What do Americans think

[Phantasmal]

I'll pick the one that made it so that people with two cars and three televisions, air conditioning on demand, so much food that obesity is a problem are called "poor" over the one that made it so that cars with no air conditioning and windows that didn't roll down, medicine created in the government-owned plants was, on average, 20% false to meet quotas, lines for toilet paper and lettuce where you were often turned away if you didn't get there early enough were considered the province of the "rich"...

Yeah, I'll pick the one that makes everybody's life just a bit better over the one that makes everybody's life suck equally every day, every time, with every ounce of being, and with no guilt.

Which one is that? We have a socialistic program in Alaska that makes everyone life better! I wish all states had a PFD! Share the wealth baby!

 

[wiseones2cents]

Umm... No. I didn't. I said after. The coup didn't entirely remove the Communist Party until February, the Federalist government continued to use the tools that they had at hand.

Yes you did.

And the planes.

Sorry but the article I supplied clearly stated that Russian Tanks were better then America.

Enjoy the read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34

At least you can admit that you are wrong, now let's see if you can pretend that we still "copied" their tube technology into our solid-state aircraft, tanks, etc.

Yes it seems that the Russians copied the American bomber, but I read somewhere that the Americans copied Russian design later on.

That's a shame. They, along with our planes, are the best examples of superior technology.

The Americans advantage was that scientists from all over the world were heading for America, because of all its wealth and the facilities for them to test their theories. Which was really all of Europe's wealth that was shipped and invested in the USA after Europe was left in ruins.

Dont know much about subs and planes. I thought that Israelis had made the best planes(and have the best airforce) or that they modified them but I was mistaken. They built their planes using designs of the mirage III stolen by the Mossad(Israeli spies).

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kfir"]IAI Kfir - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Question_book-new.svg" class="image"><img alt="Question book-new.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png[/ame]

What was most problematic is they had no means and nobody to hand the manufacturing over to...

What do you mean? They had a population of 300 million and millions of criminals in gulags, that were put to work as slaves.

I think I was right on the money. Perestroika was a stimulus plan a test of introducing capitalism to the USSR and it failed. I've noticed that all these countries that turn to capitalism and borrow money, ALWAYS end up with unstable economies, unable to pay their debts. AT first their is a big explosion of wealth, thanks to credit. Then the bills get to high, inflation kicks in and next thing you know, the debt is unpayable. Why? Corruption.
Capitalism leaves too many doors open to corruption. Too many hands in the cookie jar.

Which changes nothing about what I have stated.

It confirms what I said. The introduction of private enterprise, hastened the USSR's demise.

Yet they continued to have shortages everywhere, it's silly to suggest that they report "full employment" and "no homeless" yet still had problems in every facet of the economy due to mismanagement and false reporting, but then in the next breath say, "But in this, they were perfect."

If you have an entire nation working for the government, how do you have employee shortages? It makes no sense. What makes sense is that the Owners of the businesses, who were also the government, fled the country and left the country in a state of confusion. If your boss left and stopped paying you, would you continue to work?

They weren't. Shoot in the height of it all, people would turn in their neighbors on false charges to get a few more square feet of apartment. Desperate people will fall into desperate tactics.

Communism is like capitalism. Except the Oligarchs are the elites(corporation owners). And all their friends and relatives get special privileges. Where as in Capitalism, the rich are the elites(with all the special privileges) and sometimes if your lucky, or are connected to some rich guy, you can become wealthy too. That's why the saying on the streets is not what you know. Its who you know for the most part.

That's not to say that cronyism does not exist in America also. They are just more discreet about it.

In socialism, there are no elites. The country is run by the citizens. Not the rich. The government nor the people are allowed to hoard money for themselves. Sure there will be wealthier people, but no billionaires. And no where near as much poor.

None of this would change what I stated. I'd rather be "poor" and fat here than "rich" in the place that my teachers lived in.

I'd rather live in a true socialist country as opposed to a capitalist or communist.

Which doesn't change the fact that most people who are poor do not have the credit to buy "everything" on credit.

If those poor people had no credit in the first place? They wouldn't own anything.

In a socialist society nobody had it, their crappy cars weren't even designed with windows that rolled down let alone air conditioning... In this society the average poor person owns two cars, both with A/C and the vast majority of homes have A/C.

Really? What socialist country are you referring to? Can't be USSR. They were communist. Big difference. The Bolsheviks(led by jews) took care of that. All the money was redirected for military purposes, not domestic use.

You think in a socialist country, everyone could not own two cars? What do you think Fordism was all about?

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fordism"]Fordism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Ford_Motor_Company_assembly_line.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/Ford_Motor_Company_assembly_line.jpg/220px-Ford_Motor_Company_assembly_line.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/8/86/Ford_Motor_Company_assembly_line.jpg/220px-Ford_Motor_Company_assembly_line.jpg[/ame]

I repeat, the USSR had Oligarchs that were using the money to provide luxury to themselves(not the people) and using the bulk of the Country's resources for Military purposes(as opposed to providing a better standard of living). If they ever got a person like Hitler in charge? Who ran his country in a socialist manner but geared for war.

They would have owned the world. They had the resources, the man power and the technology. The Oligarchs ran the country to bleed it dry. Not for it to prosper.

Yet, in the apartments where I grew up (extremely poor), every apartment has a/c. The poor live better here than the "rich" did in the Soviet Union.

Those days are over. The cost of electricity is ridiculous. Some people have A/C but refuse to use it. What good is that?

Capitalism sucks when you have a country that is rich in resources like Canada, but the cost of things like natural gas, keep going up and up and up.
Its not about supply and demand, its about restricting demand(by increasing sale price) and increasing profit margins. So all the stock holders could get rich.

Both are a problem.

Unhealthy food is the number one cause of obesity in America. Not that they have an abundance. I've noticed, when I go shopping? Thanks to inflation? People are buying less and less food at the supermarket. I remember before free trade, people used to jam their carts to the top. All this thanks to the privatization of our government infrastructure. Capitalism sucks!

I used to pay 10 cents for a bag of chips. Now the same bag has the same amount of chips(Bigger bag filled mostly with air) for well over a buck. (must be that shortage of Potatoes were having(note sarcasm)!I went to buy an ice cream(used to cost 25 cents) and they wanted almost $4!! Capitalism sucks!

Sure pay is more, but when you factor in inflation? Were getting robbed.

Housing, rent, cars, insurance, everything is over priced! Too many middle men, too many hands in the cookie jar.

If your one of those people that bought your home back when the American dream was still alive and inflation was low, that is one thing, But not today.

Capitalism would be tolerable if in fact it did resemble capitalism but we live in more of a fascist society(even worse) where corporations run the government and the economy.

Answer me this? If all the fast food stores were buffet style(Socialist style)like the Chinese buffets? Where would you get your money's worth?

Lets say you have your last $10. Would you go to McDonalds or to a buffet?

Lets talk sports? What is the best run franchise? NFL. Do you know why? ALL the franchises share the wealth(socialist concept). In the NHL they do not and many teams go bankrupt.

They ran out of it because they attempted to manage the economy. They made a guess as to what "quota" would be necessary, then the managers of the factories would lie as to how much they were able to make to show they had met "quotas", the product they put out sucked and the shortages were everywhere, as shown in the article I posted.

Disagree. They have an abundance of resources and workers. It would make sense to make over the amount and have reserves. Especially for non perishable things like toilet Paper.

They are making money out of the ground(its not like the Americans that make money out of thin air/The real success of capitalism). The more people work, the more money(commodities) they have. They cannot run out of wealth as long as they have workers. Something else was a foot.

If I were in charge of the USSR. I assure you, I would be ruling the world today.

Yet you seem to be defending it with your every ounce of being for what seems to be little gain. So far all it has shown is you knew little about soviet history.

I defend the concept(of socialism), not the actual way socialism was implemented in the Soviet Union.

"Doesn't surprise you"... Again, this is still silly conjecture. You want it to be true so you repeat it believing if you repeat it often enough people may begin to believe you.

Nope. I've learned to follow the money trail, and all roads lead to the international bankers.

 

[wiseones2cents]

Which one is that? We have a socialistic program in Alaska that makes everyone life better! I wish all states had a PFD! Share the wealth baby!

I think he should watch Capitalism A love story(Michael Moore) and see true socialism in action. There are companies in America that have adopted its principles as shown in the movie.

 

[Damocles]

Yes you did.

I didn't. What I said was accurate.

Sorry but the article I supplied clearly stated that Russian Tanks were better then America.

Enjoy the read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34

Even if it says that it doesn't change what I know is fact, crews drowned while we were extremely careful to ensure ours would not. The majority of dominance they had was due to numbers and armor, not in usability. The tanks were machines created to destroy, protecting the crews was secondary at best.

Yes it seems that the Russians copied the American bomber, but I read somewhere that the Americans copied Russian design later on.

Seriously foolish, you probably read Pravda and supped that bathwater. There was zero reason for us to copy their tube technology, we had better planes and submarines, period. Our navy was superior in every way, as was our air power.

The Americans advantage was that scientists from all over the world were heading for America, because of all its wealth and the facilities for them to test their theories. Which was really all of Europe's wealth that was shipped and invested in the USA after Europe was left in ruins.

So they were superior, but weren't? You are contradicting yourself. It doesn't matter why they were superior, it simply was reality. Saying it was "because you are right and we spent more money effectively" is cool with me. At least you finally get to a point where you realize you are wrong.

Dont know much about subs and planes. I thought that Israelis had made the best planes(and have the best airforce) or that they modified them but I was mistaken. They built their planes using designs of the mirage III stolen by the Mossad(Israeli spies).

The Israelis use our planes, we sell them to Israel.

What do you mean? They had a population of 300 million and millions of criminals in gulags, that were put to work as slaves.

I think I was right on the money. Perestroika was a stimulus plan a test of introducing capitalism to the USSR and it failed. I've noticed that all these countries that turn to capitalism and borrow money, ALWAYS end up with unstable economies, unable to pay their debts. AT first their is a big explosion of wealth, thanks to credit. Then the bills get to high, inflation kicks in and next thing you know, the debt is unpayable. Why? Corruption.
Capitalism leaves too many doors open to corruption. Too many hands in the cookie jar.

It is mostly because the only people even halfway capable of running the company were the inefficient managers pre-establishment of capitalism. Russia still gives out more credit than they use.

It confirms what I said. The introduction of private enterprise, hastened the USSR's demise.

And does nothing to change what I said, shortages were common pre-perestroika, and simply got worse during perestroika when there was little to no effective private industry to take over in areas the government gave over control.

If you have an entire nation working for the government, how do you have employee shortages? It makes no sense. What makes sense is that the Owners of the businesses, who were also the government, fled the country and left the country in a state of confusion. If your boss left and stopped paying you, would you continue to work?

Nobody said they had employee shortages. I said that the centrally managed economy was a poor way to plan the economy and because of the quotas set as well as low incentive they had constant shortages throughout the history of the USSR.

Communism is like capitalism. Except the Oligarchs are the elites(corporation owners). And all their friends and relatives get special privileges. Where as in Capitalism, the rich are the elites(with all the special privileges) and sometimes if your lucky, or are connected to some rich guy, you can become wealthy too. That's why the saying on the streets is not what you know. Its who you know for the most part.

Which again underlines what I stated, those who "knew" people were allowed to buy a car that had windows that were never designed to roll down and had no air conditioning, that's after they finally got to the head of a list. They were also transferred to areas like Leningrad (Sankt Petrsburg) and Moscow where they diverted items that would make it appear as if there were no shortages.

That's not to say that cronyism does not exist in America also. They are just more discreet about it.

Nobody said it doesn't exist, that's silly. I said even the poor here had it better than the rich in the USSR.

In socialism, there are no elites. The country is run by the citizens. Not the rich. The government nor the people are allowed to hoard money for themselves. Sure there will be wealthier people, but no billionaires. And no where near as much poor.

Total rubbish, whole movies we watched while studying the language are about the incredible corruption in the centralized all-powerful totalitarian government. One thing Perestroika did was allow movies to tell the real history. You should watch some, I'll bet they even have subtitles now.

I'd rather live in a true socialist country as opposed to a capitalist or communist.

So do. Enjoy. I'll continue to be unapologetic about my belief that capitalism created a nation where "poverty" meant an average of three televisions and two cars than one where the elite were sometimes put to the head of a line to buy one of the worst-made automobiles in the world.

If those poor people had no credit in the first place? They wouldn't own anything.

Yet they do. Usually because they buy things directly with cash they have saved up. It is foolish in the extreme to ignore reality for platitudes you just want so badly to be true. The poor in America have it better than the "upper middle class" of a great many nations. I'd rather be poor in the US than "rich" in the USSR, thankfully that is no longer an option.

Really? What socialist country are you referring to? Can't be USSR. They were communist. Big difference. The Bolsheviks(led by jews) took care of that. All the money was redirected for military purposes, not domestic use.

The Bolsheviks weren't Jewish, the pograms should be enough for you to realize that. It's idiotic to ignore history to again just say what you want rather than what was real. And the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic was Socialist.

You think in a socialist country, everyone could not own two cars? What do you think Fordism was all about?

Fordism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I repeat, the USSR had Oligarchs that were using the money to provide luxury to themselves(not the people) and using the bulk of the Country's resources for Military purposes(as opposed to providing a better standard of living). If they ever got a person like Hitler in charge? Who ran his country in a socialist manner but geared for war.

I'll repeat, the luxury in the USSR was either gotten through the black market (capitalism) or sucked ass. I'd rather have what we have here than be forced into what they had in the USSR, apologetically, and wholly.

They would have owned the world. They had the resources, the man power and the technology. The Oligarchs ran the country to bleed it dry. Not for it to prosper.

Those days are over. The cost of electricity is ridiculous. Some people have A/C but refuse to use it. What good is that?

Again you give silly platitudes. The reality is what capitalism created, socialism is now working to take apart. As we become more socialistic we continue to drive down everybody to give "economic justice" to others. Socialism consistently makes everybody's lives suck, capitalism historically raised everybody's standard of living, even the poor.

Capitalism sucks when you have a country that is rich in resources like Canada, but the cost of things like natural gas, keep going up and up and up.
Its not about supply and demand, its about restricting demand(by increasing sale price) and increasing profit margins. So all the stock holders could get rich.

Unhealthy food is the number one cause of obesity in America. Not that they have an abundance. I've noticed, when I go shopping? Thanks to inflation? People are buying less and less food at the supermarket. I remember before free trade, people used to jam their carts to the top. All this thanks to the privatization of our government infrastructure. Capitalism sucks!

You "notice"? Please, abundance as well as cheap access to food that you call "unhealthy" are both the cause of obesity. Restaurants serve plates that are two to three times the size of plates in other nations (yeah, I've been there and know this is true). Bigger and better and more... It's what causes our obesity issue, not just bad food.

I used to pay 10 cents for a bag of chips. Now the same bag has the same amount of chips(Bigger bag filled mostly with air) for well over a buck. (must be that shortage of Potatoes were having(note sarcasm)!I went to buy an ice cream(used to cost 25 cents) and they wanted almost $4!! Capitalism sucks!

What that is, is inflation. That is the FED using "controlled inflation" and an entirely different discussion.

In this thread you ignore reality and pretend that people in the USSR somehow had it "better" when everything I stated originally is true. The lines, the shortages, the "fake" medication due to "quotas" and disincentivized "employees" and poor management.

Sure pay is more, but when you factor in inflation? Were getting robbed.

Housing, rent, cars, insurance, everything is over priced! Too many middle men, too many hands in the cookie jar.

If your one of those people that bought your home back when the American dream was still alive and inflation was low, that is one thing, But not today.

Capitalism would be tolerable if in fact it did resemble capitalism but we live in more of a fascist society(even worse) where corporations run the government and the economy.

True, but I will still take the system that created the greatest wealth for the poorest of people over one that created the poorest "rich" people in the world.

Answer me this? If all the fast food stores were buffet style(Socialist style)like the Chinese buffets? Where would you get your money's worth?

Lets say you have your last $10. Would you go to McDonalds or to a buffet?

I'd go to the grocery store.

Lets talk sports? What is the best run franchise? NFL. Do you know why? ALL the franchises share the wealth(socialist concept). In the NHL they do not and many teams go bankrupt.

Disagree. They have an abundance of resources and workers. It would make sense to make over the amount and have reserves. Especially for non perishable things like toilet Paper.

Yet they didn't, mostly because it was poorly run and workers had no incentive. Shortages were a constant throughout the USSR's existence, they simply got worse during perestroika.

They are making money out of the ground(its not like the Americans that make money out of thin air/The real success of capitalism). The more people work, the more money(commodities) they have. They cannot run out of wealth as long as they have workers. Something else was a foot.

If I were in charge of the USSR. I assure you, I would be ruling the world today.

I doubt it. If you were that capable you'd be in charge somewhere already.

I defend the concept(of socialism), not the actual way socialism was implemented in the Soviet Union.

At least you recognize that it was socialism now, previously in the post you said it was something else.

Nope. I've learned to follow the money trail, and all roads lead to the international bankers.

More silly platitude, simply repeated. It's like trying to blame Bolshevism on the Jews who were slaughtered wholesale in the Pograms.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Give it up damo. Your apologetics for the internationalist fascist elite are just becoming comical.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

wiseonetwocents blew jizz all over damo's face.

 

[Damocles]

wiseonetwocents blew jizz all over damo's face.

Stupid, AHZ. The reality is, if internationalist fascism is real (and both you and I think it is) I would still prefer to live in the US to the former USSR. While both seem to work towards the same goal of total one-world economic totalitarianism, our lives are better invariably than 98% of those who lived in the USSR by a long-shot.

What would you prefer? That was the question on the silly poster. I told you what I'd prefer.

Now, you can either lick off the product of your perverted imagination and move on into where totalitarianism has made life suck for almost everybody and $0.80 tickets were too expensive for the socialist workers to attend a soccer match, or you can admit it was only your own perverted imagination. Put your "money" where your mouth is...

wiseones2cents would prefer to live in enforced poverty rather than where those in "poverty" live in wealth unimaginable to those in poverty of 3rd world nations. What would you prefer for yourself and family?

 

[wiseones2cents]

Even if it says that it doesn't change what I know is fact, crews drowned while we were extremely careful to ensure ours would not. The majority of dominance they had was due to numbers and armor, not in usability. The tanks were machines created to destroy, protecting the crews was secondary at best.

Yawn. Time to start winding down this debate. It is becoming repetitive.

I proved that their technology in tanks was superior to the US(using more then one source). You stated their tanks were junk and that they only had advantage in numbers and I proved you wrong. Will you admit when you are wrong?

Seriously foolish, you probably read Pravda and supped that bathwater. There was zero reason for us to copy their tube technology, we had better planes and submarines, period. Our navy was superior in every way, as was our air power.

And you read pro American literature. I recall the info being from a reliable source. Since I cannot produce the evidence(nor have a desire to) I will leave it at that.

So I'll give you this one.

So they were superior, but weren't? You are contradicting yourself. It doesn't matter why they were superior, it simply was reality. Saying it was "because you are right and we spent more money effectively" is cool with me. At least you finally get to a point where you realize you are wrong.

They were luring scientists from socialist run countries. With worthless money backed by debt.

The Israelis use our planes, we sell them to Israel.

According to the link, they make their own too. Their spy's stole the design from the Mirage III

It is mostly because the only people even halfway capable of running the company were the inefficient managers pre-establishment of capitalism. Russia still gives out more credit than they use.

Thats ridiculous.LOL That only works in a capitalist country where you pay someone more then you can afford to pay. Why are countries like France and Greece going under?


In Russia, the valuables they dig are worth more then what they pay the workers, so they are always up. There is no way they can give out more credit then they use.

And does nothing to change what I said, shortages were common pre-perestroika, and simply got worse during perestroika when there was little to no effective private industry to take over in areas the government gave over control.

If there were, it was planned that way. Has nothing to do with socialist concept. As I explained? If it were run properly? They could supply the entire world with toilet paper. They had the trees and they had the technology and they had the workers. There is no logical explanation why they would run out of toilet paper.

Nobody said they had employee shortages. I said that the centrally managed economy was a poor way to plan the economy and because of the quotas set as well as low incentive they had constant shortages throughout the history of the USSR.

You said they had no one to give the manufacturing over to. That notion is ridiculous in itself when you have a population ready to work for the government.

Which again underlines what I stated, those who "knew" people were allowed to buy a car that had windows that were never designed to roll down and had no air conditioning, that's after they finally got to the head of a list. They were also transferred to areas like Leningrad (Sankt Petrsburg) and Moscow where they diverted items that would make it appear as if there were no shortages.

Voltswagon is state owned and it is one of the most efficient cars in the world.

Can you imagine if Karl Benz had invented the car and sold it to the Government? The automobile industry would have flourished much faster. more people would have been able to afford it. The biggest problem would be traffic.

Nobody said it doesn't exist, that's silly. I said even the poor here had it better than the rich in the USSR.

From what I understand? No one starved in Russia and no one froze or was homeless. Can America make the same claim? Obviously not.

You claim there was but have yet to provide proof.

Here is mine.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeless_people"]Homelessness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Homeless_man_los_angeles-terabass.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/Homeless_man_los_angeles-terabass.jpg/220px-Homeless_man_los_angeles-terabass.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/d/d4/Homeless_man_los_angeles-terabass.jpg/220px-Homeless_man_los_angeles-terabass.jpg[/ame]

Russia and the USSR

After the abolishment of serfdom in Russia in 1861, major cities experienced a large influx of former peasants who sought jobs as industrial workers in rapidly developing Russian industry. These people often lived in harsh conditions, sometimes renting a room, shared between several families. There also was a large number of shelterless homeless.

Immediately after the October Revolution a special program of "compression" ("уплотнение") was enabled: people who had no shelter were settled in flats of those who had large (4,5,6-livingroom) flats with only one room left to previous owners. The flat was declared state property. This led to a large number of shared flats where several families lived simultaneously. Nevertheless the problem of complete homelessness was mostly solved as anybody could apply for a room or a place in dormitory (the number of shared flats steadily decreased after large-scale residential building program was implemented starting in 1960s). By 1922 there were at least 7 million homeless children in Russia as a result of nearly a decade of devastation from World War I and the Russian Civil War.[43] This led to the creation of a large number of orphanages. By 1930s the USSR declared the abolition of homelessness and any citizen was obliged to have a propiska - a place of permanent residency. Nobody could be stripped of propiska without substitution or refuse it without a confirmed permission (called "order") to register in another place. If someone wanted to move to another city or expand their living area, he had to find a partner who wanted to mutually exchange the flats. The right for shelter was secured in the Soviet constitution. Not having permanent residency was legally considered a crime.

There were also virtually no empty and unused apartments in the cities: any flat where nobody was registered was immediately lent by the state at symbolic price to others who needed better living conditions. If a person who had permanent registration could not pay for shelter, nobody had right to evict them, only to demand money through a court.

Total rubbish, whole movies we watched while studying the language are about the incredible corruption in the centralized all-powerful totalitarian government. One thing Perestroika did was allow movies to tell the real history. You should watch some, I'll bet they even have subtitles now.

One thing I have learned for my quest for knowledge is history is slanted towards the ones who wrote it. Information is controlled by the elites.

Napoleon Bonaparte said: "History is a set of lies agreed upon."

Yes there was corruption but there is alot more to it, then what the movies tell you.

So do. Enjoy. I'll continue to be unapologetic about my belief that capitalism created a nation where "poverty" meant an average of three televisions and two cars than one where the elite were sometimes put to the head of a line to buy one of the worst-made automobiles in the world.

It also created a nation of debt and over priced items......

They get cheap TV's from Japan while the rest of the world that buys the same TV's pay threw the nose. The main reason for that is the fact that the US dollar is the main global currency, and doesn't pay a fee for exchanging their currency. Its a smoke and mirrors show.

Yet they do. Usually because they buy things directly with cash they have saved up. It is foolish in the extreme to ignore reality for platitudes you just want so badly to be true. The poor in America have it better than the "upper middle class" of a great many nations. I'd rather be poor in the US than "rich" in the USSR, thankfully that is no longer an option.

If I were in charge of a socialist country? I would assure you. EVERYONE would own a TV, DVD player and all the other luxuries of life at an affordable cost. I'd cut out all the middle men and make it affordable.

You'd rather be poor in the US then rich in the USSR????

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!Ya right!!!

The Bolsheviks weren't Jewish, the pograms should be enough for you to realize that. It's idiotic to ignore history to again just say what you want rather than what was real. And the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic was Socialist.

Oh yes they were! All their leaders were, as were the designers of communism. As were all the Oligarchs of the USSR.

Who headed the Bolsheviks??Leon Trotsky(jew)

I'll repeat, the luxury in the USSR was either gotten through the black market (capitalism) or sucked ass. I'd rather have what we have here than be forced into what they had in the USSR, apologetically, and wholly.

The elite Oligarchs and their backers(European bankers) have more money then American elites could possibly dream of(Derived by real wealth, not worthless paper money).

Again you give silly platitudes. The reality is what capitalism created, socialism is now working to take apart. As we become more socialistic we continue to drive down everybody to give "economic justice" to others. Socialism consistently makes everybody's lives suck, capitalism historically raised everybody's standard of living, even the poor.

What you have today is far from Capitalism, and its not Socialism that is taking over, it is worse then fascism. Corporate elites run the country and government, and not for the benefit of the people, but for the benefit of the rich.

You "notice"? Please, abundance as well as cheap access to food that you call "unhealthy" are both the cause of obesity. Restaurants serve plates that are two to three times the size of plates in other nations (yeah, I've been there and know this is true). Bigger and better and more... It's what causes our obesity issue, not just bad food.

Cheap food? I don't know where you buy your food but food is far from cheap. Inflation has made sure of that.

Ya they also cost 10 to 20 X more then what they would charge you in other nations. lol You know how much food you can get at a restaurant for $50 in a foreign nation?

What that is, is inflation. That is the FED using "controlled inflation" and an entirely different discussion.

Nope. Its part of your capitalist system. A centralized source of credit is what is behind the success and demise of the American empire. And that credit is payed through cash and inflation. Double wammy.

In this thread you ignore reality and pretend that people in the USSR somehow had it "better" when everything I stated originally is true. The lines, the shortages, the "fake" medication due to "quotas" and disincentivized "employees" and poor management.

The USSR was prosperous at the beginning. You speak of the end.

Fake medication?lol That's what capitalists do. They'll do anything to increase their profits. The Oligarchs are already super rich(they would run out of things to spend money on). Why would they have to defraud the people? Unless there is a hidden agenda. Something bigger going on behind the scenes.

True, but I will still take the system that created the greatest wealth for the poorest of people over one that created the poorest "rich" people in the world.

The other countries are poor because they are being milked of their resources for next to nothing by wealthy Countries like USA, Britain, Germany, France, ect...

The elites put puppet leaders in charge of them, to keep them in check and happy little slave workers.

I'd go to the grocery store.

And of course you miss the point entirely.

Dealing in volume is always cheaper. Socialism deals in volume.

That's why companies like Home Depot are able to give such low prices.

Even Walmart. Aside from their cheap wares made in China? They'll approach any retailer and basically buy out their entire inventory. And get it cheaper because they have a large enough consumer base and are buying quantity.

Yet they didn't, mostly because it was poorly run and workers had no incentive. Shortages were a constant throughout the USSR's existence, they simply got worse during perestroika.

No incentive? How about making money?lol More money goes a long way in any country.

I doubt it. If you were that capable you'd be in charge somewhere already.

I'm not in charge because society is not made for people like me to get in charge. Only the puppets of the elites are put in charge.

At least you recognize that it was socialism now, previously in the post you said it was something else.

Socialism is about the people controlling the economy and government. Communism evolved into a dictatorship. The Oligarchs.

It was geared for war profiteering.

More silly platitude, simply repeated. It's like trying to blame Bolshevism on the Jews who were slaughtered wholesale in the Pograms.

Your in denial.LOL

Nice try.The pograms happened before the rise of the USSR.

And it may be those pograms that led to the rise of the Bolsheviks power.

The atheist jews responded by persecuting Christianity and implementing atheism.

Anyone in Russia will tell you who the heads are. They are Jewish. As was Marx as was Trotsky. As are the origins of the Cheka who are now KGB.

Regardless,Jews fighting Jews is nothing new under the sun.

Let it be said that not all Jews are religious. Many are aethiests.
These obviously do not see eye to eye.

 

[wiseones2cents]

Stupid, AHZ. The reality is, if internationalist fascism is real (and both you and I think it is) I would still prefer to live in the US to the former USSR. While both seem to work towards the same goal of total one-world economic totalitarianism, our lives are better invariably than 98% of those who lived in the USSR by a long-shot.

What would you prefer? That was the question on the silly poster. I told you what I'd prefer.

Now, you can either lick off the product of your perverted imagination and move on into where totalitarianism has made life suck for almost everybody and $0.80 tickets were too expensive for the socialist workers to attend a soccer match, or you can admit it was only your own perverted imagination. Put your "money" where your mouth is...

wiseones2cents would prefer to live in enforced poverty rather than where those in "poverty" live in wealth unimaginable to those in poverty of 3rd world nations. What would you prefer for yourself and family?

Its funny how you equate totalitarian and socialism(Either innocently or deceivingly).

If I recall? Social entertainment was free for all. Including sporting events. As was public transportation, movie theaters, ect....

Enforced poverty????What a drama queen!!LOL Communism is forced upon socialism by elitists. Socialism is everyone working together for the benefit of everyone. Not for the benefit of the elites as was the case in communism.

Socialism is run similar to an Amish or Mennonite community. Do you see any poverty within its walls? Absolutely not.

Go read a book and learn the difference between socialism(which principles were first written by a French and English man) and Communism which was devised by Marx.

 

[Damocles]

Its funny how you equate totalitarian and socialism(Either innocently or deceivingly).

If I recall? Social entertainment was free for all. Including sporting events. As was public transportation, movie theaters, ect....

Enforced poverty????What a drama queen!!LOL Communism is forced upon socialism by elitists. Socialism is everyone working together for the benefit of everyone. Not for the benefit of the elites as was the case in communism.

Socialism is run similar to an Amish or Mennonite community. Do you see any poverty within its walls? Absolutely not.

Go read a book and learn the difference between socialism(which principles were first written by a French and English man) and Communism which was devised by Marx.

I don't equate them, it is what flows from them. Whether you watch Cuba, China, or the USSR, the more completely socialist they are, the more totalitarian they are.

IMO, this is from the total inability of that type of government to establish itself within human nature. Life exists to compete, it is what evolution is all about, how it actually happens.

It is a theory of mine that totalitarian governments almost always exist when the attempt is to take away that natural urge toward competition. Let's say your government wants everybody to make ordinance and to sell it regardless of cost to the government at a certain price. You may own the company, but the competition is lost. You can drive them for a bit on nationalism, but even that loses its shine after a bit and all you have left is useless patina...

And again, if you were effective enough to turn around the USSR and make sure "everybody had a TV" you would already be in charge somewhere. You are all bluff and bluster with a bit of rewritten history thrown in. It really doesn't matter all that much to me. I would choose to live where my kids can have a better life all the time, every time, and without reservation or apology. You would choose differently, where people had "economic justice" which is just a sad euphemism for chaining the best down so that they can do no better than the weakest... This just makes sure life sucks equally for everybody but those in charge.

 

[wiseones2cents]

I don't equate them, it is what flows from them. Whether you watch Cuba, China, or the USSR, the more completely socialist they are, the more totalitarian they are.

IMO, this is from the total inability of that type of government to establish itself within human nature. Life exists to compete, it is what evolution is all about, how it actually happens.

It is a theory of mine that totalitarian governments almost always exist when the attempt is to take away that natural urge toward competition. Let's say your government wants everybody to make ordinance and to sell it regardless of cost to the government at a certain price. You may own the company, but the competition is lost. You can drive them for a bit on nationalism, but even that loses its shine after a bit and all you have left is useless patina...

And again, if you were effective enough to turn around the USSR and make sure "everybody had a TV" you would already be in charge somewhere. You are all bluff and bluster with a bit of rewritten history thrown in. It really doesn't matter all that much to me. I would choose to live where my kids can have a better life all the time, every time, and without reservation or apology. You would choose differently, where people had "economic justice" which is just a sad euphemism for chaining the best down so that they can do no better than the weakest... This just makes sure life sucks equally for everybody but those in charge.

Then you do not know the true meaning of socialism. You only know what you were taught by your slanted American propaganda. Socialism is about giving more power to the people, its about equality, its about TRUE liberty.

What capitalism is flowing into is communism/fascism. Where the elites are devouring their competition with aggressive takeovers. Getting government handouts and growing well beyond any competition and cornering markets.

All these are illegal in a capitalist system, but as long as the capitalist can buy people in government to change laws? They can get away with anything.

Socialist became Communists because they had to fight off the capitalists.

When the socialist founders first devised the concept of (modern)socialism(well before Marx and communism).They thought that the idea was so good that everyone would turn to socialism. What they failed to understand is that the capitalists wouldn't let go of their wealth without a fight, and were even willing to kill the competition.

This is why the socialists evolved into communism.

Yes, PRIMITIVE human nature is to compete. It is also to kill, fornicate, steal, lie, ect.... Should we start catering to these also? Capitalism caters to greed and selfishness. The ugliest of all these......

Competition leads to all those things. Theft, murder,ect....

Evolution is all about adapting to our environment. The leaders should set the stage, for a socially friendly environment, and instead they turn it into a dog eat dog world. Man may be evolving, technologically, but over all they become less and less civilized.

its not about competition(and profit). It should be about needs. Supply and demand. In a capitalist economy, if they make above their quota, rather then give it cheaper? They trash it to keep the value of their product. They can(and do) manipulate supply and thus charge more if there is enough demand, increasing profits.

As far as me doing a better job?I'd do a better job here. How do I get elected to prove myself? They wont elect you unless you are part of the elites. They will give you the media exposure, the support(Financial and body wise), and the influence/power to make change. If you are not an elite, they will scheme against you. They will have their people try to discredit you. Dig up dirt on you, or even make things up. They own the medias and they have alot of power. they can cause your death to look like an accident or even an illness. You underestimate the resources and influence of the wealthy.

 

[wiseones2cents]

I''d like to add...

Which is more productive?

Scientists and people keeping breakthroughs to themselves(for profit) or sharing their discoveries with others scientific communities to build/improve upon(socialist concept)?

I remember some Canadian doctor invented some cure(I think for diabetes). He could have patented it and made a killing but he chose to make it available to all for free! And that is how it should be. What was his incentive? Having a good heart!

The only way a FULLY socialist country could get into debt is VERY poor leadership or war(that is if they dont make enough spoils to compensate the losses). There is no other way.