Hypocrisy of Socialism

[mangler jr]

I don't really want to talk about any of that, I'm quite happy to stick to the original point that Nazism and Socialism are distinct concepts and there is no reason to equate the two as seems to be the common occurrence in America.

There is no major difference. Both are top down dictatorships where the state runs your life from cradle to grave.

They are both brutal. Their methods might be different, but the end result is the same.

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

So you admit that I'm right comrade, that the majority of the TV stations are privately owned in Venezuela? Admit that so you can stop stating in post after post.

The govt has VTV, which is basically state owned and runs pro chavez propaganda 24 hours a day.

The rest WERE privately owned but what use are they if Chavez keeps threatening them and forcing them to only run what he wants? LOL

The only one standing up for itself is the same one that is on the verge of being shut down.

Now answer my question and stop avoiding it.

[Mozza]

There is no major difference. Both are top down dictatorships where the state runs your life from cradle to grave.

They are both brutal. Their methods might be different, but the end result is the same.

That is utterly ridiculous. You obviously know very little about the philosophies.

[mangler jr]

That is utterly ridiculous. You obviously know very little about the philosophies.

No its not.

Nazi's kept people in labor camps, used them up and gassed them.

Soviets, kept people in labor camps, used them up and either froze them out in gulags or starved them to death.

Chinese under Mao (U.S puppet) kept people in labor camps, used them up and either executed them, or starved them to death.

Whats the difference again?

Be more specific mate.

[ИATAS]

There is no major difference. Both are top down dictatorships where the state runs your life from cradle to grave.

They are both brutal. Their methods might be different, but the end result is the same.

socialism is supposed to be a dictatorship of the proletariat, so by definition it cannot be the same.

Again, I think there is confusion in comparing say Stalinism to Socialism. Stalinism (and Stalinist regimes) are brutal dictatorships, but do not fall into the definition of true socialism (dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e working class democracy).

[ИATAS]

No its not.

Nazi's kept people in labor camps, used them up and gassed them.

Soviets, kept people in labor camps, used them up and either froze them out in gulags or starved them to death.

Chinese under Mao (U.S puppet) kept people in labor camps, used them up and either executed them, or starved them to death.

Whats the difference again?

Be more specific mate.

See my above post. You're lumping socialism, stalinism (USSR) and China (also modeled from Stalinism) as one in the same.

[mangler jr]

socialism is supposed to be a dictatorship of the proletariat, so by definition it cannot be the same.

Again, I think there is confusion in comparing say Stalinism to Socialism. Stalinism (and Stalinist regimes) are brutal dictatorships, but do not fall into the definition of true socialism (dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e working class democracy).

True socialism doesn't exist. I'm going by whats actually taking place.

I argue with Vet about the same thing. He says: "this isn't really capitalism" and I'm like yeah, but "real capitalism" in the utopian way its talked about and supposedly intended has never occurred, nor will it.

To this end, having these discussions is a waste of time because we're talking about theoretical systems that have never existed.

[Mozza]

No its not.

Nazi's kept people in labor camps, used them up and gassed them.

Soviets, kept people in labor camps, used them up and either froze them out in gulags or starved them to death.

Chinese under Mao (U.S puppet) kept people in labor camps, used them up and either executed them, or starved them to death.

Whats the difference again?

Be more specific mate.

I've already covered it; economic policies are completely independent of state behaviour. There is no inherent charcteristic of socialism which encourages the massacre of people. Your rather childish argument seems to go along the lines of: "America waged an illegal war against Iraq therefore capitalism does not work." It's a bizarre logic.

[Jim Jeffries]

Stay alive, my son By Pin Yathay

A great book about the horrors of Cambodia under communism.

And a good read for anyone ******ed enough to think that communism ever was, or ever will be, a good thing.

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

True socialism doesn't exist. I'm going by whats actually taking place.

I argue with Vet about the same thing. He says: "this isn't really capitalism" and I'm like yeah, but "real capitalism" in the utopian way its talked about and supposedly intended has never occurred, nor will it.

To this end, having these discussions is a waste of time because we're talking about theoretical systems that have never existed.

BINGO!!! My point of the whole thread.

I will say it again, I'm not opposed to socialism entirely, the point is the people in the world promoting it, seem to be the worst people to use as an example.

It never works because humans are inherently evil. It always turns into something that was never intended in the first place.

Given the choice, I will live in here in the U.S.