@Antimulticulture: "Is Socialism Good in Theory?
<url>
Sheldon Richman
October 2003
      Socialism has been mortally discredited on economic grounds, thanks to
Ludwig von Mises, F. A. Hayek, and history. But for many people it has not
been discredited on moral grounds. You can tell this by how often people say
that while socialism doesn't work in practice, it is good in theory.
      Strange notion - that a theory which doesn't work in the world can
somehow still be good. Where else is it to be judged? One would think that a
theory whose consistent realization requires gulags and secret police would
be morally disqualified even if it "worked."
      I guess the people who say socialism is good in theory really mean
they regret that it doesn't work without the attendant unpleasantness. Why
should that be regrettable? The typical answer is that in socialist theory
people are not acquisitive or self-regarding; they are more concerned about
others. The regret about socialism turns out to be a regret about human
nature.
      Leaving aside the facts that the taint on self-interest is assumed not
established and that one prospers under capitalism by competitively
attending to others, is this a valid statement about socialism? Originally
socialism promised a superabundance of goods - so much of everything that no
one would have to do without anything. Sharing would be unnecessary because
scarcity would be abolished. Wasn't that an appeal to acquisitiveness, even
gluttony? To be sure, socialism's miserable record has compelled its
advocates lately to discover the "age of limits," but that is only to make a
virtue of necessity.
      Socialism of course did promise to reconstruct humanity, but the
message was always mixed. It promised to subordinate the individual to
society while liberating him to be fully himself - free of the necessity to
make a living. Leon Trotsky wrote that "Communist man . . . will become
immeasurably stronger, wiser and subtler; his body will become more
harmonized, his movements more rhythmic, his voice more musical. The forms
of life will become dynamically dramatic. The average human type will rise
to the heights of an Aristotle, a Goethe, or a Marx." But the nice Bolshevik
also said, "In a country where the sole employer is the State, opposition
means death by slow starvation. The old principle: who does not work shall
not eat, has been replaced by a new one: who does not obey shall not eat."
      Was the new Socialist Man to be a self-centered achiever or
group-centered worker bee? It was never clear how both could be
accomplished.
      Maybe all that people mean when they lament socialism's impracticality
is that the theory held out hope for an end to material inequality. As
intellectual historian Ralph Raico reminds us, it didn't exactly do that.
Marx promised only "to each according to his needs." He never said we all
have the same needs. Besides, it is capitalism not socialism that has
achieved essential material equality.
      (See Donald Boudreaux, "Equality and Capitalism," September 2002,
<url> .)
      The ugliness of socialist theory now comes into focus. Under
individualist and capitalist theory (and practice) each person is free to
determine his own needs and, through the division of labor and voluntary
exchange, to produce what's required to satisfy them. (As the old Spanish
proverb puts it, "Take what you want and pay for it.") Under socialist
theory the individual's needs are determined and satisfied collectively.
Dissent and venturing out on one's own are not options. As Trotsky
acknowledged, everyone is an employee and tenant of the collective - that
is, the state.
      It's a mystery why anyone would find that theory beautiful or regret
that it doesn't work in practice.
Jim
<url>
Unite Against Multiculturalism!
"Abolish Multi-Culty and String Up the Traitors!""
    @steve: "In theory Yes, in practise no its impossible to impliment
(A) Every is equal, but those in charge are more equal.
(B) Each according to his need but those in charge always need more.
(C) The Social State  always ends up with more people wanting a slice of the
cake than increasing the size of the cake, more folks take out than put in.
( D) Every time it fails, which is every time it is tried the response from
the parasites- communists- socialists etc is always the same, They say " Ah
but the wrong people were in charge last time, but next time it will be
different.
Then you have to factor in Greed, Envy and Corruption which feature much
more strongly in socialist states, and of course as has beern proven in the
past in the old USSR, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Yemen, Jugoslavia, Cuba
etc and as is happening in the UK now is the more dominant the socialists
become the less tolerant they become of criticism. The Net end result of all
the above failing is Modern Nu Labour.
Socialism is simply a polite term for unproductive people wanting to live
off the efforts of the productive members of society, they are simply jelous
parasites."
    @groint: ""The Rifleman" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:cq25im$t9k$<email_address>
<quote>
Some of what you say is true but the last paragraph is drivel.
Socialism by and of itself is workable and indeed desirable.
It fails time and again due to the human weaknesses you have identified, 
namely greed, corruption and envy.
In fact the primary motivation for Capitalism are these very same traits.
As for greed, envy and corruption being more prevalent in Socialist or 
ex-Socialist states, well that's so absurd as to be laughable.
Nowhere are these more evident than the USA, and greed is always a major 
ingredient in any Australian election campaign.
The parasites in any society aren't necessarily the recipients of social 
security payments.
They can just as easily be financial planners, lawyers or dodgy accountants, 
motivated by the same greed in Capitalist systems that you speak of as 
though it's exclusive to Socialism."
    @hsnape: "<quote>
Socialism as a theory is broken, by definition.
If you have a theory and each time you test the theory it doesn't work, 
then as a theory it fails and is normally discarded.
Socialism is a mode of human organisation, and here you are saying that 
it's only problems are when it is applied to humans.
Its like saying you have a theory about the motion of light, which only 
fails to work when applied to light.
Socialism also fails to motivate, to produce effective competition and 
to reward innovation.
Actually the primary motivation for capitalism is the same as for 
socialism, the organisation of humanity and its advancement. It just 
happens to be strengthened by the various human traits rather than being 
rendered completely unworkable.
Yes, everyone knows that those centrally planned economies are the 
bastion of fairness and compassion. Mao's family were paragons of virtue 
and there is no institutionalised corruption within the existing Chinese 
  politburo. In the USSR it was just a coincidence that the 
nomenclatura's families received the best educations, the best jobs and 
priveleged housing. As for North Korea, there is no doubt that Kim's son 
was the right guy to lead that state, he's just so clever and he keeps 
himself so well and tubby despite the chronic famines and food shortages 
being experienced by the North Koreans, very, very clever I tell you.
So are you proposing to implement some sort of community wide lobotomy 
to remove a number of basic human traits?"
    @clear: ""The Rifleman" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:cq25im$t9k$<email_address>
<quote>
This is the essence of the Capitalisam. In Socialism, in theory, everybody 
must work.
You have the same problem as millions of other people.
Half-truth.
You could otherwise be well appointed human creature except, your laziness 
is showing. You rather believe to "successful business man" then what you 
can see and experience by yourself.
Ignorance or inability to learn and inform yourself  is the basic building 
block of the Global corporations controlling governments and us. Their 
religion is : "Greed, greed, and more greed". And yes, they are canibbals.
I suggest you to read and analyse "Das Kapital". Well if you can not than 
you are out of your league anyway.....
Something less complicated:
Corruption and greed is anti-socialist. The fact that rulers and dictators 
(result of the second WW) were corrputed and greedy is the only reason 
Socialism have failed.
Corruption and greed is legislated right of every Capitalist. If Capitalist 
is not greedy and corrupted, he/she will bankrupt!
Simple as this."
    @ktsahl: "<quote>
Geez guy. Give it up. The horse died a long time ago. You neocons seem 
to believe that when things don't go right you can just blame some old 
theory for all of the troubles you have brought to the U.S. It is a 
tired old tirade and my guess is that you don't even know what you are 
taking about since you are reduced to banal puppetry to make a point 
that isn't even worth the internet bandwidth. Why don't you do something 
positive with your pathetic life?
Do not ask for whom the bell tolls............."
    @groint: ""Harry Snape" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:41c4d4c9$0$5112$<email_address>
<quote>
Try to understand what I'm saying, it's not rocket science.
Human nature is basically the same throughout the world, and generally is 
independant of the prevailing political system despite any attempts at 
social engineering.
Are you seriously proposing that there is / was a greater level of 
corruption in Nth Korea or China than in The US or Indonesia?
Corruption is more easily identified in the US due to a relatively free 
press but it exists nevertheless, and on a grand scale.
Think Enron, the Savings and Loan scandals of the last decade, Watergate, 
massive electoral fraud........... need I go on?
I simply said that Socialism, per se, is a workable system in a ideal world, 
and in that ideal world would indeed be desirable.
It fails, as I said, due to the same human weaknesses that will eventually 
render Capitalism obsolete.
Rather than jump on the Neo-Con high horse (with blinkers on), try to 
understand that there are shortcomings with every political system."
    @eroot: "<quote>
(snip)
Instead of using as examples failed authoritarian regimes such as Red 
China, the USSR, etc. why don't you say what's wrong with say, Sweden or 
Denmark?"
    @eroot: "<quote>
I think this is a straw man.  Socialism is for those who work to the 
best of their abilities, and still can't make ends meet, to to smooth 
out the effects of up-and-down economic cycles on folks who don't have 
the financial leeway to ride them out.  Also, the Ayn Rand-like 
philosophy you are espousing frequently makes the mistake of thinking 
that the ones who work the hardest get rewarded the most greatly, but 
that is not true.  Does a real capitalist actually work more than, say, 
a janitor?  Heck, is he even working as much as a guy who spends the 
same amount of time playing video games?  It seems to me that the 
conduct of business by capitalists (as opposed to having a job as a 
manager) is just a game of symbol manipulation that happens to generate 
money.
Do you have any actual peer-reviewed evidence that it's these folks that 
demand socialism?  I mean, I used to talk like you when I was a 
right-winger, too. I think it's too simple and trite to be actually 
true.  However, I find your comment on educational enlightenment 
intriguing.  Care to expand on it?  What would you prefer to have 
instead of labor unions that would accomplish what labor unions are 
ideally intended to accomplish?"
    @mikcob: "<quote>
Most of this disagreement is caused by a lack of definition of the
terms.  Why most people associate socialism with authoritarianism
and lack of democracy has always been a sore point with me though
I do not see myself as a socialist.
Much more so than most forms of socialism.
This is not necessarily the case.  What amazes me is the idea that
democracy and socialism are deemed by some to be opposites.  This
notion that democracy and capitalism go hand in hand and that socialism
and authoritarianism go hand in hand. Actually, the opposite is true.
If you measure the amount of democracy in a country as the
representation and participation of the people in their government
then Sweden and Norway are very democratic and at the same time are
more socialized than the USA.  As a matter of fact the USA is the
least democratic nation in the first world.  And the Republican
party intends to make it even less democratic.
Sweden seems to be getting along just fine thank you.  You seem to be
confusing authoritarianism with socialism.
Why would any intelligent person describe a society as a choice between
socialism or democracy.  Obviously someone who does not understand either
of these terms is making a ridiculous statement.
Democracy and socialism are not mutually exclusive, not even incompatible.
Democracy and capitalism (capitalism as currently practiced in the USA)
may well be incompatible.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<< deletia >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but
the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough
to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy
is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson.  <url>"
    @hsnape: "<quote>
I agree, you certainly are no rocket scientist.
So this explains the very low crime rates in northern european countries 
and the widespread sexual abuse of children at Pitcairn exactly how?
Cultural equivalence is really easy if you ignore reality.
Yes. It is amazing what unfettered power can do ... I seem to recall a 
famous quote somewhere about this ... Oh sorry, too much reality again, 
I forgot I'm talking to someone who gets to pick and choose his version 
of reality.
Perhaps you should read up on those intersting studies about corruption 
throughout the world, they seem to think that there are differences 
between nations.
As opposed to nations without rule of law, separation of powers, etc. 
who not only have corrupt officials that are beyond the reach of what 
little law exists but where petty corruption is commonplace all the way 
down to the individual on the streets and their copywatches.
Got any ideal worlds on hand? Does this world have humans on it?
How to you encourage creativity and reward improvement? How do you call 
it workable without workable answers to these questions.
A world without humans? Sounds pretty sterile.
These "weaknesses" just happen to be the major drivers to change, 
advancement and research. Go read a history of the major philosophers 
and scientists of the last few thousand years. You'll find that they 
didn't spend their time laboring. The majority of them were born into 
privilege, were rich or from the church. They were able to creatively 
think because they had the time and money to do so, well beyond that of 
the "average". When you choose a system that provides for "average" 
outcomes, you lose the exceptional.
Ooh, I'm hurt. A clueless person providing no examples to back his 
"opinion" other than a simpleton's belief is calling me names. Burp."
    @groint: ""Harry Snape" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:41c51961$0$6539$<email_address>
<quote>
Get stuffed. "
    @hsnape: "<quote>
Definately the best you could do.
I see you brought that razor sharp wit and depth of knowledge to bear again."
    @groint: ""Eric Root" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
<quote>
Who is to say that Red China is/was a failed regime?
I think the Chinese regard it as successful.
In either case Red China is Communist. "
    @groint: ""Harry Snape" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:41c51e3d$0$4539$<email_address>
<quote>
Get stuffed. "
    @anonymous: ""Seppo Renfors" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
<quote>
Superannuation?  That can be free from state involvement and allows people 
to survive beyond thier working life...
Got another argument why pure Capitalisim wont work?"
    @steve: "<quote>
Oh and I forgot the oldest adage of all I think it was some great communist
who said If you can not attack your opponants argument, then attack his
character. IE see above.
Socialism =Commiunism= totalitarianism  EVERY TIME, Its just ill educated
parasite envious of people who succeed. Look at the most rich and powerful
economies with the highest standard of live, they are all capitalist, look
at the worst and every time they are communist."
    @steve: "<quote>
accountants,
society be fired and prosecuted,and they are usually freely chosen by those
who have the money to manage the wealth they created.
But the parasitic classes are a fixed item, they arealways their wanting
handouts,iwlways blaming everyone else for their position, and again as in
the UK they are almost impossible get get off benefits or dole, there
numbers always are on the increase.
They are unwanted parasites, fundamentaly that is what socialism is about
the non productive live off the backs of the productive."
    @mickp: "<quote>
I don't even think socialism is good in theory. It is nothing but the
promotion of mediocrity for all. All about everyone being equal, yet
heavily reliant on the (now non-existant) rich supporting everyone.
The cream SHOULD be able to rise to the top. Every society needs plebs
to do the crap jobs, people just have to work to better themselves if
they want to rise above it all.
I find it ironic that the Mecca of socialism in Australia, our
universities, are all about self improvement so we can get better jobs
and earn more money - seemingly the very anti-thesis of socialism.
Shouldnt we be all out tilling the fields so we can feed the
unemployed instead of wasting our time earning degrees and
wax-lyricaling about the plight of the masses?"
    @stevefrazer: "news:vT5xd.42$<email_address>
<quote>
Where in Socialist theory does anyone ever say that all people are equal?
Why do those who seek to put down socialism say this when socialists
themselves (i.e. those who know theory) do not?
There certainly are problems with the actual theory, just as there are
problems with any doctrine, but to throw this straw is pointless in the
extreme.
I do not single you out, the original poster did just the same, which is why
I didn't bother to reply.  Maybe if you knew more about socialist theory we
could have a proper discussion.  I've even done a search and the only people
to say socialist think all people are equal are opponents of socialism, not
the socialists themselves.
"Mr. Tugan repeats the old trick of the reactionaries: first to misinterpret
socialism by making it out to be an absurdity, and then to triumphantly
refute the absurdity! When we say that experience and reason prove that men
are not equal, we mean by equality, equality in abilities or similarity in
physical strength and mental ability.
It goes without saying that in this respect men are not equal. No sensible
person and no socialist forget this. But this kind of equality has nothing
whatever to do with socialism. If Mr. Tugan is quite unable to think, he is
at least able to read; were he to take the well-known work of one of the
founders of socialism, Frederic Engels, directed against Duhring, he would
find there a special section explaining the absurdity of imagining that
economic equality means anything else than the abolition of classes. But
when professors set out to refute socialism, one never knows what to wonder
at most - their stupidity, their ignorance, or their unscrupulousness.
By political equality Social-Democrats mean equal rights, and by economic
equality, as we have already said, they mean the abolition of classes. As
for establishing human equality in the sense of equality of strength and
abilities (physical and mental), socialists do not even think of such
things."
Steve Frazer
<url>"
    @clear: ""Seppo Renfors" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
<quote>
snipppppp
DING DONG !
You have no clue my friend.
You are mixing social oriented parties in the pure capitalist countries 
(most of the West Europe) with the Socialism/Communism propagated by the 
Marx Das Kapital.
In the true Soc/comm (never existed on this planet) State officials are just 
equal with the lowest labourer.
Decisions are recommended and decided on the meetings of the all employed. 
Every vote has equal power and everybody must vote.
Eastern block, including former Yugoslavia (you could not say they were 
Eastern block) have practiced "self-governing" for years with more or less 
failures.
Now, because there is a need for military, as well as some sort of the State 
structure to operate with the foreign world, the same rules could not be 
applied.
Therefore, real Soc/Comm system is pure Utopia.
However, if and when humans decide to continue evolution, borders and 
military would not exist any more.
Then, it would be logical to apply most of the Marx philosophies.
Considering that self-destruction is deeply programmed into human genes I 
doubt it will ever happen."
    @groint: ""The Rifleman" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:cq3j8m$10i$<email_address>
<quote>
Who was he?
So I suppose Sweden is a totalitarian, bankrupt shithole? "
    @steve: ".
<quote>
why
we
people
not
nole concept that does not swork when free thinking individuals become
involved, No Society can function fairly when the party has to much control,
Freedom of choice is the first thing that goes out of the window if you go
the socialist route, and governmental interference goes beserk in all
socialist states, its bad enough as it is now, never minding letting some
self opinionated peasant decide what you need and what is best for you
whilst not allowing any dissent, because that is what socialism becomes in
the real world.
Socialism is not about creating wealth for all, its about those who think
they know what is best for everyone else taking control over a society and
stealing that wealth.
If socialism works so well how come the USSR North Korea,, and Cuba are not
thriving happy metrolpolitan societys that us poor freedom loving
capitalists struggle to become members of."
    @steve: "news:41c56e76$0$1119$<email_address>
<quote>
of
educated
powerful
look
having some of the highest levels of taxation in the world and I may be
wrong but are the people not protesting about not being allowed to vote over
some major EU issue. BTW Sweden is still a capitalist country."
    @steve: "news:41c56cd3$0$1078$<email_address>
<quote>
in
about
excellance, and it has never worked nor will it so long as their are people
who think they can dictate to other people how they choose to live, how they
prosper etc etc"
    @stevefrazer: "news:cq3uau$9ks$<email_address>
<quote>
why
we
people
not
a
control,
not
You've completely ignored my entire post! What was the point of you reply?
Presumably because you were the silly-billy who posted that socialists think
that "(A) Every is equal, but those in charge are more equal."
Care to address your original mistake?
Steve Frazer
<url>"
    @clear: "Ah, oh. Seppo. Enough said.
"Seppo Renfors" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
<quote>"
    @stevefrazer: "news:cq496o$iaq$<email_address>
<quote>
reply?
for
Masters
It doesn't imply all people are equal!  Equality of opportunity and wealth
redistribution do not imply all people are equal!  Trying to pretend they
say something absurd is not a valid argument it is pretending they say
something absurd in order to refute the pretend absurdity, which is
pointless.  I trust you won't be repeating your mistake...
Steve Frazer
<url>"
    @stevefrazer: "news:cq49b2$52l$<email_address>
<quote>
not
Committees
What, like voting?  Say when a party takes what they think is right and then
go back to the people and say "This is what we took and what we want to
take, please vote for us."?  And if the people disagree they can vote for
the opposition.  Committees made up of experts who have access to reports
about issues will never work?  What alternative would you come up with?
Steve Frazer
<url>"
    @steve: "<quote>
think
Try it this way Steve, If the Philosophy of Socialism does not imply
equality in all things then what is the point of socialism???
They waffle on about fraternity, redistributing wealth, ensuring parity for
all, but the fact is always the same the Civil Servants become Civil Masters
then absolute rulers. Socialists simply can not accept that it will never
ever work."
    @steve: "<quote>
For the state to be in a position to GIVE, it must first TAKE, and its at
that point it all falls down, because in a free society the state should not
be able to take any more than the people overwhelmingly agree to, Committees
deciding they know what is berst for society will never work."
    @steve: "<quote>
I have not made any mistake, I have been around more than long enough to
understand the immoral  beliefs that formulate the concept of socialism. it
is a politic of the uneducated being maniulated by the socially inadequate.
If socialism could work it would have worked by now and it has not, Why
?simple, because people want to be free of political indoctrination and
interferance in their lives.
The best form of government is the one that governs least, No quotas, no
fiive year plans, no local party groups, no needing approval from the party
before you can do anything.
Socialism is a disease of the mind."
    @steve: "<quote>
then
But in asocialist there is only the one party to vote for, so its a wasted
vote, and again the state has no right to take in the first place without
the mandate first from the people, not to go to the people fter it has
acted.
 And if the people disagree they can vote for
What opposition has their been in any of the socialist states over the last
100 years?, I remember my dad laughing his socks off in the 1970s when
Moscow Radio broadcast the result of a local election in Byellorussia (
SPL?) the day before the election was held.
Committees made up of experts who have access to reports
Leting the people do things themselves without governmental inteference,
Criminal laws , Health and Safety laws, but nothing else.   Let Engineers
Build, Farmers Farm, Fishermen Fish, Steelworkers make steel etc, and let
the free market do its thing, its worked wonders for western society."
    @stevefrazer: "news:cq4kj9$e9j$<email_address>
<quote>
wealth
they
*snipped irrelevant stuff*
You did make a mistake.  You stated that:-
"A) Every is equal, but those in charge are more equal."
and
"If the Philosophy of Socialism does not imply equality in all things then
what is the point of socialism???"
I posted a comprehensive explanation that shows that socialism does NOT say
or imply that all people are equal and that the only people who say this are
those against socialism.  Those against socialism say this because it is
absurd and then point out how absurd the socialist is for believing this,
despite no socialist ever actually believing it!
Now do you understand your mistake?
If you fail to understand this at the third attempt I shall not waste my
time trying to have intelligent debate with you.  Last chance, you decide.
Steve Frazer
<url>"
    @groint: ""The Rifleman" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:cq4kvc$eik$<email_address>
<quote>
I wasn't aware of any party proposing zero tax, so what choice do the people 
have.
There is no free market, if you haven't noticed.
And regulation and Government controls are everywhere.
Does anyone have a choice wether to pay or collect GST or not?
And does anyone have a say in how that tax is spent?
Personally, I don't want my taxes paying people to have babies or buy 
houses.
I condider that these state handouts are Socialism and that the people 
receiving them are parasites.
And all this in a Capitalist country with a conservative government.
What do you think?"
    @anonymous: ""Seppo Renfors" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
<quote>
Right, there are no purely self funded retirees in the world.  And worse, no 
scope for that process to work.  Glad you fixed that one up for me.
I see where you are coming from, but what you are describing sounds more 
like pure anarchy than pure capitalisim.  Does having a police force (for 
arguments sake, funded voluntarily by the more succesful capitalists) count 
as a shift to socialisim?
What about hiring an offsider to do jobs that only two people can complete? 
That is purely profit / productivity driven and you could hardly claim it as 
anything other than capitalisim."
    @groint: ""The Rifleman" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:cq4kj9$e9j$<email_address>
<quote>
Well you can rest assured we are a long way short of that ideal here in 
Australia!
No sign of dissent whatsoever in the Howard government which must mean that 
all the government MP's agree entirely with every decision made in the last 
eight years or they simply toe the line in the name of "party discipline", 
what's your guess?
And don't get me started on the Labour party!
Until the party political system is dismantled we can't have democracy and 
have to accept corruption and mediocrity."
    @groint: ""Wayne H. Wilhelm" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:MUqxd.2101$<email_address>
<quote>
Google is your friend. "
    @steve: "<quote>
 Anti Communism is Freedom, Democracy, Free Market economys, Low
governmental interference, No centralised planning, freedom of choice,
freedom to travel, not having corrupt immoral marxists trying to force their
misguided crap onto your life.
Slander is not allowed in a communist state as you comment above reinforces,
that means mdiisent towards the party is not allwed which normally ends up
with a bullet in the basck of the head.
Why should freemen be forced in any direction except the ones they freely
choose to go. Which as history has proven is always away from communism."
    @steve: "<quote>
Its a capitalist country, with the highest taxes  and fewest freedoms in the
northern hemisphere.  And of course the proof is in the Pudding How many
other nationalities are flocking to live there?"
    @steve: "<quote>
The Global depression affected the communists as much as the free world, but
the reccession itself ended after about ten years when the free capitalist
economies grew and grew until the free world ended up in its present
position, Whilst the Communists states continued to stagnate and decline for
the next fifty years, ending around 1990 when its terrible effects on the
people trapped in communist countrys finally became free."
    @stevefrazer: "news:wAqxd.5834$<email_address>
*snipped an interesting post*
Many thanks for your input.
Steve Frazer
<url>"
    @stevefrazer: "news:<email_address>
<quote>
I take it from the fact that you've answered others later in this thread
that you accept your mistake and shan't repeat it again.......  (I won't
hold my breathe)
You could post here that you accept your mistake so that people might think
better of you, but hiding suffices.
Steve Frazer
<url>"
    @ajv2003: "Old story. The smart one's don't come to America.
The poor from Central america are streaming North.
<quote>"
    @stargazzxr: ""Steve Frazer" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
<quote>
If I calculate that the poor out number the rich by 2 to 1 or more and I 
tell
the poor.  If you vote for me I will make the rich pay for your i.e., health
care.
Robert Miller
member of <url>
 "The Fact that our economical models at The Fed,
the best in the world, have been wrong for fourteen
straight quarters, does not mean they will not be
right in the fifteenth quarter"
 Alan Greenspan "
    @deadly: "On Sunday, 19 Dec 2004 09:27:01 -0600, "Anti-Multiculty"
<quote>
The problem here is the variation between the ideal socialist
society as originally put forward in Utopia, the socialist society
promoted by people today and the socialism that some countries
have ended up with. Although based on the same basic concepts
the last two assume that the people collectively can not manage
the society and must assign people to manage it, thus we end up
with a king/emporer type society where the crown is not passed
on by birth. The original form of socialism, as proposed, was the
ultimate in democracy in that all major decision were to be made 
by consensus - the intent being that everyone got together and
analysed and discussed the matter until everyone had agreed
upon and answer and course of action. Very few societies have 
tried this, but some have managed it in small n numbers.
A true socialist society will work where everyone has respect
for each other's rights and enough resources so well distributed
that everyone will easily have the basics of life. We do not either
of those yet, but are working towards them.
The major failure is the socialist agenda's failure to safely handle
the extremes in human attitudes and behaviours and the existing
inequities of life itself in the world as it is.
Deadly Ernest
@bywater.net.au
(my new keyboard, with small keys,
accepts full responsibility for all
typographical and spelling errors)"
    @Wotan: "news:<email_address>
| On Sunday, 19 Dec 2004 09:27:01 -0600, "Anti-Multiculty"
|
| >
| >Is Socialism Good in Theory?
| >Sheldon Richman, Editor, Ideas on Liberty
|
<quote>
| >Published in Ideas on Liberty - October 2003
| >
| >Socialism has been mortally discredited on economic grounds, thanks
to
| >Ludwig von Mises, F. A. Hayek, and history. But for many people it
has not
| >been discredited on moral grounds. You can tell this by how often
people say
| >that while socialism doesn't work in practice, it is good in
theory.
| >
| >Strange notion - that a theory which doesn't work in the world can
somehow
| >still be good. Where else is it to be judged? One would think that
a theory
| >whose consistent realization requires gulags and secret police
would be
| >morally disqualified even if it "worked."
Socialists are not driven by morality.    They are driven by venal
resentment of those who have more than them - and immediately
racketeer once they have managed to persuade a gullible public
to give them power.
Look and Blair and his gang of corrupt grasping cronies !
None of them even pay lip service to chastity or poverty.
They are rolling in pig shit and money !"
    @cathars: "<quote>
Lucky that socialism has been so successful in the USSR and the PRC. 
And its theory is so compelling that the rest of the world is rushing to
it, like North Korea, Cuba, and ..."
    @cathars: "<quote>
Recommend a move to Fascism, eh?  The totalitarianism of the right is so
much better than that of the left, I always say.  Don't you agree?"
    @cathars: "<quote>
Umm, isn't your argument that the Romans crumbled when they let
Christianity in?  And what happened to all those other civilisations that
have disappeared where Christianity was not an issue?"
    @cathars: "<quote>
Sound like any reasonable religious group, once they get organised.
They were monks, you mean.  I follow your logic regarding chastity,
poverty and money, but where does the pig shit arise? "
    @steve: "socialism not matter which form it comes in will never work, the excuses are
always the same.
We need more time
The wrong people were in power
Next time it will work.
Human natures ensures that soocialism will always fail."
    @steve: ""There is no difference between communism and socialism, except
<quote>
. *We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity
is
like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the
handle.
Winston Churchill
11. *If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see
what it
costs when it's free.
P.J. O'Rourke
18. *The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the
blessings.
The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
Winston Churchill"
    @Malcolm: "<email_address> writes
<quote>
Indeed, which is why Blair has moved so far away from socialism!
Malcolm"
    @jguy: "[Holy Mackerel! That must have been hundreds of lines
 I snipped]
How about "in practice" for a change?"
{'source': 'USENET', 'other_information': '{"reply_count": 54, "forum_name": "alt.politics.british.20140613.mbox"}', 'file': 'data/output/usenet-alt.politics.parquet'}