kick-backs and special treatment for especially talented individuals was the norm. That KGB agents overseeing redistribution of consumables wasn't "mafia-like" or that getting things on the "black market" was just a by-product of Western repression of the Soviet economy to them. It's understandable.

Um... I never said the Nazis were "communists". ...but the Nazi brown-shirts were most definately organized under the principle that the government (what you apparently call the ruling class) was in charge of production and the sole discretionary of the fruits of individual efforts. History necessarily conceals this fact (and rightly so) because of the overshadowing despotism and brutality of it's more racist policies. It's not "socialism's" fault that the Nazis bastardized the concept horribly, but it is a consequence of the surrendering of national means of production solely to the state.

BTW.. I would love to live in a classles society. By and large, the USA is the most classless society that has ever existed. The fact that you can find racism in the USA is the exception that proves the rule. I wager that as the generations pass (as has been shown to be true) and the children of "racists" leave their hometowns and get "educated" they eventually see the folly of prejudice ON THEIR OWN. It is their freedom to choose the ethnicity-blind path that makes it powerful. By necessity, socialism and communism must impose a collective social will. Earlier in this board, someone decried the "altruism gene" so by the admission of a socialist/communist, community assistative idealogy must be imposed (and apparently, usually by violence - go figure) By complete accident, capitalism obliterates ethnic imperatives by imposing a meta-will: take what you need and pay for it.

[bezdomni]

Soviet Pants: (my bad for calling you Snotskyist earlier. I was working offline and saw your post title - not your screen name)
No worries.


So now I am supposed to trust your anecdotes about your friend's parents?
You asked. Think of it what you will.


Unlike you to me, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and take you at your word. Strange idea, that.
I really don't care. I only told you because you asked.

My friends parents are irrelevent to the fact that life was better in the Soviet Union than it is in Russia. I was just pointing out that anecdotes vary, and therefore are useless in an objective debate.


Did you read the Stanford article I posted immediately above your most recent post?
It's irrelevent.

I am not saying the USSR was a perfect happy place where nobody received preferential treatment. I'm saying life in the Soviet Union was better than it is now.

This is not surprising, considering most Russians prefer the Soviet Union to the modern day. This article (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/63/088.html) is about 10 years old, but the facts are still true. If I had more time, I'd find the recent research...but that'll have to wait.


Um... I never said the Nazis were "communists". ...but the Nazi brown-shirts were most definately organized under the principle that the government (what you apparently call the ruling class) was in charge of production and the sole discretionary of the fruits of individual efforts. History necessarily conceals this fact (and rightly so) because of the overshadowing despotism and brutality of it's more racist policies. It's not "socialism's" fault that the Nazis bastardized the concept horribly, but it is a consequence of the surrendering of national means of production solely to the state.

The nazis didn't "bastardize" socialism, they openly hated it. The National Socialist party calls itself socialist, but in no way is it revolutionary or marxist. Congo calls itself a "democratic people's republic", but it is none of those things, nor has it ever been. It hasn't bastardized the concepts...it has never even accepted them to begin with.

It is argued that Stalin bastardized socialism, but never that Hitler bastardized socialism (since he never believed in it to begin with).


BTW.. I would love to live in a classles society. By and large, the USA is the most classless society that has ever existed. The fact that you can find racism in the USA is the exception that proves the rule. I wager that as the generations pass (as has been shown to be true) and the children of "racists" leave their hometowns and get "educated" they eventually see the folly of prejudice ON THEIR OWN. It is their freedom to choose the ethnicity-blind path that makes it powerful. By necessity, socialism and communism must impose a collective social will. Earlier in this board, someone decried the "altruism gene" so by the admission of a socialist/communist, community assistative idealogy must be imposed (and apparently, usually by violence - go figure) By complete accident, capitalism obliterates ethnic imperatives by imposing a meta-will: take what you need and pay for it.

This is mostly babble, so I will reply with a crappy cartoon I made that kind of deals with what you're saying.

One thing though, how is the US the "most classless society that has ever existed"? What about the Spanish Republic? Or the Paris Commune? Or primative communal society?

[bezdomni]

Soviet Pants: (my bad for calling you Snotskyist earlier. I was working offline and saw your post title - not your screen name)
No worries.


So now I am supposed to trust your anecdotes about your friend's parents?
You asked. Think of it what you will.


Unlike you to me, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and take you at your word. Strange idea, that.
I really don't care. I only told you because you asked.

My friends parents are irrelevent to the fact that life was better in the Soviet Union than it is in Russia. I was just pointing out that anecdotes vary, and therefore are useless in an objective debate.


Did you read the Stanford article I posted immediately above your most recent post?
It's irrelevent.

I am not saying the USSR was a perfect happy place where nobody received preferential treatment. I'm saying life in the Soviet Union was better than it is now.

This is not surprising, considering most Russians prefer the Soviet Union to the modern day. This article (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/63/088.html) is about 10 years old, but the facts are still true. If I had more time, I'd find the recent research...but that'll have to wait.


Um... I never said the Nazis were "communists". ...but the Nazi brown-shirts were most definately organized under the principle that the government (what you apparently call the ruling class) was in charge of production and the sole discretionary of the fruits of individual efforts. History necessarily conceals this fact (and rightly so) because of the overshadowing despotism and brutality of it's more racist policies. It's not "socialism's" fault that the Nazis bastardized the concept horribly, but it is a consequence of the surrendering of national means of production solely to the state.

The nazis didn't "bastardize" socialism, they openly hated it. The National Socialist party calls itself socialist, but in no way is it revolutionary or marxist. Congo calls itself a "democratic people's republic", but it is none of those things, nor has it ever been. It hasn't bastardized the concepts...it has never even accepted them to begin with.

It is argued that Stalin bastardized socialism, but never that Hitler bastardized socialism (since he never believed in it to begin with).


BTW.. I would love to live in a classles society. By and large, the USA is the most classless society that has ever existed. The fact that you can find racism in the USA is the exception that proves the rule. I wager that as the generations pass (as has been shown to be true) and the children of "racists" leave their hometowns and get "educated" they eventually see the folly of prejudice ON THEIR OWN. It is their freedom to choose the ethnicity-blind path that makes it powerful. By necessity, socialism and communism must impose a collective social will. Earlier in this board, someone decried the "altruism gene" so by the admission of a socialist/communist, community assistative idealogy must be imposed (and apparently, usually by violence - go figure) By complete accident, capitalism obliterates ethnic imperatives by imposing a meta-will: take what you need and pay for it.

This is mostly babble, so I will reply with a crappy cartoon I made that kind of deals with what you're saying.

One thing though, how is the US the "most classless society that has ever existed"? What about the Spanish Republic? Or the Paris Commune? Or primative communal society?

anyway, how do you define "most classless"? Classless society is a boolean, it either is or it isn't.

Anyway, here's the cartoon.

[Janus]

By and large, the USA is the most classless society that has ever existed.
:lol: :lol: So why isn't it the Utopian States of America?


The fact that you can find racism in the USA is the exception that proves the rule
Who do you think benefits from racism and xenophobia? The working class or the bourgeois?

[Rollo]

Everybody knows that we are all a bunch of idiots on these boards and that the USA is perfect. This government is so great that gun deaths have gone down by 2 or 3!

[KC]

I said, “Is it possible…” In other words, I was asking for the negative to your assertion – namely that you show me the place where Socialist States DON’T degenerate into underground economies for consumables.

And the conclusion you come to from the response to that inquiry - that socialist states always "degenerate into underground economies for consumables" - is logically incorrect. If that logic were used for other things, we wouldn't have lightbulbs, airplanes, the automobile, etc...


I guess that after the dissidents are all shot, they soon fall to internal economic pressure (from syndicates) for consumables. So you support my thesis. Thanks.

Perhaps you could quote where I "supported [your] thesis"?



As to the Paris example. If you read, he was holding that up as an example of a viable Socialist State. So thank you again for the support.


The Paris Commune was an example of a viable socialist state. Notice that I said hardly.


And since you agree that shooting and jailing dissidents is a GOOD way to run a state

That's how all states are run. Threats to the ruling class are dealt with by any means necessary. And yes, that is how the US is run, as well.


In a free capitalist society, we let dissidents run for office so we can make fun of them later when the political tides change.

We're not talking about "dissidents that run for office". We're talking about those who threaten the rule of the ruling class.

http://www.eco-action.org/dod/no9/fred_hampton.jpg

There's a good example for you.



Socialism is when “the ownership of the means of production is solely at the discretion of the State and individuals all work towards production for the maintenance of the state and its peoples.” ie - 1. you and everyone else works. 2. The fruits of your labor are funneled into a collective meta non-economy. (which really is an economy) 3. The products of this labor are then re-distributed as the State sees fit based on it's criteria of individual need.


That's not the marxist definition of socialism at all.


As for the Mises essay – I knew someone would discredit the “institution” as soon as I read it’s “about us” page. You didn’t read the essay did you. They know their way around a thesaurus – that’s for sure. I know it’s hard to read such prose and shift your paradigm at the same time.

I'm guessing you got your definition of "socialism" from Mises as well?


I’m not sure why you bring up Darwin. I know that the misnomer “survival of the fittest” has been invoked against socialism by thinkers before us – I wasn’t using it that way and I think it’s clear what I meant if you read the context. You took biology – when? Maybe Darwin was still contemporary for your professors.

The whole point is that so-called "social Darwinism" was developed through a vulgarization of Darwin's theories.


You work for a former Soviet who actually had a job and now works in the West you say? Is this a for profit company? Just curious.

Actually I don't work for him, I work with him.


Oh by the way... read this. You won't

You're right. I won't.

If you are going to have a discussion on socialism with marxists then you are going to have to use the marxist definition of socialism.

[The Flu]

It's kind of funny. I finally offer what appears to be pretty well researched proof of the existence of a "mafia" operating prior (and by many decades) to the collapse of the Soviet Union, and it is dismissed as "irrelevant" although the "facts are true". I'm not sure what to make of that.

My initial premise was that Socialist States seem to spawn "criminal" syndicates and I asked the question, "Is it possible to have a Socialist State without such an occurence." I posed that it wasn't. I admit I'm way out of my league arguing what socialism is or isn't sometimes, but I argued intuitively that what WOULD happen is what the Stanford thesis (which draws from a wide body of research) shows actually DOES happen.

I did make the assertion too, that my son's caregiver said life was better IN LATVIA under Nazi occupation than when the Soviets took over. She was much happier later in Moscow, but says that it was nonsensical. Her exact words are, "It was a decent living. I hope you never have to live in this kind of decency." And if I ever gave the impression that the Mafia was BETTER now, I apologize. I think the confusion came in her recounting of Nazi Lativa Vs Soviet Latvia - not Soviet Moscow Vs. Russian Moscow.

And to khayembii specifically: You are still falling prey to some old ideas about how “social Darwinism” was historically used as an argument against socialism. I had never even considered using such an argument and then when I saw you were misinterpreting it this way, I took pains to explain what I WAS doing. I’m not sure what more I can do to show that I was simply saying: competition is “natural”. It is a truism (that socialism overlooks and ultimately why it fails) that a) humans have different needs. b) The State cannot forsee these needs entirely. c) Where gaps between need and provision exist, humans WILL find ways (legal or not to the socialist state) to meet their needs.

From a, b, and c flow the reason that local syndicates for consumables arise. I’m not sure how hard this is to understand.

I will also gladly stop holding the US out as an example of “exemplary behavior” in the world, but if statistics (as everyone here seems to agree are the final word in any argument) are any measure of how the average world citizen views the US, then here’s some statistics for you. Instead of numbers, how about a graphic representation of where people in the world MOVE to. You will find the picture below at:


http://www.nationalgeographic.com/xpeditio...le%20migrate%22 (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/xpeditions/activities/09/gapacket05.pdf#search=%22where%20people%20migrate% 22)


http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a273/onesieer/Migration.gif

It’s from those crazy political hacks at National Geographic, so I’m not sure you can trust it. The size of the arrow indicates the magnitude of migration. Notice where the arrows go, how many and of what size? Stephen King is no Nobel Prize winner, but he did say something prescient about the difference between what people DO and what people SAY. "Critics don’t interest me. I know my books are good because people buy them. Lots of them." So it is with the US. I know it sucks and is a horrible place, but more people around the world (who have a choice) come to it than any other place. Go figure.

Lastly, to counter the idea that I need some Marxist definition of socialism to have a discussion here is silly, but go ahead and give it to me. However, I must warn you that if you are going to have a discussion on the way the world works, you should operate in the real one.

It disappoints me you won't read the article, but this is how socialism advances, I suppose, by not examining counterpoints.


*~*~*~*~*~
WHOA! Hold the phone there.. I am now a restricted member? When did this happen? For daring to have a disagreeing conversation with a mod and a few others? Nice. I'm honored.

[Phugebrins]

If you're honestly asking the question "How do we / Can we stop government mafias emerging in socialism", then the answer is yes, and the methods are as follows:
- Transparent Democracy: A bit of a tautology, as socialism is by definition democratic (and the USSR was hence not socialist). But anyway, a socialist state will differ from the USSR in that all those in a position of influence will be required to make all their decisions and motives publicly accessible, they must be accountable (often by election), and many decisions may in any case be devolved to voting. This would solve both the problem of bureaucracy mentioned by te article, as well as the question of the legal vacuum.
- Egalitarianism: When everyone's earning about the same sort of thing, it becomes pretty obvious if someone's doing incredibly well for themselves.
- No black market: the USSR's economy was a rather cash-based economy, and when individuals are given responsibility for large amounts of money, some of which may at times pass through various hands in cash form, corruption is easy. Modern technology makes this unnecessary. With no cash, mafias cannot accumulate funds, and attempting to run a mafia by barter would be ridiculously inefficient, never mind the high chance of being discovered. Furthermore, paper-based records are easily hidden, lost, burnt, or just inaccessible. Checking paper accounting for an entire economy is very difficult - but computerised records with logs of all changes can be searched automatically, checked by algorithms rather than by hand, accessed from wherever you like, backed up and recovered, etc. (I'm not 100% sure all socialists will agree with me on these methods, mind)
- No state. Anarchists and communists who argue for the complete abolition of the state have a pretty easy solution to the problem. With no state, you have nothing to corrupt.

To be honest, it'd be easier to stop mafias in socialism than in capitalism.


Now, as to the Soviet Union.

"it is dismissed as "irrelevant" although the "facts are true""
Um, actually, KC was referring to very different "facts". Try to read a bit more closely so you don't misquote people.

Your article is interesting, though its entire premise really hinges on a few quotes from one article (Grossman, 1977) that doesn't seem to be on the internet. So whether *these* are just speculation or hard fact, it's impossible to say. At best, it's reading between the lines (else Anderson would have just quoted the direct evidence). Irrespective of whether Grossman was providing an interpretation of figures or direct and uncontroversial evidence, there's another problem. I'm more than happy to agree that the USSR was rife with thievery and corruption. I do not doubt that some of it was organised. But Anderson's article itself does not make any effort to show that the mafia in the USSR were anything like the size of the mafias outside the USSR.

[The Flu]

Wow. Thank you Phugebrins for a) not attacking me and my acquaintances. b) giving me the benefit of the doubt that I am actually seeking insight and NOT attacking anyone or anything c) answering my fundemental question.

Bonus points for writing your ideas in paragraph form without a piece by piece disconnection of my points out of context. (I thanked RedHerman for same earlier. IF there were others who need kudos - take them now.)

I can't disagree with your definitions or premises which leads me to another question...

Is it possible to have a Successful Socialist state in any world where Capitalism is the dominant (or even prominent) culture? I think this a meta-concern in any discussion of the viability of socialism. Namely that, not by definition, but by the very fact of its existence in a competetive economic world, any "socialist state" will necessarily be in "competition" with its non-socialist neighbors for both resources and ideas on how to use them.

Since a Socialist State can't exist in a vacuum, even miniscule advantages of economy in neighboring states will ultimately marginalize the more communal society. The idea behind socialism (even a marxist definition) seems to be maintainance of the "steady state". This steady state may well be defined by the democratic participants in the Socialist State, but when shortfalls arise in meeting the defined needs, what then? Do the needs become a moving target, or do the means to meet them become the moving target?

Obviously the idea is for ALL of humanity to participate in this "great society" so that there is no marginal competition, but it's a hard sell in places where things like Religious Ideology are their own meta-concern.

Can you imagine Christian or Islamic extremists settling for a helpful cooperative existence when, at best, they view each other with contempt and at worst, one of the theologies calls for the complete destruction of the other.

*sigh* ....feeling very defeated atm.

[Phugebrins]

Hm. Ok, big change of tack.

"Is it possible to have a Successful Socialist state in any world where Capitalism is the dominant (or even prominent) culture?"
You've quite rightly pinpointed a big issue here. And socialists are divided on the matter. I don't feel I can give you an answer to this, though I'll give you a few thoughts.

For me, the biggest problem seems to come from an asymmetry in how socialist and capitalist countries will react to each other. Capitalist countries are liable to do all they can to destroy socialist countries. Not just the infrastructure, but the people, too. The west has a long history of stirring up trouble whenever movements come about that seek to go their own way (I won't go into that now, but I can give details if you're interested). This has two aims: first, the direct suppression of socialist nations: economic blockades and military interventions have pretty obvious effects. Second, the retardation of democracy: if you can reduce a country to a point wherein its residents have to fight for survival, then you create a brilliant place for dictators to thrive - people will turn to those who can fight hardest and help them survive best. Third, the prevention of further dissent: If you decimate one country as soon as they choose to go too far left, then the people of the country next door aren't going to do the same.

But a socialist country can't (and probably *won't*) do any of that. To fight capitalism, you've got to support the majority - the oppressed - in your capitalist neighbours. Reduce a country to rubble, and you've alienated them - they'll seek help in the capitalists. If a socialist country were to follow those tactics, countries in the middle, trapped between two vicious imperialist powers, would simply turn into a host of dictators who offer their alliance to the highest bidder (or what looks like the winning team), alliances that only the capitalists can accept.


"even miniscule advantages of economy in neighboring states, etc"
This point here seems to be some kind of argument that a capitalist economy is somehow 'better' than a socialist one. Apologies if I'm misconstruing your point here, but this is what I'm going on.

First of all, I'm not all that convinced that economic 'efficiency' is really going to be a significant factor in the survival of a socialist nation unless we're talking about differences that put one country decades and decades behind. The only effect I can think it would have would be in how those people living in capitalist countries view the socialist country, and even then, I think what they'll be looking at will not so much be GNP but the standard of living of your average man on the street, i.e. what socialism can do for *them* - and, barring really serious differences in economy, the wealth differential in capitalist countries that puts a great deal of money in the hands of the few, no matter how 'efficient', will still leave ordinary people seriously short-changed compared to those in the socialist country.

Secondly, I don't see any good reason why a socialist economy should be less efficient. If you're referring to issues of pricing and planning, as much calculation as is needed can be done in a minute or so on today's home computers (see here (http://www.ecn.wfu.edu/%7Ecottrell/socialism_book/), plus make some calculations to update it). As to predicting demand, then no, demand cannot be predicted prefectly. But this is true of both markets and planned economies. But whereas the market relies on the delayed reaction of market signals being conveyed through the chain like a chinese whisper and the expectation of some spontaneous entrepreneur or response, a socialist society can identify a problem or shortage as soon as it arises and fix it directly. But if you were thinking something along the lines of 'government red tape', then consider how much unofficial red tape and systematic upkeep is involved in maintaining the capitalist system - all the banking, advertising and counter-advertising, not to mention the fact that for every competing firm, the infrastructure has to be paid for again and again, unlike the economies of scale (or simplicity, I suppose) that a single, constructive effort.


But while it would be difficult, I'm not sure it would necessarily be impossible.