Have you ever lived in a socialist country?

Mycroft said:

While I was in the U.S. Army stationed in Germany in the 80's I visited East and West Berlin before the fall of the USSR and after. Here are a couple pictures that I've found online that are good representations of what I saw in Alexander Platz, East Berlin.

Before the fall:

View attachment 67136975

After the fall:

View attachment 67136976

What struck me the most before:

Everything was grey. Very little color. Quiet. No loud voices. No crowds. People would look at me out of the corner of their eyes...but nobody would speak to me.

After:

Complete opposite. Children, young people, adults laughing, smiling, talking...even to me. Color everywhere.

Click to expand...

That exactly mirrors my impression.

Peter Grimm said:

This question is mainly aimed at people on here who claim to be socialists.

Have you ever lived in a socialist country? Do you have any personal experience with socialism?

Click to expand...

Perhaps you need to define what you consider to be a Socialist country? The United Kingdom? Denmark? Sweden? Norway? What?

274ina said:

it is uncon. - the 16th made the constitution contratadict itself.

Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co

Click to expand...

The Sixteenth Amendment cannot be unconstitutional since it is part of the Constitution. I thought that was obvious to everybody.

melons said:

You left out part of my post. I said "I always thought about it as"...... but you chopped that part off. I never said that I did or didn't know the difference. Did I? Nor did I say that what I had always thought was what I think now or did I claim any of it as fact. How about you try learning the difference in what you think I said and what I actually said? before you jump and make yourself look the opposite of intelligent.

Click to expand...

Ah, come off it... Whiter or not you said "I always though about it as" has no bearing on this conversation whatsoever. It's still what you believe and still something you can't support.

And you saying, "after we have too many laws and regulations, we have entered something very close to socialism", means you believe a major aspect of socialism is laws and regulations. This is just not the case. Socialism is such a broad, deadened term nowadays, so I'll make it simple for you: Anarchists are socialists, Nazis are socialists, those on the far left of the democratic party are socialists, so on, so forth. Socialism doesn't imply any singular ideology.

waas said:

Ah, come off it... Whiter or not you said "I always though about it as" has no bearing on this conversation whatsoever. It's still what you believe and still something you can't support.

And you saying, "after we have too many laws and regulations, we have entered something very close to socialism", means you believe a major aspect of socialism is laws and regulations. This is just not the case. Socialism is such a broad, deadened term nowadays, so I'll make it simple for you: Anarchists are socialists, Nazis are socialists, those on the far left of the democratic party are socialists, so on, so forth. Socialism doesn't imply any singular ideology.

Click to expand...

You don't like to be wrong, do you? You can rant all you want to, it doesn't take away from the fact that you were wrong. :doh So let's hear some more of that grand ranting about what you read all wrong.

I live in France and I like it.

There are varying degrees of socialism, but if you have experiences abroad feel free to share them.

Wiggen said:

Perhaps you need to define what you consider to be a Socialist country? The United Kingdom? Denmark? Sweden? Norway? What?

Click to expand...

:blink:

melons said:

You don't like to be wrong, do you? You can rant all you want to, it doesn't take away from the fact that you were wrong. :doh So let's hear some more of that grand ranting about what you read all wrong.

Click to expand...

:blink:

Well yes, since you've been unable to prove me wrong, for all intents and purposes I'm right.

What you've done thus far: accuse me of rating, say I'm "wrong", accuse me of misinterpreting your post.
What you haven't done thus far: challenge my position, provide proof for any assertion, explain any assertion.

This is not debating. If you'd like to debate please do so, but if not... have a great rest of your day.

274ina said:

it is uncon. - the 16th made the constitution contratadict itself.

Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co

Click to expand...

Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust was due to an unapportioned tax. However, the 16th Amendment was added because apportioned taxes didn't pay the bills.

From Article I, Section II, Clause III of the US Constitution:

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Click to expand...

The writers of the Constitution fully expected that a direct tax would necessary as the nation expanded and grew. Taxation was the primary reason as to why we have the Constitution, and not the Articles of Confederation today. As the nation expanded, so did the federal budget, and therefore, the amendment became necessary. An apportioned tax is fine when there are only 13 federated states, but in 1913, the US consisted of 48 states, the territories of Alaska and Hawaii, and was still recovering from the debt of war, with more debt to come. An unapportioned tax was necessary in order to fund this very large nation and its people. It's constitutional because it was amended as prescribed by the United States Constitution. It's a fluid document that can be changed as necessary, that's why the amendment process exists. It's why slavery no longer exists, and "negroes" are legally considered full human beings, and not three fifths of a person, why women are allowed to vote, and why senators are directly elected through popular vote. All of which contradict the original Constitution, but when it comes time to give instead of get, well that's just unacceptable.

Andalublue said:

I'm sure everything is 100% better now, it's just that your photos look identical other than the quality of the colour film.

Thing is, there are a lot of posters on DP who would think modern Germany is a socialistic hell-hole. I wonder what your reaction would be to legally enforced worker representation on every company board, the government investment in alternative energy and the degree of regulation of banking that Wall Street or The City would quake at. Perhaps in 1989 Germany just replaced one out-dated style of socialism for a modern, efficient one.

Click to expand...

1. I'm not interested in discussing whether Germany is socialist now or not. The only purpose of my post was to relate my impressions of a socialist environment (East Berlin)...and the changes when they threw off their government.

2. As I said in my post, these pictures are representations. They illustrate my perception...what I saw...and the differences I saw before and after.


On a side note, West Berlin...at that time...was totally different. Kurfurstendamm...or "Ku'damm", as they called it...was beautiful and believe me, it was party central at night. The East Berliners had nothing like it.

Mycroft said:

1. I'm not interested in discussing whether Germany is socialist now or not. The only purpose of my post was to relate my impressions of a socialist environment (East Berlin)...and the changes when they threw off their government.

2. As I said in my post, these pictures are representations. They illustrate my perception...what I saw...and the differences I saw before and after.


On a side note, West Berlin...at that time...was totally different. Kurfurstendamm...or "Ku'damm", as they called it...was beautiful and believe me, it was party central at night. The East Berliners had nothing like it.

View attachment 67136982

Click to expand...

Germany today is not socialist, although some American righties call it that way.

On that Germany which everybody calls socialist, which even called itself socialist, -- the East German GDR -- I agree with you.

274ina said:

Labor law is not in the constitution either. But we have it.

And ALL MONEY is created by the worker. NONE is created by the CEO or owner. remember that ...........when you spout crap
about its ALL YOUR MONEY.

Click to expand...

where do you get the CEO idea, i stated that who ever works for their money its theirs........ not governments.

so you are wrong in your accusation.

German guy said:

That doesn't mean everything certain American righties call "socialism" really is socialism.

Click to expand...

Indeed. The things that get labeled Socialism are not Socialist but the things that are socialism see ever increasing amounts being allocated to them by Republicans.

Socialism's functional definition these days is "whatever I don't like."

waas said:

That's a little contrived. :shock:

Want to explain further?

Click to expand...

i am very glad you asked me this question, and i am going to answer you with Madison , father of the u.s. Constitution his ideas, and words from myself.

when Madison was asked to write the constitution, he wanted to create a constitution which would last , and not fail. Madison looked at the other governments of history and why they failed. so when he came too the constitutional convention with his constitution, he was well armed with his ideas, and how too answer questions he would be asked by the other founders. Madison knew from history that democracies fail because of there (excesses).

democracy is rule of the people ( majority rule/mob rule ), those who have the majority make the rules for everyone it is a collective society, in democracies the people ----->endowed themselves with rights<------, this gives the majority the power to create any right, any law they chose, now this sounds good, but its is not because people are self-serving creatures, who seek what is good for their own wants and desires and it also gives government power to act for the majority, ...so government grows and consumes more power.

what are wants and desires?....they are excesses.

when people endow themselves with rights, and can make any law they choose because they have the majority, they create laws to suit themselves the majority, they give themselves rights to things.. healthcare!, in the south African constitution which was written not that long ago, and is a democracy, they have in their constitution, rights to food, water, a house, healthcare, yet they say they have free speech, but if you look at the constitution closely, you will read, your speech only goes so far, too the point if you insult someone, them your speech is no longer free........nice democracy.....not!

what does this lead too, it leads to socialism, ..why? because the people who produce have to pay the cost for these rights to these material goods that now have been declared a right, because governments don't have money or create wealth, they must take money through taxation of the people who do that producing of wealth.

because in democracies the people and government are not restrained by law ( a constitution), and too put it another way, people run-a muck, and create an entitlement nation.

so Madison created for the u.s. a republic with a republican form of government...article 4 section 4 of the constitution.

democracy is a democratic form of government, an illegal in the u.s., because the constitution guarantees a republican form government with republican principles too every state in the union, federalist paper #39 titled "conformity to the plan of republican principles"

Madison states that every state government in the union has to be republican form of government , and it is NOT, because the people of the state change it too anything other an republican by peaceful means, then that state can on longer be part of the union, or if a state is changed from a republican form by force, say by a small group of people, the the union will force its return to republican government by means of force....THIS FROM THE FEDERALIST PAPERS.

in a republican form of government, power of the people is spread out by direct and indirect power, THE LAW RULES, NOT THE MAJORITY, the people cannot change the constitution to give themselves rights, of create laws too benefit a few, because in our republic, rights are endowed by god, not the people, people cannot create their own rights.

Madison says, man must be constrained by law, or he will run-a muck, with excesses, and create his own downfall.

what are the difference between a democratic republic, and a republic of republics like the founders created for us Americans.

a democratic republic, majority rule.... rights can be created, laws can be change to serve those in power, those in the majority, and elite really run the government.....with excesses there is no end, rights of individual citizens are violated by the majority.

what does a republic of the founders do, BUT has been lost ,because government has violated the constitution and moved us towards democracy in the last 120 years.

in republican form of government it is limited by a constitution, it cannot created things which it has not been given authority by that constitution, it serves the people in securing their rights, and that is ALL RIGHTS. as Madison says, your property rights are just as strong as your right to free speech.

Americans are free because the federal government has NO! jurisdiction over them, unless they are pirates, counter-fitters, or traitors.

property rights are secure, because government cannot tell you what too do with your property or business, unless you violate the rights of other citizens. this means discrimination laws on citizens , affirmative action, minimum wage laws are unconstitutional because government is suppose to secure your rights, not violate them, by dictating too your your property. rights.

since federal government power is limited, lobbyist, the rich and powerful have no power, because government cannot help them, because the constitution prevents them from doing things outside its 18 duties of said constitution too help those elite.

many people will read what i have put down and say" BS".....but the only way too find the truth, is too read the constitution, and the federalist papers, and letters of the founders.

to give an example...many people say Jefferson was not a Christan.........nothing can be further from truth!.......Jefferson says in a letter......i am para -phrasing..." our rights are not endowed to us by worldly kings, or legislators, but by the KING OF KINGS.....who is Jesus Christ.. this from the 1904 printing of Jefferson's personal writings.

i ask everyone too seek truth, and read what the founders created, so many people have been fooled by government and what other people have told them, i ask you search for yourself.

If wanting nothing more than 3 square meals a day, a roof over my head, and a pair of shoes to get me from A to B is Socialistic, then color me pink!

-- Everyday Liberal

Dooble said:

If wanting nothing more than 3 square meals a day, a roof over my head, and a pair of shoes to get me from A to B is Socialistic, then color me pink!

-- Everyday Liberal

Click to expand...

so your in favor of other people working to provide for your needs?

ernst barkmann said:

so your in favor of other people working to provide for your needs?

Click to expand...

And so are you.

You have need of security - police provide it locally, FBI federally, CIA and Armed forces internationally.
You have need of roads
You have need of airports
You have need of food - distributed by others catering to your needs.

You and everyone else with half a brain object to the freeloaders. The difference is that you would like to beleive that everyone on welfare or unemployment or disability or workmans comp. or food stamps is a freeloader, where as I believe that the amount of fraud is not significant enough to condemn the system.

Its kinda like in person voter fraud - 10 cases in the country and 35 states want to change the voter ID laws immediately prior to the election .

Wiggen said:

The Sixteenth Amendment cannot be unconstitutional since it is part of the Constitution. I thought that was obvious to everybody.

Click to expand...

well it it could be proved that it was not ratified according too the constitution it would be illegal.

now there is a man who claims it is unconstitutional because he has been to every state who vote on the amendment and says he has proof, its not legal, and he has been ordered by the USSC to keep silent on his evidence.


you choose for yourself......HOW SOME STATES DID NOT LEGALLY RATIFY THE 16TH AMENDMENT

Jonsa said:

And so are you.

You have need of security - police provide it locally, FBI federally, CIA and Armed forces internationally.
You have need of roads
You have need of airports
You have need of food - distributed by others catering to your needs.

You and everyone else with half a brain object to the freeloaders. The difference is that you would like to beleive that everyone on welfare or unemployment or disability or workmans comp. or food stamps is a freeloader, where as I believe that the amount of fraud is not significant enough to condemn the system.

Its kinda like in person voter fraud - 10 cases in the country and 35 states want to change the voter ID laws immediately prior to the election .

Click to expand...

wrong.......the federal government has duties which are constitutional.....military, security, and the running of government, build roads...these are legal...taxes are in the constitution.

airports are city........not federal

no i don't have others feeding me, i work and earn money to feed myself...the federal government does not support my personal needs.

the federal government has no authority, to take money from one citizen and give it to another.....that is redistribution of wealth an illegal.

it does not matter what a person personal beliefs are.....its what the law says, my ideas of government are, are not based on what i like or want, but what does the constitution say..on the subject.

from what i get from you, you are steered by feelings, and think law should be governed by them, ..no government will survived based on emotions.


take a good look at my profile signature..its from Madison father of the Constitution.

ernst barkmann said:

wrong.......the federal government has duties which are constitutional.....military, security, and the running of government, build roads...these are legal...taxes are in the constitution.

airports are city........not federal

no i don't have others feeding me, i work and earn money to feed myself...the federal government does not support my personal needs.

the federal government has no authority, to take money from one citizen and give it to another.....that is redistribution of wealth an illegal.

it does not matter what a person personal beliefs are.....its what the law says, my idea of government are not based on what i like or want, but what does the constitution say..on the subject.


take a good look at my profile signature..its from Madison father of the Constitution.

Click to expand...

Fact remains, that in every society, individuals are dependent on others in meeting that individuals needs. Be it by government or commerce it is inescapable.

ernst barkmann said:

so your in favor of other people working to provide for your needs?

Click to expand...

In essence we all are.
Using tnything that is allowed to succeed by input of funds from multiple sources would put you in that category. Or anything that you didn't pay for, such as public resources(roads, streetlights, etc.)

waas said:

In essence we all are.
Using tnything that is allowed to succeed by input of funds from multiple sources would put you in that category. Or anything that you didn't pay for, such as public resources(roads, streetlights, etc.)

Click to expand...

socialism is force, we as a people know we have to have things like police ,fire and other services and we agree that those must exist.

socialism takes from the individual without his or her permission, and redistributes it too other people not institutions for the public good for every one( ie .the general welfare of a state)..socialism, which gives more power to government too be the provider.

ernst barkmann said:

socialism is force, we as a people know we have to have things like police ,fire and other services and we agree that those must exist.

socialism takes from the individual without his or her permission, and redistributes it too other people not institutions for the public good for every one( ie .the general welfare of a state)..socialism, which gives more power to government too be the provider.

Click to expand...

Let me stop you there. None of that is true. I'll go over it in bits.

socialism is force, we as a people know we have to have things like police ,fire and other services and we agree that those must exist.

Click to expand...

There are some people, namely socialists, who believe in decentralized police/fire. We found them in Spain, where the Anarchists had amassed large amounts of influence. These people advocated for, and implemented, autonomous civilian militias that dealt with law enforcement.

socialism takes from the individual without his or her permission, and redistributes it too other people not institutions for the public good for every one

Click to expand...

Yes and no. Most socialists aim for the redistribution of power, not wealth, as a major aspect of these ideologies is a classless society. Some folks want wealth redistribution, some don't. But further, decentralization, the abolition of money and workers' self management are also commonly pushed by socialists.

socialism, which gives more power to government too be the provider.

Click to expand...

True about National Socialism, sort of true about Democratic Socialism, not true about anything else. Keep in mind that socialism implies no singular ideology, and many socialists are staunchly anti-government.

waas said:

Let me stop you there. None of that is true. I'll go over it in bits.


There are some people, namely socialists, who believe in decentralized police/fire. We found them in Spain, where the Anarchists had amassed large amounts of influence. These people advocated for, and implemented, autonomous civilian militias that dealt with law enforcement.


Yes and no. Most socialists aim for the redistribution of power, not wealth, as a major aspect of these ideologies is a classless society. Some folks want wealth redistribution, some don't. But further, decentralization, the abolition of money and workers' self management are also commonly pushed by socialists.



True about National Socialism, sort of true about Democratic Socialism, not true about anything else. Keep in mind that socialism implies no singular ideology, and many socialists are staunchly anti-government.

Click to expand...

what has been my main message, that i deal in federal government.

state governments have vast power according to Madison.

redistribution, is power because government uses it as a TOOL to further their aims.

socialist is more concerned with control and power, a Marxist is more concerned of up lifting the down trodden and poor --->creating equality in every aspect of life, believe it or not democracy does too, will is why it is bad, because it removes individual liberty.

national socialist not as much socialist, more fascist.

socialism = control means of production, whatever is being produced

fascist - control of what is is too be produced and how much.

A Republic, Not A Democracy - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=1NvLsKeOlmY.. .....good videos

Surtr said:

Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust was due to an unapportioned tax. However, the 16th Amendment was added because apportioned taxes didn't pay the bills.

From Article I, Section II, Clause III of the US Constitution:



The writers of the Constitution fully expected that a direct tax would necessary as the nation expanded and grew. Taxation was the primary reason as to why we have the Constitution, and not the Articles of Confederation today. As the nation expanded, so did the federal budget, and therefore, the amendment became necessary. An apportioned tax is fine when there are only 13 federated states, but in 1913, the US consisted of 48 states, the territories of Alaska and Hawaii, and was still recovering from the debt of war, with more debt to come. An unapportioned tax was necessary in order to fund this very large nation and its people. It's constitutional because it was amended as prescribed by the United States Constitution. It's a fluid document that can be changed as necessary, that's why the amendment process exists. It's why slavery no longer exists, and "negroes" are legally considered full human beings, and not three fifths of a person, why women are allowed to vote, and why senators are directly elected through popular vote. All of which contradict the original Constitution, but when it comes time to give instead of get, well that's just unacceptable.

Click to expand...

what debt of war? in 1913.

slaves were counted as 3/5 for representation purposes only.

Madison in the federalist papers says voting is NOT a right, and either does the founders constitution, plus, it does not say only men can vote, it say freeholders can vote, property owners and taxpayers.

sorry your wrong about a direct tax on the people, its a direct tax on the states.

Madison says in the federalist papers, there will be no direct tax on the people.

it can only be changed by the amendment process, ..not government just passing laws by-passing it which they have done repeatedly.

and electing senators directly...removed a check and balances of government and doomed .....the union!...because it remove the power and voice of state assemblies in the senate, which protected states from the federal government.

only a return to republican government can save this union.......it may happen then then the federal government fails, and its headed that way, because of the two parties.