• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Former Soviet Union citizen confronts Socialists at an Occupy protest

Well, someone who'd lived in the Soviet Union would hardly know much about protests, would he? Sorry if I'm being dim, but what point are you making here? Are the protesters, and was the Soviet Union, socialist? What exactly do you see them as having in common?
 
Last edited:
She's saying "be careful what you wish for".

Most people that want socialism don't have a damned clue what it is. They're just bitter and pissed, and their getting fires stoked by a bunch of anarchist soapbox loons.
 
Just because the Russians failed abysmally to implement a socialist system hardly means that everyone else would do the same. The USSR took a fascist military dictatorship and tried to dress it up like socialism. In 1918, they went directly from centuries of aristocracy and monarchy to an attempt at democracy that was actually controlled by military interests. They had no notion of securing freedoms and a supreme law that no one, not even the nation's leaders, could break. They didn't have a tradition of freedom and liberty to base their new system on. They had a tradition of tyranny and oppression, and that's what their new idea was modeled after.

Conversely, in the United States, we already presume that a supreme law, protected freedoms, and open elections are fundamental. A socialist system in this country would look nothing like the Soviet one. It would be rooted in the principals of the American republic.

To suggest that every socialist system would look like the USSR would be like suggesting that every democratic system would look like South Korea or India. Here's a hint, they don't have a lot of the civil rights we have. They'll railroad an accused suspect, torture a confession out of them, and seldom give someone a truly fair trial. They also limit freedoms of speech and the press.

I would say that it is this woman who does not know what she is talking about, or rather that is overextending her experiences and does not realize that a military dictatorship is a terrible system no matter how you dress it up. Whether it calls itself socialism like the USSR or China, or calls itself democratic like Congo, it's still a fascist, military regime. American socialists do not call for a military takeover of the country. A socialist United States would look nothing like the USSR. To think otherwise is to completely fail to understand why the USSR operated the way it did.
 
Proud South Korean said:
Thanks for this link.
I agree, as someone who has seen the effects of socialism and communism, those peoples are just plain idiots who believe in a utopia where everybody will be "equal", "free", "happy". Just bull****
Click to expand...

The last example of socialism, surely, was in 1918/19, under War conditions? There can't be many people who have seen it and can still manage to write.
 
Last edited:
Gipper said:
She's saying "be careful what you wish for".

Most people that want socialism don't have a damned clue what it is. They're just bitter and pissed, and their getting fires stoked by a bunch of anarchist soapbox loons.
Click to expand...

Well, they have a book knowledge of what it's supposed to be, theoretically. They only know what they read, and depending on what is read and who wrote it, as well as their own views and life filter they apply to what was read. The issue is never theoretical, the issue is always how theory is applied, and the application is never a good story. The variable that makes it a bad thing is "human nature". We are a greedy, power hungry and selfish race - not many can resist the money, fame, power and ego of it all as history suggests. Some of us are simply loons who get into powerful positions, some are certifiable murderers, thieves, killers, mass-murderers, etc... it's where the saying "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely". :shrug:
 
Ockham said:
Well, they have a book knowledge of what it's supposed to be, theoretically. They only know what they read, and depending on what is read and who wrote it, as well as their own views and life filter they apply to what was read. The issue is never theoretical, the issue is always how theory is applied, and the application is never a good story. The variable that makes it a bad thing is "human nature". We are a greedy, power hungry and selfish race - not many can resist the money, fame, power and ego of it all as history suggests. Some of us are simply loons who get into powerful positions, some are certifiable murderers, thieves, killers, mass-murderers, etc... it's where the saying "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely". :shrug:
Click to expand...

I don't imagine that many Americans have lived in a socialist community. I have, and it wasn't a bit like that: it was very unselfish and decent, as I recall.
 
Paschendale said:
Just because the Russians failed abysmally to implement a socialist system hardly means that everyone else would do the same. The USSR took a fascist military dictatorship and tried to dress it up like socialism. In 1918, they went directly from centuries of aristocracy and monarchy to an attempt at democracy that was actually controlled by military interests. They had no notion of securing freedoms and a supreme law that no one, not even the nation's leaders, could break. They didn't have a tradition of freedom and liberty to base their new system on. They had a tradition of tyranny and oppression, and that's what their new idea was modeled after.

Conversely, in the United States, we already presume that a supreme law, protected freedoms, and open elections are fundamental. A socialist system in this country would look nothing like the Soviet one. It would be rooted in the principals of the American republic.

To suggest that every socialist system would look like the USSR would be like suggesting that every democratic system would look like South Korea or India. Here's a hint, they don't have a lot of the civil rights we have. They'll railroad an accused suspect, torture a confession out of them, and seldom give someone a truly fair trial. They also limit freedoms of speech and the press.

I would say that it is this woman who does not know what she is talking about, or rather that is overextending her experiences and does not realize that a military dictatorship is a terrible system no matter how you dress it up. Whether it calls itself socialism like the USSR or China, or calls itself democratic like Congo, it's still a fascist, military regime. American socialists do not call for a military takeover of the country. A socialist United States would look nothing like the USSR. To think otherwise is to completely fail to understand why the USSR operated the way it did.
Click to expand...

Socialism has failed everytime it's been attempted.
 
Did anyone let him know that there are major fundamental differences between Communism and Socialism?
 
I don't imagine that many Americans have lived in a socialist community. I have, and it wasn't a bit like that: it was very unselfish and decent, as I recall.
Click to expand...

And at the community level is the largest level it can exist at.
 
apdst said:
Socialism has failed everytime it's been attempted.
Click to expand...



what about countries like Sweden, France? What about China??????
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Socialism has failed everytime it's been attempted.
Click to expand...

Really? Cuz it works fine on an Israeli Kibbutz. Socialist policies are working quite well in Europe and Canada. Our own socialized systems are doing fine here. It certainly improved things in Cuba. And despite the problems in China, North Korea, and the Soviet Union, life sucked in those places pretty well before they set up military dictatorships and called it communism. Can't say for sure, but life there is still probably better now than it was 100 years ago.

So... no, it hasn't. Not by a long shot.
 
Higgins86 said:
what about countries like Sweden, France? What about China??????
Click to expand...

Paschendale said:
Really? Cuz it works fine on an Israeli Kibbutz. Socialist policies are working quite well in Europe and Canada. Our own socialized systems are doing fine here. It certainly improved things in Cuba. And despite the problems in China, North Korea, and the Soviet Union, life sucked in those places pretty well before they set up military dictatorships and called it communism. Can't say for sure, but life there is still probably better now than it was 100 years ago.

So... no, it hasn't. Not by a long shot.
Click to expand...

Forgive me if I'm putting words in your mouth, but Socialism, as I understand it, is a society in which the means of production are owned by the society. With that definition, none of those exemplary societies were actually socialist.

First, the Israeli Kibbutz was probably the closest thing to socialism, but there is a big difference between a successful commune of a handful of people and a society of millions. Also, the Kibbutz have recently been undergoes privatization due to numerous bankruptcies from poorly thought-out loans. This is a poor model for success.

One problem I have with die-hard socialists (and I don't necessarily mean you; I'm generalizing) is that they believe the philosophy is sound, but the implementation is poor. I can't count the number of times that people have told me "oh, socialism will work, but everything that's been tried up until now isn't actually socialism." To that I respond, "so is Socialism all or nothing? Does it completely fail unless it's a perfect implementation? If so, I don't want that as our system."

Furthermore, it's disingenuous to attribute all the successes those countries have had to socialism. China, for example, was a horrible third-world country until they completely revamped their economic system to be one of the most open capitalistic systems in the world. Look at how China is doing now! The success of China is not the success of Communism, or socialism, but rather the success of Capitalism. The same can be said of any "socialist" country today. Economically, socialism is a stranglehold on growth, and the success of the world economy today is due to capitalism.
 
Paschendale said:
Just because the Russians failed abysmally to implement a socialist system hardly means that everyone else would do the same. The USSR took a fascist military dictatorship and tried to dress it up like socialism. In 1918, they went directly from centuries of aristocracy and monarchy to an attempt at democracy that was actually controlled by military interests. They had no notion of securing freedoms and a supreme law that no one, not even the nation's leaders, could break. They didn't have a tradition of freedom and liberty to base their new system on. They had a tradition of tyranny and oppression, and that's what their new idea was modeled after.

Conversely, in the United States, we already presume that a supreme law, protected freedoms, and open elections are fundamental. A socialist system in this country would look nothing like the Soviet one. It would be rooted in the principals of the American republic.

To suggest that every socialist system would look like the USSR would be like suggesting that every democratic system would look like South Korea or India. Here's a hint, they don't have a lot of the civil rights we have. They'll railroad an accused suspect, torture a confession out of them, and seldom give someone a truly fair trial. They also limit freedoms of speech and the press.

I would say that it is this woman who does not know what she is talking about, or rather that is overextending her experiences and does not realize that a military dictatorship is a terrible system no matter how you dress it up. Whether it calls itself socialism like the USSR or China, or calls itself democratic like Congo, it's still a fascist, military regime. American socialists do not call for a military takeover of the country. A socialist United States would look nothing like the USSR. To think otherwise is to completely fail to understand why the USSR operated the way it did.
Click to expand...
Why is it that all of you that DO know alllll about socialism arent out there creating your socialist utopia...you know...the RIGHT way? "Socialists" usually are commonly found on college campuses, where mommy and daddy pay their bills and their professors preach on from the ultimate corporation...'higher education.' Lord I wish people would stop talking about it, go buy a ****ing commune somewhere and show us all the 'right' way.
 
VanceMack said:
Why is it that all of you that DO know alllll about socialism arent out there creating your socialist utopia...you know...the RIGHT way? "Socialists" usually are commonly found on college campuses, where mommy and daddy pay their bills and their professors preach on from the ultimate corporation...'higher education.' Lord I wish people would stop talking about it, go buy a ****ing commune somewhere and show us all the 'right' way.
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, I don't see very many capitalist utopias out there either.
 
The guy on the right sounds like a south park character.
 
samsmart said:
Well, to be fair, I don't see very many capitalist utopias out there either.
Click to expand...

The difference is that Socialism, in practice, isn't successful, unless it is supported by Capitalism, which, in practice, is successful.
 
samsmart said:
It's a good thing that democratic socialism is nothing like communism then, and that the Occupiers aren't even supporting either communism or democratic socialism.
Click to expand...

Oh, but many are.
 
Nick2253 said:
The difference is that Socialism, in practice, isn't successful, unless it is supported by Capitalism, which, in practice, is successful.
Click to expand...

I think child laborers would argue that point with you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom