Outlaw Yogi wrote: ↑Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:15 pmWhat a load of shit!brian ross wrote: ↑Mon Aug 27, 2018 5:29 pmSocialism, proper socialism, not Communism is how most of the Western World functions.
Marxists are as predictable as they are onerous, defending the indefensible.IQS.RLOW wrote: Cue the lefty apologists insisting their shirt colour cant be brown because the label says "butternut-cocoa"
Oh, dear. What a shame.Outlaw Yogi wrote: ↑Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:15 pmWhat a load of shit!brian ross wrote: ↑Mon Aug 27, 2018 5:29 pmSocialism, proper socialism, not Communism is how most of the Western World functions.
Considering they are different species of fruit and of course, taste rather different, I fail to see how your simile applies here, except in agreement with my viewpoint.The difference between communism and socialism is like the difference between an orange and a mandarin.
What people call themselves and what they are, are often two different things. The fUSSR was a Communist, State Capitalist society. It was only broadly socialist, just as all Communist societies are. It still relied on the use of money and monetary values. It's citizens still paid tax. While ownership was vested in the State each individual corporate organisation acted in their own interest, as well as according to State directives.Remember USSR/CCCP ? ... Russia and its colonies were communist, but they called themselves "socialist".
And you have problem with that, because?Call it what you like and paint it any colour you prefer, but it's still Marxist collectivism.
Marxist regimes are not what we are discussing here. We are discussing socialist countries, as far as I can tell. the reason why, BTW, Marxist regimes don't like scrutiny is 'cause too much power is vested in the individuals who control the State owned enterprises. If their actions are scrutinised, it means their individual enterprise is scrutinised. As far as I can tell a similar situation exists in most non-Marxist regimes as well. Just look at our own Government(s) to see that at work. They resist the setting up of Royal Commissions as much as possible. I wonder why?And the reason Marxist regimes can't tolerate scrutiny or criticism is for the same reason monarchies couldn't tolerate scrutiny or criticism,
And what excuse do Western, Capitalist societies have for resisting scrutiny? Mmmm?because they're both elitist totalitarianism.
No, not quite. There are other ways. If you look at the history of the fUSSR or the PRC, you will see, once the cult of the personality was ended, things were much, much better for the rank and file. Vesting too much power in one individual (or a small group) is a bad idea in any system, be it capitalism, plutocracy, theocracy or Communist.At least in a plutocracy the bottom dwellers have a chance to succeed without criminality ... a slim one, but a chance all the same.
The only way to succeed in a Marxist regime is to be corrupt.
Socialism doesn't build anything and certainly not economies. Didn't you receive the memo from Venezuela?Marxists are as predictable as they are onerous, defending the indefensible.IQS.RLOW wrote: Cue the lefty apologists insisting their shirt colour cant be brown because the label says "butternut-cocoa"
No mutton head they're both citrus and taste pretty much the same. I should know, I currently pick citrus for a living.brian ross wrote: ↑Fri Aug 31, 2018 3:58 pmConsidering they are different species of fruit and of course, taste rather different, I fail to see how your simile applies here, except in agreement with my viewpoint.Outlaw Yogi wrote: ↑Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:15 pm
The difference between communism and socialism is like the difference between an orange and a mandarin.
You resort to boring repetition...Boring. Utterly, totally boring. Unable to debate a topic you resort to bully boy tactics. Tut, tut.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 85 guests
