In Madrid people throw their garbage at the banks entrance

[vostok]

can you tell us how the new socialism will work when old one did not. At least in India, it was utter failure the ill effect of which (mass poverty) we are still seeing today.

However many western countries have adopted some nice bits from socialism, like giving safety net to poor people, a taxation system that is friendly to poor. etc.
But we still need capitalism to fund these.

The most important thing in a socialist economy - planning . Should be taken into account billions of different factors - industry, science, social and so on. The better the plan will be drawn up - the more successful the economy will develop .
It has been estimated that at the present rate of development of information technology, it will be able to create a computer program in 2018-2020 , which will take into account all the factors . It is necessary that it can fully be updated at least once a day.
If the Plan of the economy will be close to the ideal - a socialist economy is 2-3 times more effective than capitalist .

 

[livingdead]

The most important thing in a socialist economy - planning . Should be taken into account billions of different factors - industry, science, social and so on. The better the plan will be drawn up - the more successful the economy will develop .
It has been estimated that at the present rate of development of information technology, it will be able to create a computer program in 2018-2020 , which will take into account all the factors . It is necessary that it can fully be updated at least once a day.
If the Plan of the economy will be close to the ideal - a socialist economy is 2-3 times more effective than capitalist .

you remind me of the story I read somewhere, in which a russian leader goes to west, and is surprised by the fact that there is no govt department for bread in the city. He asked, how does it all work then, how do people get sufficient amount of bread, there must be somebody who is managing all these, also somebody who keeps track of all production and distribution of bread in city, and planning for future capacity in bread production based on factors like population growth, overall wheat availability (which limits and gives a quota to city as percentage of total population of country). This also impacts production of machines needed for bread which has its own factors to decide how many needs to be made.

He was told, nobody is responsible for bread in the city.

Capitalism might not be super efficient, but it frees govt from playing god in every aspects of citizen's life.

 

[vostok]

you remind me of the story I read somewhere, in which a russian leader goes to west, and is surprised by the fact that there is no govt department for bread in the city. He asked, how does it all work then, how do people get sufficient amount of bread, there must be somebody who is managing all these, also somebody who keeps track of all production and distribution of bread in city, and planning for future capacity in bread production based on factors like population growth, overall wheat availability (which limits and gives a quota to city as percentage of total population of country). This also impacts production of machines needed for bread which has its own factors to decide how many needs to be made.

He was told, nobody is responsible for bread in the city.

Capitalism might not be super efficient, but it frees govt from playing god in every aspects of citizen's life.

Yes. And then it turns out that the man worked all his life, set aside money for his retirement, and they were burned because of the mortgage crisis, or something else.
If the government does not play god - why it keeps track of every step of each and every citizen?

 

[livingdead]

Yes. And then it turns out that the man worked all his life, set aside money for his retirement, and they were burned because of the mortgage crisis, or something else.
If the government does not play god - why it keeps track of every step of each and every citizen?

that is a relatively recent phenomena due to threat of terrorism. I did not say govt should not intervene at all in a capitalistic system. Only the intervention should be minimal.

Govt trying to do everything, from planning every detail to implementation, is near impossible, creates huge bureaucracy that is lethargic and does not move with time.

It does not imply govt does nothing in capitalistic system, there is a place in between two extremes and most western govt are striving to get it right.

 

[vostok]

that is a relatively recent phenomena due to threat of terrorism. I did not say govt should not intervene at all in a capitalistic system. Only the intervention should be minimal.

Govt trying to do everything, from planning every detail to implementation, is near impossible, creates huge bureaucracy that is lethargic and does not move with time.

It does not imply govt does nothing in capitalistic system, there is a place in between two extremes and most western govt are striving to get it right.

Capitalism is inherently flawed. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. And if the poor little rich - a crisis happend (and they are inevitable under capitalism) and the poor become destitute.
I already wrote to you that under the new socialism is planned information system that will take into account all the parameters. Such an economy will be several times more efficient than a capitalist.

 

[Audio]

Documents? They can be made in any cellar.
The bottom line is that after the assassination of Stalin Soviet economy became less and less effective. Under Stalin was no queues, deficit, bureaucracy. The economy has been growing at 20-30% per annum (exept the War).
What is the most important thing in a socialist economy? Planning. Stalin created a unique institution of the State Planning Commission - tens of thousands of scientists were constantly researching and giving advice to industry. The system worked perfectly. Prices were falling every year, wages grew every year.
Khrushchev, one of Stalin's assassins, was also the murderer of the Soviet economy - he destroyed the State Planning Commission. The system is not working as it should.
Brezhnev returned the Planning Commission, but in a highly abbreviated form - socialist economy grew, but slowly.
Gorbachev destroyed everything.
Guess who liked the most and who most hated in the West?

LOL, Stalin, he was so loved by the inner circle they left him to die on his death bed.

Oh and, when eastern block started to loose the technological race, more and more money was poured in the military complex and less and less was available for civilian purposes. Which in turn led to a easily predictable decline of the super great socialist system which by the time it disintegrated in the late 80's was already heavily in debt to the ideological adversary bankers. The irony.

If you don't provide any sources for your claims, i'll assume you are fabricating them from a cellar too.

Bottom line, socialism failed because it was heavily influenced with the "who do you know" system, stiffling growth and innovation and prefering people with connections.

This new socialism that you're preaching, lol, mental cases don't get to suggest new political systems.

 

[Audio]

Capitalism is inherently flawed. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

How many communists in high places you know of that were poor? LOL.

You probably never heard the catch phrase of socialism, "we're all equal, but some are more equal then others". LOL

 

[vostok]

LOL, Stalin, he was so loved by the inner circle they left him to die on his death bed.

Oh and, when eastern block started to loose the technological race, more and more money was poured in the military complex and less and less was available for civilian purposes. Which in turn led to a easily predictable decline of the super great socialist system which by the time it disintegrated in the late 80's was already heavily in debt to the ideological adversary bankers. The irony.

If you don't provide any sources for your claims, i'll assume you are fabricating them from a cellar too.

Bottom line, socialism failed because it was heavily influenced with the "who do you know" system, stiffling growth and innovation and prefering people with connections.

This new socialism that you're preaching, lol, mental cases don't get to suggest new political systems.

How many communists in high places you know of that were poor? LOL.

You probably never heard the catch phrase of socialism, "we're all equal, but some are more equal then others". LOL

Read Starikov - he is very good modern economist and historian. I do not know how many his books translated to English, but some of them did.
In 1992, at some conference representative of Pakistan said to smug Westerners , "We all believe that capitalism has won, but actually just errors of communism overtook it before errors of capitalism overtook it." It's not verbatim , but reflects the essence .
I say again . And I will repeat it a hundred times . Basis of socialism - planning. If planned well - the economy is doing well . If planned bad - bad economy develops .
In America, capitalism is now ? No. If there was capitalism , the United States would have gone bankrupt long ago and broke into pieces. They kept afloat purely administrative methods - not the government poured money into the banks , everything would fall apart in 2008 .
Poor communist? Stalin.

 

[Audio]

Read Starikov - he is very good modern economist and historian. I do not know how many his books translated to English, but some of them did.
In 1992, at some conference representative of Pakistan said to smug Westerners , "We all believe that capitalism has won, but actually just errors of communism overtook it before errors of capitalism overtook it." It's not verbatim , but reflects the essence .
I say again . And I will repeat it a hundred times . Basis of socialism - planning. If planned well - the economy is doing well . If planned bad - bad economy develops .
In America, capitalism is now ? No. If there was capitalism , the United States would have gone bankrupt long ago and broke into pieces. They kept afloat purely administrative methods - not the government poured money into the banks , everything would fall apart in 2008 .
Poor communist? Stalin.

LOL

You're not that smart to understand that human factor will always be the deciding one.
If people are easily corrupted and are entrusted the whole nation's wealth it will inevitably lead to a disaster.
But like i said, you're lacking in human behaviour knowledge.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Read Starikov - he is very good modern economist and historian. I do not know how many his books translated to English, but some of them did.
In 1992, at some conference representative of Pakistan said to smug Westerners , "We all believe that capitalism has won, but actually just errors of communism overtook it before errors of capitalism overtook it." It's not verbatim , but reflects the essence .
I say again . And I will repeat it a hundred times . Basis of socialism - planning. If planned well - the economy is doing well . If planned bad - bad economy develops .
In America, capitalism is now ? No. If there was capitalism , the United States would have gone bankrupt long ago and broke into pieces. They kept afloat purely administrative methods - not the government poured money into the banks , everything would fall apart in 2008 .
Poor communist? Stalin.

Z.A.B was against capitalism... and his nationalisation of industries screwed our economy...

 

[vostok]

Z.A.B was against capitalism... and his nationalisation of industries screwed our economy...

So he had a bad economists. There was no clear plan for economic development.

 

[Desert Fox]

Read Starikov - he is very good modern economist and historian. I do not know how many his books translated to English, but some of them did.
In 1992, at some conference representative of Pakistan said to smug Westerners , "We all believe that capitalism has won, but actually just errors of communism overtook it before errors of capitalism overtook it." It's not verbatim , but reflects the essence .
I say again . And I will repeat it a hundred times . Basis of socialism - planning. If planned well - the economy is doing well . If planned bad - bad economy develops .
In America, capitalism is now ? No. If there was capitalism , the United States would have gone bankrupt long ago and broke into pieces. They kept afloat purely administrative methods - not the government poured money into the banks , everything would fall apart in 2008 .
Poor communist? Stalin.

What do you think about National Socialism?? A Socialist system that outperformed both Capitalism and Communism. 

Socialism is actually a good idea but it didnt work, the only socialist state today is North Korea and we all see the result.

That depends on which Socialism you're talking about.

National Socialism outperformed both Communism and Capitalism at a time when the nations under the latter ideologies were still plagued by the economic depression of the 1920's and 30's.

Within four years Germany became a economic powerhouse and within four years 6 million unemployed (the highest unemployment in European history) were put back into jobs.

Why National Socialism was better? Because unlike Communism, which depended on the Capitalists and Bankers for support, National Socialist system printed its own interest free money.

 

[vostok]

What do you think about National Socialism?? A Socialist system that outperformed both Capitalism and Communism.

Socialism is good omitting the National . National Socialism is socialist economy plus a racist ideology . You proclaim that your nation - supernation , and all the rest - subhuman . Naturally , your supernation exist to rule and subhuman - to serve you. You start to seize territory , because you can not afford subhuman to compete with you - you're bound to destroy them. Otherwise, all crumble - if you can not win them , then you - not supernation . The whole concept collapses. Hitler could not stop attack on Czechoslovakia , Poland or on Yugoslavia because they were subhuman , he had to rule over them . Many people make the mistake of thinking that Hitler might stop and not attack Poland or the Soviet Union - he had to attack . The ideology of nationalism pushed him toward militarization and aggression against its neighbors .
National socialism - this is a logical fallacy , a paradox.
Socialism , true socialism can only be international . Best of all , worldwide , while socialism will work best , because at his disposal all the resources will be

 

[Desert Fox]

Socialism is good omitting the National . National Socialism is socialist economy plus a racist ideology . You proclaim that your nation - supernation , and all the rest - subhuman . Naturally , your supernation exist to rule and subhuman - to serve you. You start to seize territory , because you can not afford subhuman to compete with you - you're bound to destroy them. Otherwise, all crumble - if you can not win them , then you - not supernation . The whole concept collapses. Hitler could not stop attack on Czechoslovakia , Poland or on Yugoslavia because they were subhuman , he had to rule over them . Many people make the mistake of thinking that Hitler might stop and not attack Poland or the Soviet Union - he had to attack . The ideology of nationalism pushed him toward militarization and aggression against its neighbors .
National socialism - this is a logical fallacy , a paradox.

This is pure propaganda.

But lets be real, Hitler wasn't invading or attacking anyone before 1939.

Whatever happened during WW2 or what started it is a different topic. I can give you my perspective of events. But this isn't the thread for that and neither am i willing to discuss that here.

What im discussing is the 1933-1939 era when there was no war or invasion of any country. During this period Germany went from the most poorest and cash strapped nation to the only economic powerhouse in Europe (beating England) within 4 years. Such a feat has never been accomplished since.

Socialism , true socialism can only be international . Best of all , worldwide , while socialism will work best , because at his disposal all the resources will be

How can "true" Socialism only be international? What if other nations don't want Socialism? Will you force them to accept Socialism?? That is aggression and coercion, and you accuse Hitler of that? But here you promote "international" Socialism.

 

[vostok]

This is pure propaganda.

But lets be real, Hitler wasn't invading or attacking anyone before 1939.

Whatever happened during WW2 or what started it is a different topic. I can give you my perspective of events. But this isn't the thread for that and neither am i willing to discuss that here.

What im discussing is the 1933-1939 era when there was no war or invasion of any country. During this period Germany went from the most poorest and cash strapped nation to the only economic powerhouse in Europe (beating England) within 4 years. Such a feat has never been accomplished since.

Why do you think they forgave all to Hitler? He violated the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, built the army, the navy, the military-industrial complex, annexed Austria and annexed the Ruhr Basin - which, incidentally, was the industrial heart of Germany, coal and plants. Because, until 1939, Hitler acted strictly contractual terms between him and England.
The main condition of the contract - to attack the Soviet Union. Gitler tried to get away from the influence of the Anglo-Saxons - but failed in the end.

How can "true" Socialism only be international? What if other nations don't want Socialism? Will you force them to accept Socialism?? That is aggression and coercion, and you accuse Hitler of that? But here you promote "international" Socialism.

International - means that there is no upper and lower nations. Where I said that you need to conquer? I only said that it is best to socialist economy would work for the good of all humanity, if it is worldwide and will build on the resources of the world.