Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by blizzerd, May 11, 2016.
he played both sides of the fence.
yup he was from Nazi from Germany and built rockets for Nazi Germany and then became an American and built space crafts for USA so yeah, both sides of the fence (aeronautic engi)
A Nazi who used slave labor from concentration camps, although this his disgust, that resulted in the V2 Rocket that pummeled Britain during World War two. In fact, Warner Van Braun was a member of the SS, the infamous division that was merciless in war and he lead numerous Nazi secret weaponry developments throughout the war, even having concentration camps built FOR him to pull men out of for labor. His surrender to America was to ensure the V2 Rocket program would not fall into the USSR's hands as he wanted it to go to the people guided by morals rather than what benefits the nation.
However, after the war ended he was transferred to America to work on rockets for the USA, boldly claiming in 1950 that we could go to the moon with rockets. After sputnik was launched, his designs used for military purposes fell into the hands of NASA for more efficient rockets to be used for payloads into space.
Anyone who disagrees with the ethics of socialism does not understand socialism.
It's feasibility, given the general dickhead nature of humans, is questionable.
Population size is not an argument against it, there's a reason your bigass country is broken into states so stop spouting the same shit.
yeah thx i know wikipedia. dont act like it would be out of context ...
As I have stated NUMEROUS times, the idea of Socialism is sound, however it is broken on grounds of human nature AND population size. As population size increases, the need for more government grows leading to more corruption and more control needed by the government, bankrupting them further as they try to supply the needs of the populace with a strained budget. I understand Socialism well and it does not sit well with advancement of humans in terms of technological gain, it only sits well in making sure everyone is equal (in which, the ruling class in a socialist society are still offset by those at the bottom creating a new "upper" class).
There is a reason socialist countries dont survive, look to history for any of these examples. Socialism has proven itself time and time again to not work in practice, because everytime someone says "We want Socialism" and people say "The USSR failed and they were socialist", the same argument of "We will do it different and better" comes up, but they dont define how they will do it different or better.
It grows proportionally.
Logical fallacy: slippery slope.
Government income is proportional to the population size.
That is not socialism by definition.
Every example of socialism has prospered. Calling your nation socialist does not make it socialist.
Sweden, Norway, Canada, Iceland, etc.
The USSR was neither socialist, communist or Marxist. A totalitarian oligarchy, particularly one that utilizes the cult of personality, cannot be communal.
Donald trump ive been trying to ignore your posts a bit because i cant seem to use the quote function on them, but some points i will adress in general:
The USA had BY FAR the better placed and more nazi scientists then the USSR had. the reason they got behind on the space race was because the USSR noticed the military and economical advantage of space rocketry, combined with the fact that the USA thought they could keep the bomb exclusively for at least 10 more years the day the USSR got one.
The USSR's failure was clearly in its political system, not in its economical systems... it was an oligarchy trying to look socialistic/communistic depending on what side of the government you ask. It used to be far more communistic, but stalin moved away from that to win ww2 and arguably it worked.
Once the USSR's strongman fell away, the system started to corrupt and crumble.
By your standards, Belgium is a very socialist social democracy, we have one of the best health care systems in the world, its not exactly free but then again i pay 50euro a year for basic coverage + 25 euro for ful coverage and separate hospital bedrooms etc.
going to school is free until age 16, and practically free until college. i paid about 2500 euro for my entire college career at the college of my choice and higher university would be about 15.000 euro max.
If i have a lower income i get a lot of stuff nearly free etc
I dont have to pay to make use of police, firebrigades, roads or other infrastructure.
We don't have any natural resources any more besides frites, our taxes are quite high but then again we get a LOT for it and our dept is relatively low considering our crouded population.
Also on Venezuela the country was a 3th world country literally 20 years ago, and has only been socialist inspired for a short while. Massively improving living conditions in rapid method. These days however, the extremely low oil prices put pressure on the social regime.
Hey wait a minute, i did not start this thread... did someone hack the forum again???
blizzerd, the thread was split on your post.
i wonder now? canada, sweden, norway and iceland have the same political system the ussr had, thats new. or was it meant as the economical system? bc that would be new aswell ...
... last time i checked all of them were democracies and had market economy.
and very funny how you portray what went on in iceland.
and please refrain from repeating fascist propaganda - 1 in 4 women will be raped - sure. people get thrown out their homes to make room for refugees - sure.
whats next? socialists are to blame for 2001, socialists are to blame for 2007 ...
... ah what do i say, socialists are to blame for a system which without permanent real growth in a limited world crumbles due to interest.
and bc im too tired to explain have a nice picture, i start to get the feeling it needs pictures.
(you better not look at norway, if you can find it that is)
source is wiki btw if thats not enough for you, what sauce you want? is the cia world fact book non socialist enough for you.
ah and actually, now i said wikipedia. socilialist bullshit, no monetarian interest? pure evil.
As i said, some (actually most) of the greatest works of the last few decades were built on socialist ideologies...
Donald mcTrolland needs to check his fucking orange person priviledge
it has nothing to do with socialist ideas actually. thats how humans tick unless their only interest lies in money. and thats a pathetic form of a human being.
look at empires. sure you can tell a future employer you worked on it, but ... and we can ask them ... was that the primary motivation? my bet goes on no.
Care to elaborate how that is not parallel to some socialist ideas?
parallel sure, congruent even. i only meant its not directly related. noone thought "for the revolution" more like "that would be cool"
but yes "nothing" was a bad wording
I also might have expressed myself lacking earlier...
lets have makeup sex
Separate names with a comma.