• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Does anyone feel like this is normal or acceptable?

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
When I ask for positive examples of it, I hear nought but
tap dancing to evade the question.

Well, I'm not sure what you actually "hear," but I do recall many discussions where I've addressed this particular point at length.

The Soviet Union was clearly more powerful and a more functional country than its capitalist/tsarist predecessor. This is a fact that can't be denied.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The Soviet Union was clearly more powerful and a more functional country than its capitalist/tsarist predecessor. This is a fact that can't be denied.
This statement of (debatable) fact still doesn't address the issue.
But if accepted, capitalism still beats socialism which beats czarism.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
This statement of (debatable) fact still doesn't address the issue.
But if accepted, capitalism still beats socialism which beats czarism.

Actually it does address the issue. You asked for positive examples. An example where socialism clearly had a positive effect over what they had before would fulfill that request.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Then do you offer the USSR as a positive example of
socialism, ie, desirable economic system & society
relative to the best examples of capitalism?

I would say that they are an example of a socialist government which improved the conditions from what they had before. That's a positive, but I never said anything about it being "relative to the best examples of capitalism."

Under Tsarist capitalism, Russia was a backward, agrarian, and isolated state. Socialism made them into a superpower.

In some ways, they grew even more powerful than America, with more tanks, more planes, more missiles. They were no longer backward; they reached technological and industrial parity with the West.

It may not have been consumer-driven or as focused on luxury as the West, but it was certainly a functional system. It wasn't perfect, and in later years, I think they genuinely tried to improve some of the flaws. Gorbachev was more reform-minded.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
They seem like a society of lawyers....the nasty
kind of race I might wipe out with a thought.

Yeah, but aren't lawyers capitalists, too? That is, capitalists really seem big on contracts - especially unnecessarily long contracts with a lot of legalese and fine print and where one actually needs a lawyer to decipher it before signing.

The big corporations can hire the best attorneys money can buy, with the kind of talented fiendishness to be able to game the system and our "nation of laws."
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Yeah, but aren't lawyers capitalists, too? That is, capitalists really seem big on contracts - especially unnecessarily long contracts with a lot of legalese and fine print and where one actually needs a lawyer to decipher it before signing.

The big corporations can hire the best attorneys money can buy, with the kind of talented fiendishness to be able to game the system and our "nation of laws."
That seems a big non sequitur.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Because you didn't address my point.
You did something else, & apparently don't realize it.

I thought you were looking for a positive example. I believe that was the exact phrase you used in post #296. I provided a positive example.

Why are you saying that I didn't do something when I clearly did?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I've known a few and some of these are the very worst bigots about those who need beneficial subsistance.
I've also known a few (far wealthier than anybody here). One of them, yeah, he is lucky he came from money because he's dumb as a box of rocks (I really have no idea how he does accounting). One of them is a drunk. Most of them coming from money did help, but they did put in the work to get where they are. This families matron and patriarch were poor immigrants from Finland and Germany, and the worked their way up from nothing. They are mostly good people, some are even great and wonderful people even (I've got to see and do a lot of things I otherwise wouldn't have because of them). There's even a few adopted kids in their family. So our experiences apparently greatly differ.
 
Top