Thread: A brief word on US dominance and world capital.

Why does the USA dominate the world? Why does capitalism dominate the world? It's wrong! A system that promotes putting other people down, so one can make oneself wealthier is ugly...
George Bush doesn't lead a democracy, around one thousand votes were "burnt" (destroyed) and the media seemed to mostly overlook and forget this! What will stop the only world superpower from doing this in other countries, to support her own agenda? Nothing. What is happening in Iraq? What has happened in so many countries "liberated" by this rogue state? We know the answer.
How can anyone rule out socialism when capitalism is making the poor poorer and the rich richer? In Australia, for example, a mere 4% owns over 40% of the countries' wealth... and Australia is a fairly well-off country.
Capitalism makes poorer govt.s struggle with each other to gain international investments. In order to attract the wealthy nations, these countries must make their own country appear more attractive that other countries. For the workers of these countries this means: lower wages, bad health plans, and no unions. The less rights the workers have, the less money foreign companies have to put into a certain country... the country that is cheapest for these companies attracts the investment.

Capitalism is not a nice way for the majority of people to live. (60% of the entire world's wealth, is owned by bet. 3% and 5% of the world. Is that fair?)

If this seems wrong, or you disagree with what I've said, do the research yourself. I'd be happy to back up my words with sources...write to:
eroonda@hotmail.com

My dear friend, I may hate Bush and capitalism just as much as you do, but you've made an idiot out of yourself on this forum already. This topic has nothing to do with learning the Russian language and this forum is not a place for you to spout your political beliefs or practice your limited knowledge of Russian "мат". Get yourself some paper and crayons and parade signs at the next WTO summit. I'm sure you'll make a big difference. Go away.

I had to vote for Capitalism, because of the terrible slandering you gave it with no points about it that were good.

Well, I don't like America, and I do think they may be abusing their power, but hey, that's wholly in their right as a superpower. If Communism had won, wouldn't the Soviet Union be imposing their rule on every country in the world? Wait a couple of centuries and the USA too will collapse, like the Roman, Spanish and British Empires before it. Maybe the world will then finally enjoy a century of blissful rule under the Empire of Somalia or Republic of Kamchatka-Liechtenstein.

I'd love to vote for socialism, but I'm just too materialistic, I'm afraid.

Empire of Somalia...now that's an idea, Jas! Hell, you get +1 PAR for that!

I agree....better start studying up on my Kamchatkan.

Take a quick look at this..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3406941.stm

Americans further solidifying their control of virtually the entire region around the oil and gas routes out of the Caspian.
And isn't it interesting that the only pipeline route that Russia still controls is through .. you guessed it, Chechnya!

Not to be cynical or anything..

I agree with Pravit that the way this question was put, it has little to do with Russia. But as was just pointed out above, American imperialism does have something to do with Russia... And whether one should go for more capitalism (whatever kind) or more socialism (whatever kind) is a valid question for every society - the Russian Federation being no exeption. To me it would seem that Russia has suffered the worst of both capitalism and the socialist movement.

Note that I say "the socialist movement" and not "socialism". It stings in my chest when people say the Soviet Union was socialistic in the correct sense of the word. Socialism is when (some of, most of, all of) the economics are democratically controlled by parliament(s) and/or the workers of the productive institution(s).

But where was the democracy in the Soviet Union?
IMHO that project was more or less just something in between capitalism and socialism: When transfered from theory into the real world, Bolshevism became Buerocratism and State-Capitalism.

So, I voted for socialism. Because I believe a society should strive for cooperation, equality and democracy - not egocentricity, inequality and plutocracy.

I would recommend, to all of those who voted for "Socialism" (and especially Doorak and Mihkkal), sitting down and reading 'The Black Book of Communism'.

The first two chapters are a point by point illustration of how the soviets were indeed socialists, and that Marxist philosophy seems to inevitably lead toward that kind of cruel and wicked behavior.

Marxist ideology, from the beginning, was predicated upon the idea of a struggle between classes. The struggle was not to be just a philosophical one, however, but one that would ultimately become violent, ending in a global revolution whereby the proletarians of the "working classes" would rule society and destroy all institutions of capitalism, the state, private property, etc. Even in the early days, the philosophy of Communism was deeply immersed in a philosophy of violence and destruction.

In any case, Naziism and Fascism, while often contrasted with Communism, actually have a lot in common with it and are derived from the same sources.

Can anybody here give any sort of staunch refutation of the statement 'Power corrupts, and absolutely power corrupts absolutely'? The leaders of socialist nations have so more more power and authority than those of capitalist nations, that you shouldn't even be considering it a worthwhile debate anymore.

Of course if you still think socialism (and communism, especially, are good) we can look through history of socialist regimes and do a body count of all those killed, and you'll be enlightened.

- Millions of Russians and Ukrainians (more Ukranians) starved to death to fulfill government dictated population quotas.
- Since 1950, more than 50 million Chinese civilians were killed during peacetime.
- From 1975-1979, over two million Cambodians (31% of the entire population) were destroyed by government edicts.
- Millions of Jews killed by Adolph Hitler's Fascism in Nazi Germany (Fascism of course being a form of socialism -- and arguably the most successful form at that)
- Since 1900, four civilians died [of "unnatural" causes] for every one soldier that died in combat --- the significant majority of these were under the rule of Communists (be they in China or the Soviet Union).

Now even if you equate George W. Bush (or his father, or any modern U.S. President) with capitalism, the number of people they killed in whatever way does not even compare to the number killed by socialists.

I'm going to start a topic here concerning Capitalism. So Doorak, instead of emailing you for your sources, why not bring some of the information over on that thread so that we may discuss it publically.

(Oh, yeah. My vote goes for "Capitalism".)

Originally Posted by Pravit

This topic has nothing to do with learning the Russian language...

Why not!? Just write in Russian.

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

The first two chapters are a point by point illustration of how the soviets were indeed socialists, and that Marxist philosophy seems to inevitably lead toward that kind of cruel and wicked behavior.

May be the Marxism is wrong but you don't know the one enough.

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

Marxist ideology, from the beginning, was predicated upon the idea of a struggle between classes.

Marxism ideology is the single class ideology (except 'гнилая интелегенция') by the way.

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

The struggle was not to be just a philosophical one, however, but one that would ultimately become violent, ending in a global revolution whereby the proletarians of the "working classes" would rule society and destroy all institutions of capitalism, the state, private property, etc.

The USSR didn't have the state? The socialism principle is 'you cannot exploit people to get income personally'. That means, you can work alone or you can involve some people and share the company between all workers.

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

Even in the early days, the philosophy of Communism was deeply immersed in a philosophy of violence and destruction.

First of all, don't mix the communism and socialism. Any change (espesially in property and power) brings blood and violence. Look at any of war. Do you really think it happened because they are communists? The most violent thing is conversion of capitalism to socialism. Just imagine, you have to give back your company to community.

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

Can anybody here give any sort of staunch refutation of the statement 'Power corrupts, and absolutely power corrupts absolutely'?

I can't. I can even reword this 'Money corrupts, and big money corrupts absolutely'.

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

The leaders of socialist nations have so more more power and authority than those of capitalist nations, that you shouldn't even be considering it a worthwhile debate anymore.

I thing the socialism and leaders' power are really different things like capitalism and democracy are not the same.

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

Of course if you still think socialism (and communism, especially, are good) we can look through history of socialist regimes and do a body count of all those killed, and you'll be enlightened.

Why you didn't tell us how many people were killed for their property?

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

(Oh, yeah. My vote goes for "Capitalism".)

I didn't vote at all. I know the main principles of socialism but I don't think it's good for real life.

Originally Posted by Pravit

My dear friend, I may hate Bush and capitalism just as much as you do, but you've made an idiot out of yourself on this forum already. This topic has nothing to do with learning the Russian language and this forum is not a place for you to spout your political beliefs or practice your limited knowledge of Russian "мат". Get yourself some paper and crayons and parade signs at the next WTO summit. I'm sure you'll make a big difference. Go away.

Disagree. This IS a political section of forum, isn't it?

The topic is OK and can lead to constructive conversation. I think it was inspired by long period of communism in Russia.

Originally Posted by BETEP

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

The first two chapters are a point by point illustration of how the soviets were indeed socialists, and that Marxist philosophy seems to inevitably lead toward that kind of cruel and wicked behavior.

May be the Marxism is wrong but you don't know the one enough.

What don't I know enough?

Originally Posted by BETEP

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

Marxist ideology, from the beginning, was predicated upon the idea of a struggle between classes.

Marxism ideology is the single class ideology (except 'гнилая интелегенция') by the way.

You're quite right with that statement, but I don't think you understand why.

This single class isn't done by economic "equalizing", mind you, but rather by bullets, famine, and torture. Basically, if you try to be better than anyone, they shoot you or imprison you for being too bourgeois. Of course a society of equals is completely impossible. I mean seriously, the same man isn't equal to himself on any given day.

Originally Posted by BETEP

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

The struggle was not to be just a philosophical one, however, but one that would ultimately become violent, ending in a global revolution whereby the proletarians of the "working classes" would rule society and destroy all institutions of capitalism, the state, private property, etc.

The USSR didn't have the state? The socialism principle is 'you cannot exploit people to get income personally'. That means, you can work alone or you can involve some people and share the company between all workers.

The USSR did have 'the state', but Marx wanted the state to be abolished once the proper systems were in place -- of course this would never happen, and not just because the country would go bankrupt before such institutions were in place. How many of us would be able to give up that much power and control?

Originally Posted by BETEP

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

Even in the early days, the philosophy of Communism was deeply immersed in a philosophy of violence and destruction.

First of all, don't mix the communism and socialism. Any change (espesially in property and power) brings blood and violence. Look at any of war. Do you really think it happened because they are communists? The most violent thing is conversion of capitalism to socialism. Just imagine, you have to give back your company to community.

Communism is a form of socialism, and not the most successful form either... well unless you are measuring success in terms of the number of people killed for no good reason at all. Most wars throughout history can be traced back to the old proverb, "If goods cannot cross borders, armies will." When trade between peoples is free (even across borders), there is no incentive for war with the exception of defense, and wars solely for the purpose of defense have been quite rare.

Originally Posted by BETEP

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

Can anybody here give any sort of staunch refutation of the statement 'Power corrupts, and absolutely power corrupts absolutely'?

I can't. I can even reword this 'Money corrupts, and big money corrupts absolutely'.

Again I say that in a capitalist society, bad monopolies don't form. When 'big money' corrupts, it is not a sign of the failure of capitalism, but rather of modern democracy. Democracy allows for people to be bought off. Don't make the lazy mistake of blaming this on capitalism.

Originally Posted by BETEP

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

Of course if you still think socialism (and communism, especially, are good) we can look through history of socialist regimes and do a body count of all those killed, and you'll be enlightened.

Why you didn't tell us how many people were killed for their property?

In a socialist society or in a capitalist society? In a capitalist society? Very few. The incentives just aren't worth the risks. In a socialist society? Millions.

Originally Posted by BETEP

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

(Oh, yeah. My vote goes for "Capitalism".)

I didn't vote at all. I know the main principles of socialism but I don't think it's good for real life.

At least we can agree that socialism cannot work. Capitalist societies (libertarian societies) have worked. Read "For a New Liberty" by Murray N. Rothbard for insights into the stable, peaceful, and prosperous history of Ancient [libertarian] Ireland.

(One can also study the fishing villages of Midieval Iceland as well.)

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

You're quite right with that statement, but I don't think you understand why.

I know. It's your turn now.

Let me explain why. It's because every person of socialist society always is self-employer (may be except ombudsmen).

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

This single class isn't done by economic "equalizing", mind you, but rather by bullets, famine, and torture. Basically, if you try to be better than anyone, they shoot you or imprison you for being too bourgeois.

Are we talking about economic relations or revolutions? What are you going to tell about bourgeois revolutions?

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

Of course a society of equals is completely impossible. I mean seriously, the same man isn't equal to himself on any given day.

You are living in society of equal political rights, isn't it? Actually it is a political socialism where you have a part (vote) of the company USA.

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

How many of us would be able to give up that much power and control?

May be you wanted to ask: 'How many of US would be able to give up that much power and control?'
You know, people of EU are really crazy.

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

Communism is a form of socialism, and not the most successful form either...

Following you logic I could say: 'Communism is a form of capitalism'.
BTW, socialism also has some forms. The keywords are "surplus value" and "share".

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

When 'big money' corrupts, it is not a sign of the failure of capitalism, but rather of modern democracy.

Why did you mention the democracy? It's not a part of capitalism.
I could say: "When 'big power' corrupts, it is not a sign of the failure of socialism, but rather of modern democracy."

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

In a socialist society or in a capitalist society? In a capitalist society? Very few. The incentives just aren't worth the risks. In a socialist society? Millions.

Wow!!! You really know nothing.
Are you talking about USSR "socialism" or theoretical socialism? What property you meant? Gold ring (one piece), old radio receiver (one piece), twenty five roubles or something else...
You could take some statistics and compare rate of crime in socialist Russia and capitalist Russia.

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

At least we can agree that socialism cannot work.

It cannot work right here right now. Moreover, many of people don't want to change the world and I agree with them.

Originally Posted by BETEP

I know. It's your turn now.

Thanks for the warning.

Originally Posted by BETER

Let me explain why. It's because every person of socialist society always is self-employer (may be except ombudsmen).

Everybody in the world cannot be self-employed. Why not? Because the capital and other resources are simply not there for it. Why? Because capital must go to where it is most efficient, and one person trying to do several things isn't efficient, nor is it productive. Combine that with the fact that not everyone has the will, time, ability, or inclination to be self-employed, and you have yourself an empty argument. :-p

Originally Posted by BETEP

Are we talking about economic relations or revolutions? What are you going to tell about bourgeois revolutions?

It depends on what bourgeois revolutions you would like to learn about?

French Revolution?
The "revolutionary bourgeoisie" is a myth. George Comninel's book on the French Revolution makes clear that the primary actors against the crown were elements of the court itself, not the bourgeoisie.

American Revolution?
American revolution can only be called a social revolution in an extremely qualified sense. Staughton Lynd's study of class dynamics of New York state in the American revolution make a convincing case that the colonial bourgeois were against social transformation.

English Revolution?
Marx never really viewed it as a model for the classic bourgeois-democratic revolution. The grip of the old regime was never really broken. You can see this in the House of Lords, the Crown, and so on. Even Marx understood this.

Neither Marxist doctrine, nor the doctrine of Engels, can hold up well anymore.
The "revolutionary bourgeoisie" is a myth.

Originally Posted by BETEP

You are living in society of equal political rights, isn't it? Actually it is a political socialism where you have a part (vote) of the company USA.

No, I don't live in a society of equal political rights. Politics in the United States has become corrupt -- just like everywhere else. I've explained elsewhere how we have been [unfortunately and illegally] altered to become a Mixed-Market (and increasingly socialist) Democracy from a Limited Republic. I'm not going to type all ]that out again.

Originally Posted by BETEP

May be you wanted to ask: 'How many of US would be able to give up that much power and control?'

Not many, if any, at all. That's what I'm saying. I'm not saying that politicians in the United States are immune to the addictiveness of power.

Originally Posted by BETEP

You know, people of EU are really crazy.

I only thinkg the members of the European Union who buy into the European Union are crazy. Layered bureacracy is making a come back in the form of regionalism within the European Union.

You know there is a growing trend to call the European Union the "EUSSR". Of course it stands for the European Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It's tongue in cheek, but certainly insightful. The European Union is much less violent and more mild compared to the Soviet Union, but it is headed in the same direction. It will fail for the same reasons that the USSR failed.

Originally Posted by BETEP

Following you logic I could say: 'Communism is a form of capitalism'.
BTW, socialism also has some forms. The keywords are "surplus value" and "share".

Communism is a form of Socialism. Stop being a dolt.

All that Marxist "surplus value" nonsense is exactly that, nonsense. It removes incentives for innovation and entrepreneurship: both of which are necessities to a healthy economy.

Originally Posted by BETEP

Why did you mention the democracy? It's not a part of capitalism.
I could say: "When 'big power' corrupts, it is not a sign of the failure of socialism, but rather of modern democracy."

True democracy and capitalism go hand in hand. However, modern "Democracy" is about Mixed-Markets and they naturally begin to slide towards socialism and oligarchy. You might want to look up "Market Socialism".

Are you even reading my other posts around the 'Politics' section?

Originally Posted by BETEP

Wow!!! You really know nothing.

Don't confuse your inability to think clearly and use logic with my lack of knowledge.

Originally Posted by BETEP

Are you talking about USSR "socialism" or theoretical socialism? What property you meant? Gold ring (one piece), old radio receiver (one piece), twenty five roubles or something else...

I have no idea what you're trying to say with the 'Gold ring' and 'old radio receive' nonsense.

The USSR Socialism, Chinese Socialism, North Korean Socialism, and Marxist socialism all fail for the same reasons. Too much capitali and other resources are wasted in subsidizing various parts of society and the system eventually either collapses under its own weight, or it starts to slide towards capitalism (hopefully more slowly, like China.).

Originally Posted by BETEP

You could take some statistics and compare rate of crime in socialist Russia and capitalist Russia.

There is no such thing as capitalist Russia. There is too much corruption left over and too many old communists and other socialists running the show behind the scenes.

Also, I presume since you're such an ignorant and adamant socialist, you're not going to count crimes committed by the Socialist government in the USSR in your statistics given. You know, the MILLIONS of people MURDERED and IMPRISONED for no reason at all except that they weren't productive enough, or they weren't good enough at being good little Soviet machines.

Originally Posted by BETEP

It cannot work right here right now. Moreover, many of people don't want to change the world and I agree with them.

Again, socialism in all its forms fails for the same reason; the inefficiency of central planning. I can recommend some books on economics to you, if you'd like.

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

Everybody in the world cannot be self-employed. Why not? Because the capital and other resources are simply not there for it.

Right! That means the capital have to move with people. You cannot live on your investment. The circumstances where you all the time have to be a part of a business to get income is forcing to improve quality and efficiency, or to find other place to apply yourself.

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

Combine that with the fact that not everyone has the will, time, ability, or inclination to be self-employed…

You are absolutely right here. That's because the socialism never had this form before. Another problem is a path form capital relationships but still.

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

It depends on what bourgeois revolutions you would like to learn about?

I don't want to learn about any of them. I just hinted to you about you can not mix a transitional process like revolution and permanent process. You can live in the air, and you can swim in the water, but you will be died after a falling from bridge.

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

No, I don't live in a society of equal political rights. Politics in the United States has become corrupt -- just like everywhere else.

That's yours problem. You have a vote and nobody took away it from you.

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

I only thinkg the members of the European Union who buy into the European Union are crazy.

You see; I knew it!

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

Communism is a form of Socialism. Stop being a dolt.

Communism is a form of Capitalism. Stop being a dolt.

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

All that Marxist "surplus value" nonsense is exactly that, nonsense.

This is only an economical term. You could cook up yourself.

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

It removes incentives for innovation and entrepreneurship: both of which are necessities to a healthy economy.

The situation where you don't have capital goods makes the same but for other people.

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

True democracy and capitalism go hand in hand.

True socialism and true democracy go hand in hand and step by step. Hm... I will be president one day!

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

Are you even reading my other posts around the 'Politics' section?

Thank god, no.

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

I have no idea what you're trying to say with the 'Gold ring' and 'old radio receive' nonsense.

That's why I sad, ' Wow!!! You really know nothing.'

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

The USSR Socialism, Chinese Socialism, North Korean Socialism, and Marxist socialism all fail for the same reasons.

Chinese socialism, North-Korean socialism, Cuban socialism are only a copy of the USSR system. The USSR economical system was closed to feudal system (партократия). The Marxist socialism is only theory and we have no practise in it.

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

There is no such thing as capitalist Russia. There is too much corruption left over and too many old communists and other socialists running the show behind the scenes.

Do you think Russia never existed before perestroyka?

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

Also, I presume since you're such an ignorant and adamant socialist, you're not going to count crimes committed by the Socialist government in the USSR in your statistics given. You know, the MILLIONS of people MURDERED and IMPRISONED for no reason at all except that they weren't productive enough, or they weren't good enough at being good little Soviet machines.

I presume since you're such an ignorant and adamant capitalist, you did call the government of the USSR by socialists.

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

Again, socialism in all its forms fails for the same reason; the inefficiency of central planning.

Wow!!! Did you use my keywords to find it?

Central planning is another form for the sharing 'surplus value'. It's definitely died system.

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

Again, socialism in all its forms fails for the same reason; the inefficiency of central planning. I can recommend some books on economics to you, if you'd like.

I can do the same. The first one is "The Capital".

Originally Posted by BETEP

I don't want to learn about any of them. I just hinted to you about you can not mix a transitional process like revolution and permanent process.

Socialists (communists, fascists, and so on) have all been violent murderers during their revolutions and then after the revolution during their reign.

You can live in the air, and you can swim in the water, but you will be died after a falling from bridge.

I think that depends on how great the distance from the bridge to the surface (of land or the water) is.

That's yours problem. You have a vote and nobody took away it from you.

You face the same problem, but the issues of whether or not you accept it and understand what the base of the problem is, are another story.

I'll be voting "None of the Above" in the 2004 United States Presidential Elections.

Communism is a form of Capitalism. Stop being a dolt.

Are you sure you're not being the dolt? You're being so asanine.

This is only an economical term. You could cook up yourself.

I'm familiar with the term as I've encountered it many places, and indeed explained the fallacy behind it too. You really should read my other posts, or perhaps accept a list of books that I can recommend to you.

(Don't Russians appreciate people who value books?)

True socialism and true democracy go hand in hand and step by step. Hm... I will be president one day!

True democracy is a rule of the people, by the people. This is all but impossible beyond the individual since 51% of the people in a democracy can dictate what the other 49% can do. (Though technically, in the U.S., you require 2/3rds and 3/4ths of the votes in the House of Representatives and the Senate to have something passed. This is called the "Tyranny of the majority". The founding fathers of the United States understood this-- and this is why they did not support democracy, but rather a representative democracy in the form of a Limited Republic.

Socialism is the rule of a collective over the individual. That's not democracy. Even Marx understood this, why can't you?

You continue failing to realize that the hold world would not voluntarily accept a socialist regime. Actually, now that I think about it, Marx knew that they wouldn't -- which is why he, and especially his most adamant supporters, supported bloody and violent revolutions. "Sweeping" away the bourgeois, and all that.

Thank god, no.

It's a shame that you're not. You might learn something.

That's why I sad, ' Wow!!! You really know nothing.'

It's not a matter of not being able to understand your piss-poor logic. It's just hard to understand your english some times (I'm not making fun of you or insulting you. I'm just asking you to rephrase it.)

Chinese socialism, North-Korean socialism, Cuban socialism are only a copy of the USSR system. The USSR economical system was closed to feudal system (партократия). The Marxist socialism is only theory and we have no practise in it.

Exactly, Marxist system is utopian on paper, but it cannot work in reality. Marx, himself, wasn't even really a Marxist in the end.

Socialism, in it's original form and every variation thereafter, was the result of 'intellectuals' rebelling against feudalism. Many socialists believe that socialism was an answer against the exploitation of capitalists during the Industrial revolution, but this is simply not true. Socialists just wanted to switch roles with those who lead during feudal times.

Do you think Russia never existed before perestroyka?

Certainly Russia existed before perestroika. It has for quite some time, at least since after the Mongols left. Unfortunately it spent so much time staying away from the West and Western ideas, that it missed out on all the great movements the most recent centuries of Western Civilization (the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and so on).

I presume since you're such an ignorant and adamant capitalist, you did call the government of the USSR by socialists.

How exactly am I ignorant for understanding and accepting why the USSR was, in FACT, socialist?

Wow!!! Did you use my keywords to find it?

You've offered nothing useful.

Central planning is another form for the sharing 'surplus value'. It's definitely died system.

How can someone who admits that central planning is dead, continue to support socialism? Maybe ignorance about what socialism is, and indeed what Marxism is? Do you even know of Marx's stages towards socialism, and where socialism and communism fit in? The USSR is an illustration of how that process fails.

I can do the same. The first one is "The Capital".

I've read 'The Capital', and other works of Marx. I also read some of Engels's work. I wasn't impressed by other. My finding little valuye in them is due to my already having a good understanding of market economics, and good understanding of world history as well.

Would you like for me to recommend some books to you now? Maybe you can try to counter Hayek, Friedman, von Mises, Adam Smith, and so on with your "Communism is capitalism" rhetoric?

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

Socialists (communists, fascists, and so on) have all been violent murderers during their revolutions and then after the revolution during their reign.

Revolutionists have all been violent murderers during their revolutions and then after the revolution during their reign. That's mostly right. BTW, the national socialism has nothing with our subject.

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

I think that depends on how great the distance from the bridge to the surface (of land or the water) is.

Judging by amount of victims it was too high. There are no revolts in other circumstances.

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

I'll be voting "None of the Above" in the 2004 United States Presidential Elections.

So what!? Do you want the Purple Heart for this?

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

I'm familiar with the term as I've encountered it many places, and indeed explained the fallacy behind it too. You really should read my other posts, or perhaps accept a list of books that I can recommend to you.

I have a lot of doubts.

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

Don't Russians appreciate people who value books?

I don't want to respond instead other people. Ask them.
I appreciate the people who use their mind while reading books.

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

True democracy is a rule of the people, by the people.
Socialism is the rule of a collective over the individual.

Here is your problem! You can distinguish the public relationship and the economy relationship in capitalist society but it's impossible for you to do the same in socialism society.
You cannot compare the socialism and democracy like you cannot compare the capitalism and democracy because they are different in substance.
You are right when you talk about 'true democracy' but your definition of socialism is right for the same democracy too. May be you don't like the word collective but the 51 percents of votes is a collective. Think about that.

Let's back to the socialism.
Socialism as political approach is the politics of high priority of social programmes.
Socialism as economy approach is the economy rules which tend to the even distribution of income.

The Marx theory is the capitalist steals the workers money because he owns the capital goods. Actually, that's all he told. There are many ways to share the income and the way of the state property is not good.

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

It's a shame that you're not. You might learn something.

From you!?

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

It's not a matter of not being able to understand your piss-poor logic.

You don't need a logic because you have a right book.

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

It's just hard to understand your english some times.

That's the single thing I regret because I don't speak English since my childhood and I'm still learning. Anyway, you will not understand those things until I'll explained them for you.

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

I'm not making fun of you...

Calm down. I do. I even mark the places where you should laugh.

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

Socialism, in it's original form and every variation thereafter, was the result of 'intellectuals' rebelling against feudalism. Many socialists believe that socialism was an answer against the exploitation of capitalists during the Industrial revolution, but this is simply not true. Socialists just wanted to switch roles with those who lead during feudal times.

That's interesting subject for another thread.

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

Unfortunately it spent so much time staying away from the West and Western ideas, that it missed out on all the great movements the most recent centuries of Western Civilization (the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and so on).

Who knows what could happen. I have no answer for this.

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

How exactly am I ignorant for understanding and accepting why the USSR was, in FACT, socialist?

Mark a birch as an oak and somebody do trust in it.
The main attribute of socialism as economic system is the capital goods are the property of people who is involved in production process. The capital goods in the USSR were the property of the state and people can't control them.

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

How can someone who admits that central planning is dead, continue to support socialism?

First of all, I don't support socialism but I know what it is. I can bet you read only someone's book about 'The Capital'. The term 'central planning' turns up only in the state property concept. The global planning is working now, for example, in oil industry (OPEC) and it's have no relations with any of socialism concepts.

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

Do you even know of Marx's stages towards socialism, and where socialism and communism fit in? The USSR is an illustration of how that process fails.

Communism is another idea of the sharing. Actually, the 'sharing' is wrong word here because the communism is an idea of global property.
I guess you're talking about the socialism evolution to the communism. It could only happen after another revolution because it's a change of owners (collective property has to become global property).
By the way, where did you see the collective property in the USSR?

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

Would you like for me to recommend some books to you now?

You should finish 'The Capital' first. Sorry, I didn't hear about 'Socialism for Dummies'.

Originally Posted by BETEP

So what!? Do you want the Purple Heart for this?

I was never in the military, let alone in combat. I suppose I felt a bit too proud of not falling into the lie that the only time you're voting in a society is if you check the box next to a candidate's name.

Here is your problem! You can distinguish the public relationship and the economy relationship in capitalist society but it's impossible for you to do the same in socialism society.

Because in a capitalist society, the relationship been the state and private enterprise is nonexistent. Anywhere that a relationship exists, you have socialism (to one degree or another).

You cannot compare the socialism and democracy like you cannot compare the capitalism and democracy because they are different in substance.

What do you think is the relationship between socialism, capitalism, and democracy, then? How can democracy exist with a socialist economy, mixed-economy, or capitalist economy? Is democracy a legitimate form of government in any of those cases?

I'm really angry now. You don't even have to bother responding to that post. It took me a good hour to come up with what turned out to be a very good post and when I went to 'submit' it, it only printed half of it. Heck, it only printed about 1/6th of it. I suppose I was over the limit of characters. I'm not going to bother writing it all over again. Do not be offended.

(How about a warning on this forum, instead of just deleting the post at a random cut off point if you go over the limit? Or is there just a bug on this forum that deletes half of all my posts, and no one else's?)

It's been fun, though. I'm done arguing on this forum. If you'd like to talk to me sometime privately to discuss anything, please feel free. Contact information is in my profile.

If not, read some Hazlitt, Friedman, Rothbard, or something.
http://www.acton.org/research/reading/free-market.html
That's a fairly decent list.

I haven't read works from all those authors, mind you, but I'm working on it. Give me another few years.

Some sites I regularly read articles from:
http://laissez-fairerepublic.com
http://www.cato.org
http://www.lewrockwell.com
http://www.mises.org

I hope you take the time to read some of the writings there, they are exponentially better versed in politics, history, and economics than I. Considering the limited amount of time I have to put into the debate, I would probably end up doing more harm than good in arguing for 'my side'.

With all that aside, and with the goal of coming to this website reached, I'm done.