I am not very sure. I know of Mao Ze Deng, everyone has! Don't forget one that is still alive: Fidel Castro.
Yeah, well I can't believe Castro is still alive though. CIA almost assassinated him, but a waiter screwed up and was dumb enough to put L-pills ( lethal pill ) in the freezer without a container and expected to be able to pry it out and NOT break.
Back on topic: Socialism is proven to be good for the economy, for a few years. But then it leads to Communism and is therefore bad.
Well Socialism is awesome if there is no leeches like I mentioned before, and like I said easy to take advantage of.
A couple of minor details, so much effort has been focused on the few who will game the system and act as if it only happend in socialist environments. I think those of you who feel that way need to look at the financial crisis on 2008 and the many mini crisis that preceeded it. All people trying to game the system, look at the Ponzi schemes...again private capital people gaming the "capitalistic" markets at all levels. Gaming the system occurs in private industry in addition to government. That is the fact of the matter, and no matter what kind of system you develop, you are always going to find people gaming whatever system is in place. So to say or think that gaming the system occurs just in socialistic systems is just wrong. Any system you choose to use should be constructed to minimize gaming, be that a "capitalistic market" or a socialist setup. In the 90's a Republican Congress and a Democrat president revised welfare laws in this country to minimize gaming. And I think they did a pretty good job...gone are the days when you could spend an eternity on welfare without any good excuse.
It is a system easy to take advantage and take control of that's how. The USSR was VERY socialist don't you think? ( sarcasm )
Were the New Deal programs pushed in the 30's not socialist? Were the Great Society programs in the 60's not socialist? Did the transfers to a socialist economic system in Western Europe in the post World War II era lead to Communism in those countries?
History & political science major, dude. I have read more than you'll ever dream and I actually understand it. Hitler was far left. Whether socialist, fascist, or communist doesn't matter. He was the leader of Nazi Germany which was fascist/marxist, and I don't give a damn what he said about it. It's how he governed that matters more than what he said. So no the similarity doesn't end there!
This is all just my opinion but that's the whole point: "right now". As in yes, it's totally f*cked up right now. That is our fault. All of us. We should have demanded more medical schools be opened and more placements in those that are open. Hell, try finding an MD that speaks English as a first language and isn't Canadian. Ever wonder WHY overseas MDs migrate to practice in the USA? Because of the big money made here. I know 2 MDs whose mother sent them to Poland to do Med School and now they both make huge money in the USA. I know MDs who only cater to the rich doing personalized medicine and house calls - even they say the whole system is f*cked up and they're making loads of cash. The market so skewed and that is why its unaffordable. The market is screaming for more medical schools and placements. I'm happy to use tax money to pay for medical schools and to increase placements. Yes, for now, we'll probably have to use even more f*cking tax to take care of baby boomers who didn't plan for their future... bastards. IMO all of the banking bonuses of 2008-9 could be taxed for that purpose. In short, the reason medical care is not affordable is because the market has been skewed for 30 years. I once read there are 10x LESS MDs per population than 30 years ago. If we increase the number of MDs/DOs they'll drop prices as they have to complete, just like everyone else. Until the price and demand balances out. Look at Michigan. The entire State has 3 medical schools. UofM, Michigan State and Wayne State. The City of Sydney has more medical schools. Australia has about double the population of Michigan and yet as over 20 medical schools. They're still opening more schools to meet demand and those that are open take more Ss then in MI. So really it's more like have 40 to 6 if you do a one to one comparison. Starting to see WHY treatment in the USA costs so much. Well, you can thank the AMA who diligently worked hard to see that the number of MDs is severely restricted so that their members can keep artificially high pricing fees. Which, is, also, all, our, fault!
You cannot have a living body without food, water or air either. But that does not mean that food, water and air are not seperate from the body. Politics is not about how we should be, it is about how collective decisions are made. Now how you get me saying that politics is about who should govern, is again beyond me. The logic does not flow. I think you are reading a lot of stuff into this in order to try and defend your notions..in this case making stuff up. Explain how you think the new healthcare law results in equal outcome. I am anxiously awaiting how you get there with the healthcare law. The new healthcare law does not guarentee equal outcomes. It does require that all people take responsibility for their healthcare costs and acquire an appropriate level on healthcare insurance so that they will not be a burden to their neighbors. Now how you get equal outcome out of that, is beyond me. And you really don't know anyting about my world. And this is not about reflecting on you or me, but the discussion of an important topic. So there is no need to make this personal. If you want a mulligan you can have one. But there is not reason to think it will help you position. You are going of on a tangent again. The discussion was not about the infallability of man. Men are very fallable and do discriminate and make judgements every day. But that is not the issue, and not relevant to the discussion. This something you are pulling out of the aether...it makes absoutely no sense. Show the proof if you think it is false. But you cannot because it is not false. And you didn't even attempt to prove otherwise. I think that shows the weakness of your claim. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I understand very well what I wrote. The question is do you? Fascists purged their party too. As for Joe Lieberman, he lost an election in the state he represents. The Democrats did not throw him out of the party. Lieberman chose to leave the Democratic party because he lost a primary election. That is far different from being thown out of the party as you claimed. Lieberman could have remained a Democrat if he chose too and there is nothing prohibiting him from rejoining the party if he had a notion to do so. So you are either not knowlegable of the facts related to Lieberman or you are lying/misrepresenting the issue...neither of which helps your credibility. The Republican Party at one time was more tolerant of others...but not any more. It is become more and more of an extermist and intolerant party with each passing day. This again makes no sense whatsoever. First there is no chairman Barackth. And if you have examples, now is the time to present them. This appears to be nothing more than ad hominem aimed at The President of the United States. If you have a claim, a rational thought backed up with evidence, it would be nice. LOL, well that is one way of avoiding discussions that challenge your notions. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I made no such admission that fascism was not right wing. I think you might have been dreaming on that one. Reread my comment and show me where in that you get that I said fascism was not right wing. Intolerance can dictatorships can be found at both ends of the political spectrum. "Again, do you have any examples or proofs that back up your claims? Who ever said racisim exists only on the right? I only hear right wingers make this claim and see no proof of a widespread belief that racism only occurs on the right wing of the political spectrum. What is clear is that the left (in the US) is generally open to more ideas and more freedom of thought than is the right...wittness the current effort to purge the Republican Party of those who are not in line with conservatism as preached by limbaugh, hannity, levin, beck. Do the terms RINO and dittohead ring any bells? The singularity of thought and intollerance of dissident thought we see on the right wing of American politics today is very similar to that exercised by the fascists and that is what is so scary about the modern American right wing movement. When george II was taking away American civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism, the American right was right there with him readily and gladly surrendering their rights. It was the the lefties decrying the act as unwarranted and unconsititutional and defending civil liberties and the Consititution." If you want a discussion on fascism, dictators come in all flavors both left and right. Neither end of the poltical spectrum has monopoly on dictatorships. But dictatorships either from the left or rigiht share some common features, like the intolerance of dissidents and ideas which differ from those of the leadership...things we are now seeing in the Republican/conservative movement with in the US. Bottom line here is that I asked you to back up you claims with evidence or rational thought. And you have failed to back up even one of the many claims you made. If you want to further your arguement, you will need more than just opinion...this is not Fox News. You will need facts and the construction of rational arguements. I again call upon you to present a fact backed case with logical arguements to back up your many claims.
You are right on the mark Michael. And then there is the issue of big pharma in the United States. We in the United States pay multiples of what other countries pay for the same drugs. And we as citizens are not permitted to buy our prescription drugs from other countries like Canada where they can be purchased much cheaper.
Hitler was fascist, and fascist is far right. You can tell, if you actually are that comically confused on this matter, by looking at the role of private corporations vs state ownership - if Shindler's List had been set in a far left tyranny, Schindler would have been a government official, not the owner of an incorporated private arms manufacturing company. Private ownership of the means of production is rightwing, collective ownership is leftwing. It's a basic distinction. It's the central and fundamental difference between right and left in political discourse. It's important to be able to distinguish them, because if you see tyranny approaching and you have no vocabulary or analytical ability capable of making that distinction, you cannot effectively combat it in the face of its propaganda. If you are being threatened by fascism and you think it's lefty, for example, you will tend to oppose it by taking power away from communities and giving it to corporations - exactly the wrong thing to do, and likely to end badly. There is no such market as you imagine. There are a few market possibilities within the medical care umbrella - drug manufacturing, at least of generics, might be one of them - but the idea that an artificial shortage of doctors is some kind of major driver of US medical care costs is pretty unlikely - many European countries deliver better care at half the price with fewer, not more, doctors per capita; the most expensive medical care in the US is where there are the most doctors, not the fewest; and so forth.
No Joe, politics is about HOW we should be governed and there are only two ways: we are either self-governed or someone else governs us. After that than there are variations of either including some formidable mixture. Reread the statement above that I quoted you as saying, and then tell how I cannot come to this conclusion. Further evidence points to your being upset over things that repubs do, but when dems do it; it’s no problem according to you. Additionally not only is it no problem for you, but you will defend it when a leftist does it. Really Joe, I mean really. You cannot see it? If not, then we have nothing to discuss about the issue of leftist ideas on equal outcome compared to equal opportunity and equality under the law. And don't go there Joe, I already understand in a capitalist system why one stays poor, and it’s not the fault of the rich. Sorry, you have played that marxist card too long. In sheer results of an individual’s healthcare outcome, you are correct. The fact that everyone pays for the healthcare of the so called under classed it is equal outcome at the expense of the rich. Which of course will drive down the rich to the point that there is no rich, then what will you do, Joe? I know your mind, Joe. I am sure that frightens you, but I think a whole lot of other people know it as well. You reveal it every time you speak, in fact we all do. That is why I can confidently say that your inability to see the things I listed as issues of equal outcome is more of a reflection on you, than I. And if disagreeing with you and your ideas is an example of a personal attack, and then therein lies the problem of SciForums. Joe, if you are not sure of what you are reading don't comment on it. I was giving you the mulligan not me. Again, if you are not sure of what you are reading you have two options: first, you ask for clarification, second, you can simply not make a fool of yourself and not comment. So I will help you with the first option. My response of man being infallible was in response to you saying that I had no proof of man being discriminatory by nature. Groupthink by nature is close-minded. Democrats, marxists, communists, socialists, fascists all are by nature one big giant groupthink. Additionally, the allowance of every type of sinister behavior does not mean you are open to ideas and freedom of thought. Sorry Joe, you cannot win on this. I know you, tiassa, michael, pjdud, superstring, iceaura, spidergoat all disagree with this, but that doesn't make true. Really, again, really Joe, Lieberman lost his primary and then came back and ran as an independent and defeated the democrats favored boy. Really Joe, seriously, do you really want me to take you seriously. This is the kind of statement that makes it hard to take you seriously. The greater question is am I actually dumbing myself down to continue to even respond to you? I think the answer is yes, I am, but I love the argument. So I continue on. And of course you, Joe, have all kind of gravitas. Really Joe! I got a question for you. Why is it okay for you to use odd terms and phrases for presidents you don't like, but not okay for me? HMMMMMM, another truism therein lies the problems with SciForums. The subjective bannings of those who use different words and name to discuss the president they don't like, but yet is allowable by the favorites of the mods and their like minded "thinkers". At the very least, the warnings and threatening infractions. Look around you Joe, people are running from the president every day. And the cries of impending dictatorship are far worse than Bush. Stupak being the rat he is, announced he is quitting last week. Elective representatives are being threatened with political fallout because they refuse to side with Obama. Yes, I know on some level this occurs with anyone in office. But it usually is over some frivolous thing, not something that will fundamentally change our country. Oh that phrase is very familiar...who said that about five days before he was elected president? No Joe, the premise is wrong. My notions are backed by several real scholars on the matter. Socialism and capitalism cannot coexist. By their very definitions, let alone the actual practice of them, they cannot coexist. So no Joe, not avoiding a discussion, especially one that doesn't challenge anything, simply not arguing with on it, because the premise is WRONG. What is more hilarious is that you actually think you challenge me. Joe people are laughing at you, they just don't admit it. If they laugh at me, I could care less. It bothers me not one wit that a marxist would laugh at me. Not one wit, not one cell in my body is affected by it. On fact, I think it funny myself. First joe, there is no spectrum. The spectrum exists in the minds of lefties so that they can blur the meanings of political thoughts and parties. I know, joe, it makes all you lefties think you are specially gifted when it comes to politics because you have come up with this brilliant thing. And, of course, it has a double effect of making those who speak in lines seem so old fashion and unintelligent. But again joe, you are wrong. Second, politics cannot be measured in spectrum and can be measured in linear thinking. You see joe; we go from one end to the other. Standing on the left end of the line is totalitarianism, dictatorship, whatever you want to call such a rule. And then on the other end of the line is freedom on the far right. Hence why dictators and the like cannot exist on the far right. I am a righty not because of conservative, republican, or even libertarian ideas. I am a far right because of individual freedom. In fact joe, while I agree with many things of the aforementioned ideas, at times they are too far left for me. No joe, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot present things without facts or in many cases without even worthy intellectual thought and call on the opposition to present facts. It just doesn't work that way, I know it does in certain cases and with certain people and group thinkers here at Sciforums, but not in the real world. In fact joe, usually the person calling out for facts, does so because they know that what they have heard is truthful. However, while it may be truthful it exist beneath the surface, therefore it is hard to prove. One can only know it through logical thinking and intuition guided by their experience and understanding of a thing. So joe, instead of asking me to prove it, why don't you actually disprove it?
Vladimir Lenin, who is considered the Father of Socialism even described it as "the transition between Capitalism and Communism". Let's go back to the days of the Russian Revolution. Lenin was a Russian living in Germany around WWI. He was a follower of the ideas of Karl Marx. Lenin was sent by the Germans to Russia to spread the news of Socialism. He did, and the workers and laborers loved it. So much so, that they started a Civil War. There were two factions the Socialist Bolsheviks(Reds) and the traditional Monarchy loving Nationalists(Whites). The Reds eventually won the war, and Socailism spread through Russia. Then I believe Stalin was elected, at first, but don't take my wor 100% on that. But as years dragged on he was "Unanomously Re-Elected". Plain and simple he'd taken over and made Russia into the USSR, which as we all know was Communist. Now like I said Socialism can work, however can be easily manipulated and turn into a Communist system. If there's anything iv'e learned, it's that history repeats itself.
Dude get over yourself, fascism is not a far right ideology. Therefore unfortunately for you I am not comically confused, instead you are tragically confused. You are right, but not by what you think. Private property corporations are not truly private in dictatorship as they reflect more of a feudal (not completely) type of arrangement. Where yea you can have as long as you are subservient to the tyrant. Once you are no longer subservient then you no longer have. But nice try though, I can see why you would be confused. Afterall, you have been taught all your life that everything hinges on buzzwords and not real thinking. True enough and again it is where you get tragically confused, insert buzzword (private ownership being rightwing) by fascist and presto you have it being a far right wing ideology. Also very true, so start brushing up on your vocabulary and analytical ability and maybe we all have a shot at defeating any impending dictatorship. This is exactly why you had better get started on brushing up your vocabulary and analytical abilities. You have it all wrong.
