WITHTEETH

ok thanks taks

I liket he idea of socialism still and i still think it can work. and i am not impressed with private eduactiuon either. there are a ton of ways to tweak the system to make it work. socialism is about making life easier and less stressful. sometimes kids get hurt, then what? they dont get treatment because they dont have healthcare? or they crowd the emergence room more becuase people can't get regular checkups so they o at the last minute when its unbareable. also Social security. it was set up to MAKE the older retirees have a income still so they wouldnt have to become a bum after they retired out on the street our forced into a relatives homes where they have to take care of them whether they can or not. We need socialism. how come people wont try to help the poor people out? look at the duckbilled platapus. our system doesnt include it in the mammal category. do youy know why? because our system isn't good enough. why can't we lean on our brother ans sisters to help eachother out? not all privatised businesses are good either, thats a fact.

notice you added a comma instead of the period i had in between, i was just staing it was a dictatorship, i know what i was stating but sometiems it comes out wrong. on paper i guess.

ok im just gonna guess and say the USSR at its beginnings was a totalitariansm, is that wrong to say? But i have a hard time thinking Lenin can be described as that. i think he was a dictator but i can't describe the typeof dictatorrship he ran (ie: socialism, capitalism) i know its neither though.

wasn't confusing the two just stating it was a fact.

What are the conservatives doing what the oliberals would not?

Ok, everybody has danced around my question for about 30 posts now. we've said it wasn't communism, its not socialism either, and its not capitalist( Parts were though <_< ). so what ISM is was the USSR when lenin and stalin controlled it? straightforward. i know it could be a mixeture of two. anybody know? i challenge you! .... I dont know the answer

This is interesting. From the moment that nature itself makes us all different, any theory, philosophical or otherwise, that is based on the concept of universal equality is bound to fail when applied on a real world situation. We have had plenty of examples through History that illustrate one point: trying to rearrange reality into what we, in our human conceptions, think it should be is a lost battle and the process usually yields unpleasant results. The fallacies known as "innate rights" and "justice" are proof of that. Sure, it's better than living in a cave, but it's in no way what it was conceptually supposed to be. The same can be applied to communism. Carry on with your on-topic discussion. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The more knowledge you have the more valueble you are to a society in making decions. and because everybody has rights in a democracy and that there is room for lack of education, that can be the downfall. that the intellectuals only have so much of a say is the problem. here in the US the intellectual elites are looked upon as trying to tell the working class how to live, but in a sense they are right, they want them to have an easier life with social programs. Anyway, i can't see any socialism in USSR but a good half of it is capitalism. what would that make the USSR then?

I agree. i like the ambulance analogy, and i do think that they unfortunly bad mouth socialism.

I think that socialism can be the bridge to communism in the Marx and Engalls theory but i think that it is off when it comes to the IronFist Machine of the USSR's version when it started after the bolshevik revoultion. i aee it as capitalism still.

I see that Since the Elites run everything with a IRON FIST giving BARELY anything back but only to survive w/(NOT HARDLY EVEN) that that is nearly slavery and cannot be conssidered socialism. the elites are getting the money to have extravagent apartments and exotic foods. they would trade w/ the rest of their "communist countries" just how the wetern democracies would trade with their own. and still not clear how it can be more socialism, am i being stubborn?

I think that's it. Socialist policies are defined by a strong intervention and overseeing of the economy by the state, in a protectionist sense mostly. In this sense, since the USSR was a planified economy, it was socialist. Combine that and a totalitarian regime with an emphasis on propaganda, and you have real world "communism". <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think socialism goes hand in hand with democracy though. not dictotor ship.

so

The USSR commuisn that spread was a wrestched thing, people think "communism, what a great idea. lets grab our guns and start it!" and tahts not right for the start! N. Korieans are into the black market so they can get tvs and VCRs and they think its not right. their gov. is supressing them alot like USSR was

I can't see how it was more socialist then capitalist. the people could not use anything for their own purpose, they did not get their own share. it was like a jail. the government used them to make a profit. am i right?

Could it beconsisdered an alien capitlism. a new kind, becasue its not socialist thats for sure! whats do you think it resembles closest?

Good point about the free trade. im going to try to work around it and say that ussr could trade with itself and everything else behind its iron curtain, and the Western Democracy could only free trade with the coulntries they were with too.

CAPITALISM: free-market system: an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods, characterized by a free competitive market and motivation by profit Microsoft

Capitalism and democracy dont have to go together though, remember. im thinking this was a dictotor capitalist.

ok gotcha do you think that given what i've said that it could be capitalist?

I dont quite undersatnd. are you saying that i was making a paralel between socialism and Russias communism because i do not think that there is, i was asking if it was capitalist. can you claify if i was still off what you were stating.

Does anybody think that the USSR could be considered Capitalist because it had an elite class that got all the extra money just like in a capitalist society. and that it really had no sign of socialism. it was a dictatorship. also it seemed to be ANTI western capitalist maybe because there is no room for 2 different capitalist systems, thats why we have free trade, but USSR was a closed system choking Western capitalist growth and since its a virus it has to grow to survive. so questions reamans, capitalism or not?

I dont think it was because it was suppose to be voluntary. they were forced. it seems like it was a jail. they didn't get their peice ofthe pie they earned, it was given to the elites that ruled from a "classless society", meaning it wasn't classless. it didn't start with the working class taking over politacally, it started with the elites taking over the workers. and i don't see how that can work, no matter how sincere they are. it seems as though if you did practice communism you would be put to jail because the people didn't even have say in the factories they worked. i know communism is a kind of utopia. but it seems communism has to be paired with democracy, because it take everyone to make it work. just my thouhgs. im interested in peoples opinions, if any. also were their ANY goodsides to the bolshevik revolution? besides them losing finland and it gaining its independance. Don't be rude please.

ok brb with a new thread.

USSR communism was capitalist not socialist. just a different type of capitalist. any comments? im interested to hear a response. Because i could be off. Don't be rude either!