Obamacare Upheld, Roberts Joins the Left

[RedStar]

RedStar



Pure socialism might be defined that way, but pure socialism has never existed. Socialism as defined in the real world is the pooling of resources by all to accomplish goals of benefit to all. Again, you are an ideolog and see these things through black or white lenses.

*Sigh* you're one of those, aren't you? That like to talk about -isms and "pure" this and "pure" that. I like to talk about the real world, the material world.

If the workers don't own the means of production, they are alienated from the means of production and remain wage laborers under the leverage and control of the owner. Therefore you are not addressing the fundamental point of socialism: the elimination of exclusive ownership of the means of production.

[joepistole]

Just look at Cuba recently:
http://www.popsci.com/science/articl...cancer-vaccine

Cuban primary care is also enviable



This was accomplished despite a difficult economy caused by US embargoes and isolation, and away from your precious profit motive.

Soviet innovations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin...A0Soviet_Union

Peoples' Republic of China:

anti-malarial drug
first cloned fish
rice heterosis (increased rice production)

And that's what I could find in a quick google search

First fish have not yet been fully cloned. They have been semi cloned, and that didn’t happen in The Peoples’ Republic of China. Artemisinin (Malaria drug) was a Chinese traditional medicine cure for Malaria.

Now compare the developments under the communist system with those under the capitalist system with those in capitalist systems over a similar time period.

[RedStar]

First fish have not yet been fully cloned. They have been semi cloned, and that didn’t happen in The Peoples’ Republic of China. Artemisinin (Malaria drug) was a Chinese traditional medicine cure for Malaria.

Now compare the developments under the communist system with those under the capitalist system with those in capitalist systems over a similar time period.

Very similar. And you know what? At least developments in socialist countries were done for the people and not greed.

So, it can be done.

[joepistole]

Very similar. And you know what? At least developments in socialist countries were done for the people and not greed.
So, it can be done.

No not so similar, all you were able to do is list a few medical accomplishments which can be counted on one hand and still have unused fingers remaining. Again, I ask you to contrast those few achievements with the medical achievements in the noncommunist economies over the same period of time.

[Grumpy]

RedStar

*Sigh* you're one of those, aren't you? That like to talk about -isms and "pure" this and "pure" that. I like to talk about the real world, the material world.

Thanks, I needed a good laugh. I've never met anyone who dealt less with the real world or who was more tightly wrapped with pure isms. You keep beating that dead horse long after the rest of us have walked away, continually claiming it is still the best horse if we could just get it back on it's feet again. Truly delusional.

If the workers don't own the means of production, they are alienated from the means of production and remain wage laborers under the leverage and control of the owner. Therefore you are not addressing the fundamental point of socialism: the elimination of exclusive ownership of the means of production.

Wage labor is the only condition most humans will ever have, whether it is a capitalist owner or a state manager makes absolutely no difference to that condition. Ownership is irrelevant if it simply isn't you doing the owning. But purer socialism leads to apathy, disincentive and the "We pretend to work, they pretend to pay us" lowest common denominator where a capitalist system(within reason, that is)at least allows for profit for better job performance and the possibility of entrepreneurship with the ability to improve your position through your own effort and the incentive to do so. When all are payed equally no matter how well they do their job, all will be equally miserable, equally slovenly, equally apathetic, the product being of the quality of the Trablant(IE a pile of poo with wheels). And this from a guy that drives a Pinto...



Grumpy

[RedStar]

We can, and socialist countries do, indeed implement incentives for harder workers. There's nothing wrong with inequal compensation as long as nobody accumulates capital and owns the means of production.

Grumpy, then, we may as well have stayed with feudalism. Also, I am indeed focusing on the material accomplishments of socialism throughout the world. Where have you been?

[spidergoat]

...When all are payed equally no matter how well they do their job, all will be equally miserable, equally slovenly, equally apathetic, the product being of the quality of the Trablant(IE a pile of poo with wheels). And this from a guy that drives a Pinto...

[/IMG]

Grumpy

Hey, I've known people with a strong emotional attachment to their Trabant! I don't think build quality was the issue, rather the design was poor (but economical and good in the snow).

[madanthonywayne]

.
If the workers don't own the means of production, they are alienated from the means of production and remain wage laborers under the leverage and control of the owner. Therefore you are not addressing the fundamental point of socialism: the elimination of exclusive ownership of the means of production.

You want to own a part of the means of production in a capitalist society? Buy stock in the company. Alienation eliminated.