Skeptic Project

NO, the USSR failed because socialism doesn't work.

USSR was socialist in the same way school elections are democratic and mean something. The USSR was essentially a capitalist super-state where the state itself was the owner, not even remotely close to socialism. In the 1980s and into the early 90s you had a lot of small private ownership going on with shops and so forth.

The USSR itself didn't simply fall apart magically like some sort of poorly built communist bicycle. There was actually a referendum and the people voted on whether or not to keep the USSR. 78% of people voted to keep it, but the government ignored it and dissolved the union anyway.

There's no question the USSR was a shitty country, but it didn't collapse because of "socialism" just in the same way it didn't collapse because Reagan told Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall. It's a great way to scape goat socialism, but not in the least accurate.

What's the difference between the government running the economy and socialism?

What's the difference between the government and common ownership controlled by direct democracy?

I think once you put things under collective, public ownership, you have created a government.

What's the difference between a house hold and congress then?

A household only affects a household. Congress affects the whole country. Household rules don't carry the force of law.

your grossly inaccurate statements all across this forum

Can you point out what statement I made was inaccurate?

Then can you tell me the difference between a government and common public ownership?

"Household rules don't carry the force of law."

Wait, didn't you just promote direct democracy?

A household only affects a household. Congress affects the whole country. Household rules don't carry the force of law.

I guess your father didn't spank then?

Can you point out what statement I made was inaccurate?

About the USSR, about the goals of technocrats, about fighting malaria, etc.

Then can you tell me the difference between a government and common public ownership?

Governments are states which have control over things they don't necessarily participate in. Direct democracy is where those who do participate create the sole ownership and decision making in regard to it. You can't actively believe that Saddam Hussein and workers who run a factory are the same thing, unless you're just retarded.

What exactly was the top university you went to?

I think you're a liar.

Yawn.

Does anybody even remember my original point? That arguing about what is socialism and why the USSR failed, as if these questions will make the difference between whether GEI's silly ideology is viable or not, is irrelevant when we're talking about a push-button utopian vision that is totally disconnected from a true understanding of what it takes to enact meaningful social and economic change?

Why the USSR fell or whether GEI was spanked as a kid has nothing to do with anything. The point is that this utopian crap is ridiculous and insulting to the intelligence.

Muertos, I still don't understand. A charity giving away money to attend a university is not utopian. But a government giving away money to attend a university is?

WTF man, no, donating to a charity is not the pursuit of a utopia its feeding hungry people, curing sick people, clothing people and helping them achieve a modicum of a comfortable life in a way thats based in reality.

Matt, so in your libertarian fantasy, it is OK to donate to charity to solve problems but it is not OK to pay a tax to solve problems. Did you get that at a Mises seminar?

Muertos, so anything that doesn't involve charity is a retarded zeitgeist idea? That's just as delusional as Matt.

That's not what I'm saying. Jeez, you really are dense.

Organizations like the ones I listed actually do something in the real world. That is not utopian. They have no delusions of a perfect world where nobody has to work and everybody's rich and happy without any effort. They envision a world where helping people improves things gradually, realistically and effectively.

Your vision is one of an imaginary science fiction future where everything is perfect, and you say we can have it right now if only we decide to tell our elected officials to provide it to us with no effort, no sacrifice and no work.

That's utopian, and that's retarded.

If you can't tell the difference between these things, you're brain damaged.

Organizations like the ones I listed actually do something in the real world. That is not utopian. They have no delusions of a perfect world where nobody has to work and everybody's rich and happy without any effort. They envision a world where helping people improves things gradually, realistically and effectively.

You are wrong. The site doesn't claim nobody has to work.

And you are also wrong if you think gates wants a gradual end to malaria deaths or that the other charity wants gradual access to college loans for native americans. They want it as soon as possible.

Your vision is one of an imaginary science fiction where everything is perfect

Point out a single claim that is not grounded in science. And it does not say things will be perfect. You are just making stuff up.

and you say we can have it right now if only we decide to tell our elected officials to provide it to us

That is the way laws usually work. They go into effect as soon as the law is enacted.

with no effort, no sacrifice and no work.

Wrong again. It says that it "requires a lot of hard work" to implement.

You have not brought up a single valid or accurate point.