• 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

I think child laborers would argue that point with you.

You're implying that Capitalism is immoral. Actually, capitalism is amoral. It has no problem with Child laborers. Or monopolies, or horrible living and working conditions. It is up to the populace to educate themselves and demand better conditions from employers. If people demand it, then morality and capitalism could live side-by-side.

The problem is that your complaint is irrelevant to the issue at hand: are socialism/communism economically successful? This has nothing to do with morality.
 
Is capitalism?

Very much so. All you need to do is look at China: when China converted to capitalistic markets, they say HUGE increases in wealth, production, and standards of living. If you want more examples, look at other Asian nations, the US, Europe, and South Africa.
 
No it's not look at the massive recession we're in, ergo it's a failure.

Your logic.

A couple got married and lived a happy life together successfully for many years.
One day they had a big fight and the hubby slept on the couch.
Soon, they got over it and continued their happy life.

Your conclusion: Their marriage was a complete failure.

You make no sense, dude.
 
Josie said:
A couple got married and lived a happy life together successfully for many years.
One day they had a big fight and the hubby slept on the couch.
Soon, they got over it and continued their happy life.

Your conclusion: Their marriage was a complete failure.

You make no sense, dude.

Nick's logic, but thanks for understanding the point and agreeing.
 
Nick's logic, but thanks for understanding the point and agreeing.

What?

Your idea that "Capitalism is a failure because of recessions" is as narrow minded as the deniers that claim "global warming doesn't exist because it is cold outside." You are completely confusing long term and short term issues.

Please read any basic economic text. You'll understand that, even if an economy is growing in the long term, they will still experience brief periods of super growth and recession. This is called the business cycle. Any economic system suffers from this cycle, even communism, but the effects of this cycle are much less pronounced in a command economy.
 
What?

Your idea that "Capitalism is a failure because of recessions" is as narrow minded as the deniers that claim "global warming doesn't exist because it is cold outside." You are completely confusing long term and short term issues.

Please read any basic economic text. You'll understand that, even if an economy is growing in the long term, they will still experience brief periods of super growth and recession. This is called the business cycle. Any economic system suffers from this cycle, even communism, but the effects of this cycle are much less pronounced in a command economy.

Then talk about the long-term effects of how capitalism. Talk about how, if unregulated, it naturally leads to a pool of wealth to a few. Talk about how this was one of the causes of the decline of the Roman Republic. Talk about how this was deemed so bad by Americans during the Gilded Age that Democrats and Republicans both deemed it important to address the disparities of wealth that occurred back then. Talk about how this leads to a degeneration of not just a society's political stability but also a society's economic prosperity as well.
 
Just because the Russians failed abysmally to implement a socialist system hardly means that everyone else would do the same.

Russia isn't the only place that tried to implement a society based on Communism and socialism. It's been tried in many other places as well, with uniformly disastrous results.

I'm sure it will be tried again, and it will fail again. Some people, and even some large groups of people, are just too plain stupid to learn from the errors of others.


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.[/QUOTE]

That's a contradiction. Socialism, in any form, is diametrically opposed to the principles upon which this nation was founded. To claim that there could be any such thing as “socialism based on American principles” is Orwellian doublethink.
 
What?

Your idea that "Capitalism is a failure because of recessions" is as narrow minded as the deniers that claim "global warming doesn't exist because it is cold outside." You are completely confusing long term and short term issues.

Please read any basic economic text. You'll understand that, even if an economy is growing in the long term, they will still experience brief periods of super growth and recession. This is called the business cycle. Any economic system suffers from this cycle, even communism, but the effects of this cycle are much less pronounced in a command economy.

Many economists believe that the boom/bust cycle is NOT intrinsic to capitalism, but rather that it is caused by the intervention in and manipulation of money and credit to push interest rates away from (lower than) their equilibrium level. The current recession, they would say, is yet another example of this phenomenon, as it was preceded by a years of inflationary monetary policy and low interest rates.

Definitely not capitalism.
 
DAAAMN this lady is dumber then a log of steaming dog ****!


And the idiot dude with her "YOU'RE AN EXILE! YOU'RE ONE OF THE RICH PEOPLE THEY THREW OUT!"

Oh man, that was freaking beautiful to watch! OWS losers need to be all rounded up, and given a tour of NK, Cuba, China. See if they return to the USA with the same idiotic notions.
 
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?

Yeah - actually - I imagine having come from the Soviet Union he'd know a lot about that kind of thing in his life.
 
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.

Why is it, despite failure at every try, Socialist tell us "We'll do it better this time"? IT DOESN'T WORK, Socialism leads to enslavement of the people, loss of freedom, liberty and rights. Why should we trade those in for the false premise of "equal outcomes". Here's a hint, the reason Socialism fails, is because equality in life cannot be dictated by decree.
 
f sociaty
Russia isn't the only place that tried to implement a society based on Communism and socialism. It's been tried in many other places as well, with uniformly disastrous results.

I'm sure it will be tried again, and it will fail again. Some people, and even some large groups of people, are just too plain stupid to learn from the errors of others.


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.

That's a contradiction. Socialism, in any form, is diametrically opposed to the principles upon which this nation was founded. To claim that there could be any such thing as “socialism based on American principles” is Orwellian doublethink.[/QUOTE]

I completely agree.

I find it hysterical when people say we can have a socialist system and still have private property.....no we can't. If society owns the means of production that means private properety would no longer exist. What the OWS tools want is a hybrid socialist system that simply penalizes someone when they become successful. They assume rational people will use their private capital and place it at risk in a economic enterprise while knowing the prospective profits will be seized by the masses .... that is an idiotic assumption.

On a another note, I have noticed how the socialist fans love to point to the hybrid socialist economies of France, Switzerland, etc. What those foolish people fail to mention is those countries don't kick the crap out of the high earners. Nope, the OWS tools want a unique hybrid socialist system that effectively crushes the successful under a tax burden that steals at least 50% of their earnings. Yeah, that's a great way to incent people to put at risk their capital to create jobs.
 
Well, to be fair, I don't see very many capitalist utopias out there either.
A Capitalist Utopia would be an environment where people CAN bust their ass and succeed. That still exists. But in the midst of a capitalist society, 47% arent contributing a penny to the fed 'revenues' and are draining the country of resources. Obviously we dont have a pure capitalist government and society. Regardless...we have a bunch of folks that spew on about 'real' socialism. Yet...they never live that model for some reason. They hate capitalism yet suck off their capitalist parents. They hate 'the banks' yet go to the banks for these massive student loans to give to their socialist evangelists at the Universites, then bitch that the banks have the audacity to want them to pay back their loans. Its always someone ELSE that should do what they believe.
 
Many economists believe that the boom/bust cycle is NOT intrinsic to capitalism, but rather that it is caused by the intervention in and manipulation of money and credit to push interest rates away from (lower than) their equilibrium level. The current recession, they would say, is yet another example of this phenomenon, as it was preceded by a years of inflationary monetary policy and low interest rates.

Definitely not capitalism.

We have had boom and bust cycles long before any widespread government intervention into economic matters. These economists should read some history.
 
Economic Freedom Index

1 Hong Kong
2 Singapore
3 Australia
4 New Zealand
5 Switzerland
6 Canada
7 Ireland
8 Denmark
9 United States
10 Bahrain
11 Chile
12 Mauritius
13 Luxembourg
14 Estonia
15 The Netherlands


List of Countries by GDP Per Capita

1 Qatar
2 Luxembourg
3 Singapore
4 Norway
5 Brunei
6 United Arab Emirates
7 United States
Hong Kong
8 Switzerland
9 Netherlands
10 Australia
11 Austria
12 Ireland
13 Canada
14 Kuwait
15 Sweden
16 Iceland
17 Denmark
18 Belgium
19 Germany
20 Taiwan (Republic of China)





huh, that's interesting... there appears to be some overlap.... hey, where's Cuba? North Korea? Venezuela?
 
Last edited:
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.

Ever heard of Cuba? North Korea? All those little insiduous countries that have socialism?
Want to see how the citizens are doing?
 
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.

Russia and the US were very different countries, so I agree that a socialist US will be very different from what we've seen at the Soviet Union.
However, people can't ignore the fact that most socialist countries tend not to succeed
 
Russia and the US were very different countries, so I agree that a socialist US will be very different from what we've seen at the Soviet Union.
However, people can't ignore the fact that most socialist countries tend not to succeed

A socialist US would be like the one we have now - but with even more people reliant on the government hand and charity.

What they're going to end up with is another effort to 'house the unhoused' in places - almost like a new version of Cabrini Green. When you give people who can't care for the selves something they must care for - they tend to destroy it. . . and that's just one aspect: physical occupancy.

Do these people really want that?
 
Russia and the US were very different countries, so I agree that a socialist US will be very different from what we've seen at the Soviet Union.
However, people can't ignore the fact that most socialist countries tend not to succeed

sure they can. being a socialist in a free market economy means never having to own up to the inevitable results of your preferred policies.
 
A socialist US would be like the one we have now - but with even more people reliant on the government hand and charity.

What they're going to end up with is another effort to 'house the unhoused' in places - almost like a new version of Cabrini Green. When you give people who can't care for the selves something they must care for - they tend to destroy it. . . and that's just one aspect: physical occupancy.

Do these people really want that?

As long as they get free food, free shelter, free everything with no responsibility attached.
Instead of trying to get a job, all they do is complain about not getting jobs. I can sympathize with the reason why they're protesting, but not their actions and their goals.
 
As long as they get free food, free shelter, free everything with no responsibility attached.
Instead of trying to get a job, all they do is complain about not getting jobs. I can sympathize with the reason why they're protesting, but not their actions and their goals.
Those that are protesting about the influence banks and corporations have on politicians should take it up with the politicians. Im sure they can squeeze in a 5 minute appointment between the $5.5k and $35.5k lunch and fundraiser hosted by the bankers and brokers from say...2:25 to 2:30? Since it will only be 5 minutes...they should only charge them about $300 a person but dont expect anything more than whats on the dollar menu.
 
Back
Top Bottom