Liberal Forum

Reactionaries and liberals often assert that socialist societies were failures. However, throughout their respective socialist experiments, workers' lives in the U.S.S.R., the GDR, and other former socialist societies improved immensely. Average life expectancy in the Soviet Union, for example, went from 32 years in 1917 to 68 years by 1975. 

Poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, homelessness, and other social ills were virtually and easily eliminated in socialist societies. I say "easily" because those pathologies are all but effortlessly eliminated when doing so becomes a governmental priority, unlike in the U.S. 

Interestingly, the lives of American workers also improved because of the Bolshevik Revolution. The progressive achievements won by Soviet workers pressured the U.S. capitalist state to concede reforms for American workers. Reforms including homeownership, desegregation, investments in education, public healthcare, etc. 

Concerning homeownership, in a 1917 Washington Post op-ed, New York financier and banker Simon Straus wrote, "Widespread and successful homeowning activities in the U.S. would do more to alleviate social unrest and build a bulwark against the encroachments of Bolshevism than any other development." 

The Labor Department then initiated its Own Your Own Home program, later led by Herbert Hoover, which provided liquidity for banks toward the expansion of home loans. In 1933, the New Deal's "Home Owners' Loan Corporation was launched, which granted home loans to workers, making homeownership far more accessible and committing workers psychologically to capitalism. 

In response to Sputnik and the education gap between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., the U.S. enacted 1958's National Defense Education Act, which made low-interest student loans, augmenting higher education. While noting the program's success, the late U.S. Senator Stewart McClure said, "I think if there was one thing I did during my work on the hill, it was to focus attention on the opportunity that Sputnik gave all of us who had been struggling for decades to establish a federal program of monetary aid to public education." 

But with the dissolution of the U.S.S.R. and, therefore, the elimination of a countervailing system, the U.S. capitalist state began to claw back New Deal programs and other social reforms. Capitalism is, again, free to be as mean as it needs to be. 

(Note: Respondents who employ vulgarity and typically desperate ad hominem attacks will be ignored. Thank you.) 
 

HarveyMushman » 05 Jan 2024, 8:48 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 8:48 am

Reactionaries and liberals often assert that socialist societies were failures. However, throughout their respective socialist experiments, workers' lives in the U.S.S.R., the GDR, and other former socialist societies improved immensely. Average life expectancy in the Soviet Union, for example, went from 32 years in 1917 to 68 years by 1975. 



(Note: Respondents who employ vulgarity and typically desperate ad hominem attacks will be ignored. Thank you.)
 

Socialists need to F- off and die, or work for industrialists.  They are generally worthless, lazy, drug-huffers who don't want to work. Just like Bernie Sanders who once got thrown out of a commune for being a loud-mouthed lazy ****.

The Final Solution for Socialists is to get them all addicted to drugs and force them to work in labor camps and farms to receiver their daily rations of Bath Salts and Super-Fentanyl.


 
 

Famous Socialists:

• Kim Jong-Il (1.6 million murders)
• Pol Pot (1.7 million murders)
• Ho Chi Min (3.7 million murders)
• Joseph Stalin (23 million murders)
• Mao Zedong (78 million murders)
• Kim Jong Un (4 million murders, including his own brother)
• Vladimir Putin (2 million murders)
• Xi Jinping (1.6 million murders)

 

HarveyMushman » 05 Jan 2024, 8:48 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 8:48 am

Reactionaries and liberals often assert that socialist societies were failures. However, throughout their respective socialist experiments, workers' lives in the U.S.S.R., the GDR, and other former socialist societies improved immensely. Average life expectancy in the Soviet Union, for example, went from 32 years in 1917 to 68 years by 1975. 

Poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, homelessness, and other social ills were virtually and easily eliminated in socialist societies. I say "easily" because those pathologies are all but effortlessly eliminated when doing so becomes a governmental priority, unlike in the U.S. 

Interestingly, the lives of American workers also improved because of the Bolshevik Revolution. The progressive achievements won by Soviet workers pressured the U.S. capitalist state to concede reforms for American workers. Reforms including homeownership, desegregation, investments in education, public healthcare, etc. 

Concerning homeownership, in a 1917 Washington Post op-ed, New York financier and banker Simon Straus wrote, "Widespread and successful homeowning activities in the U.S. would do more to alleviate social unrest and build a bulwark against the encroachments of Bolshevism than any other development." 

The Labor Department then initiated its Own Your Own Home program, later led by Herbert Hoover, which provided liquidity for banks toward the expansion of home loans. In 1933, the New Deal's "Home Owners' Loan Corporation was launched, which granted home loans to workers, making homeownership far more accessible and committing workers psychologically to capitalism. 

But with the dissolution of the U.S.S.R. and, therefore, the elimination of a countervailing system, the U.S. capitalist state began to claw back New Deal programs and other social reforms. Capitalism is, again, free to be as mean as it needs to be.

Why don't you show us how well socialism has worked in these modern times?
Care to show us how well it's doing in Venezuela and Cuba?:

Currently, 88% of Cubans live in extreme poverty, 13% more than in 2022, according to the 6th Report on the State of Social Rights in Cuba, recently presented in Miami by the Cuban Observatory of Human Rights

Venezuela’s 360% inflation fuels migration, poverty
Catherine Ellis Dec 6, 2023

Venezuelans continue to flee the country as the economy shows no signs of recovery
SEPTEMBER 30, 2023
HEARD ON WEEKEND EDITION SATURDAYBy Scott Simon  John Otis

Isn't it time you educated yourself to the reality of the worldwide damage socialism is responsible for?
Or do so many examples of it's failures around the world not matter to you?

How Socialism Discourages Work and Creates Poverty
Socialism diminishes people’s incentive to work to improve their circumstances by depriving them of the fruits of their effort.Wednesday, March 30, 2022

 
 

HarveyMushman » 05 Jan 2024, 8:48 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 8:48 am

Reactionaries and liberals often assert that socialist societies were failures. However, throughout their respective socialist experiments, workers' lives in the U.S.S.R., the GDR, and other former socialist societies improved immensely. Average life expectancy in the Soviet Union, for example, went from 32 years in 1917 to 68 years by 1975. 

Poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, homelessness, and other social ills were virtually and easily eliminated in socialist societies. I say "easily" because those pathologies are all but effortlessly eliminated when doing so becomes a governmental priority, unlike in the U.S. 

Interestingly, the lives of American workers also improved because of the Bolshevik Revolution. The progressive achievements won by Soviet workers pressured the U.S. capitalist state to concede reforms for American workers. Reforms including homeownership, desegregation, investments in education, public healthcare, etc. 

Concerning homeownership, in a 1917 Washington Post op-ed, New York financier and banker Simon Straus wrote, "Widespread and successful homeowning activities in the U.S. would do more to alleviate social unrest and build a bulwark against the encroachments of Bolshevism than any other development." 

The Labor Department then initiated its Own Your Own Home program, later led by Herbert Hoover, which provided liquidity for banks toward the expansion of home loans. In 1933, the New Deal's "Home Owners' Loan Corporation was launched, which granted home loans to workers, making homeownership far more accessible and committing workers psychologically to capitalism. 

In response to Sputnik and the education gap between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., the U.S. enacted 1958's National Defense Education Act, which made low-interest student loans, augmenting higher education. While noting the program's success, the late U.S. Senator Stewart McClure said, "I think if there was one thing I did during my work on the hill, it was to focus attention on the opportunity that Sputnik gave all of us who had been struggling for decades to establish a federal program of monetary aid to public education." 

But with the dissolution of the U.S.S.R. and, therefore, the elimination of a countervailing system, the U.S. capitalist state began to claw back New Deal programs and other social reforms. Capitalism is, again, free to be as mean as it needs to be. 

(Note: Respondents who employ vulgarity and typically desperate ad hominem attacks will be ignored. Thank you.)

The problem with your line of reasoning is that the same standard of living gains happened in capitalist countries, and at a much faster pace. “Reactionaries and liberals” will also bring up the # of deaths caused by the GLF.

So let’s grant your premise which is that the Eastern Bloc weren’t failures…the problem is there is nothing to write home about.

(Unlike retarded conservatives, I am fully aware of the diff. between a welfare state and socialism.)

By the way, there is one rousing success of a socialist nation, but you aren’t “allowed” to discuss it.

 
 

HarveyMushman » 05 Jan 2024, 8:48 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 8:48 am

Reactionaries and liberals often assert that socialist societies were failures. However, throughout their respective socialist experiments, workers' lives in the U.S.S.R., the GDR, and other former socialist societies improved immensely. Average life expectancy in the Soviet Union, for example, went from 32 years in 1917 to 68 years by 1975.

          Not surprising the short life expectancy of Russians in 1917 considering the millions of Military & Civilian deaths from WW1 and the additional death toll of the Russian Revolution which also began in 1917.... Just as I'm sure the average lifespan of a Russian from the years 1941 - 1945 was significantly lower due to around 22 Million of them being killed during WW2... So, it's not a great revelation that in the 30 year absence of major war, Russians began living longer.
 
 

HarveyMushman » 05 Jan 2024, 8:48 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 8:48 am

Reactionaries and liberals often assert that socialist societies were failures. However, throughout their respective socialist experiments, workers' lives in the U.S.S.R., the GDR, and other former socialist societies improved immensely. Average life expectancy in the Soviet Union, for example, went from 32 years in 1917 to 68 years by 1975. 

Poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, homelessness, and other social ills were virtually and easily eliminated in socialist societies. I say "easily" because those pathologies are all but effortlessly eliminated when doing so becomes a governmental priority, unlike in the U.S. 

Interestingly, the lives of American workers also improved because of the Bolshevik Revolution. The progressive achievements won by Soviet workers pressured the U.S. capitalist state to concede reforms for American workers. Reforms including homeownership, desegregation, investments in education, public healthcare, etc. 

Concerning homeownership, in a 1917 Washington Post op-ed, New York financier and banker Simon Straus wrote, "Widespread and successful homeowning activities in the U.S. would do more to alleviate social unrest and build a bulwark against the encroachments of Bolshevism than any other development." 

The Labor Department then initiated its Own Your Own Home program, later led by Herbert Hoover, which provided liquidity for banks toward the expansion of home loans. In 1933, the New Deal's "Home Owners' Loan Corporation was launched, which granted home loans to workers, making homeownership far more accessible and committing workers psychologically to capitalism. 

In response to Sputnik and the education gap between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., the U.S. enacted 1958's National Defense Education Act, which made low-interest student loans, augmenting higher education. While noting the program's success, the late U.S. Senator Stewart McClure said, "I think if there was one thing I did during my work on the hill, it was to focus attention on the opportunity that Sputnik gave all of us who had been struggling for decades to establish a federal program of monetary aid to public education." 

But with the dissolution of the U.S.S.R. and, therefore, the elimination of a countervailing system, the U.S. capitalist state began to claw back New Deal programs and other social reforms. Capitalism is, again, free to be as mean as it needs to be. 

(Note: Respondents who employ vulgarity and typically desperate ad hominem attacks will be ignored. Thank you.)

You cannot draw any comparison between the two countries, as Russia is severely under represented by ******.......

Skans » 05 Jan 2024, 9:59 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 9:59 am

Famous Socialists:

• Kim Jong-Il (1.6 million murders)
• Pol Pot (1.7 million murders)
• Ho Chi Min (3.7 million murders)
• Joseph Stalin (23 million murders)
• Mao Zedong (78 million murders)
• Kim Jong Un (4 million murders, including his own brother)
• Vladimir Putin (2 million murders)
• Xi Jinping (1.6 million murders)

MuriQUNT last 20 years - UkepSHUnalJizm.

20 million Arabs ....murdered, maimed, displaced.....to steal their oil/gas
 

LowIQTrash » 05 Jan 2024, 10:49 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 10:49 am

The problem with your line of reasoning is that the same standard of living gains happened in capitalist countries, and at a much faster pace. “Reactionaries and liberals” will also bring up the # of deaths caused by the GLF.

So let’s grant your premise which is that the Eastern Bloc weren’t failures…the problem is there is nothing to write home about.

(Unlike retarded conservatives, I am fully aware of the diff. between a welfare state and socialism.)

By the way, there is one rousing success of a socialist nation, but you aren’t “allowed” to discuss it.

North Korea and China are doing quite well.
 

Sumela » 05 Jan 2024, 11:11 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 11:11 am

MuriQUNT last 20 years - UkepSHUnalJizm.

20 million Arabs ....murdered, maimed, displaced.....to steal their oil/gas

Filling your gas tank will cause some collateral damage.

RebelGator » 05 Jan 2024, 11:16 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 11:16 am

Filling your gas tank will cause some collateral damage.

I agree.  MuriQUNT murders kids for oil every day.

For Jesus.  
 

Sumela » 05 Jan 2024, 11:20 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 11:20 am

I agree.  MuriQUNT murders kids for oil every day.

For Jesus.

Some things cannot be stopped......like anyone  standing between a Dillard's and my wife's car.

Its glorious to see China doing so well.

And watching MurKans and DC *** sky scream all day long over...."""CHINA!!!"""


 

China is ahead of crybaby Murka by decades in infrastructure....ITS GLORIOUS!

https://youtu.be/r6d351sizBQ

RebelGator » 05 Jan 2024, 11:24 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 11:24 am

Some things cannot be stopped......like anyone  standing between a Dillard's and my wife's car.

Yep, just like Crumbling Tranny MuriQUNT,,,,kiss it goodbye bitch  
 

Sumela » 05 Jan 2024, 11:13 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 11:13 am

North Korea and China are doing quite well.

NK: Are you sure? I’m not aware of data suggesting they are doing well.

China is running into some problems currently since they let their property bubble get too inflated and now Xi is worried about the declining birth rates. But yes, they have a weird “market socialism” model that has otherwise worked quite well over the past 40 or so yrs

LowIQTrash » 05 Jan 2024, 11:50 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 11:50 am

NK: Are you sure? I’m not aware of data suggesting they are doing well.

China is running into some problems currently since they let their property bubble get too inflated and now Xi is worried about the declining birth rates. But yes, they have a weird “market socialism” model that has otherwise worked quite well over the past 40 or so yrs

Yup, Id say bringing nearly a billion people out of poverty is quite remarkable.  They build beautiful infrastructure for their people.
Their cities are 2nd to none.

They invest in the people. 

Murica builds hideous consumer boxes and invests in the MIC.  Tucker Carlson said recently that the reason Murica
only builds hideous boxes is because we are soulless. 
And he added that we have been soulless ever since murdering 300,000 Jap women and children.
 

Sumela » 05 Jan 2024, 12:29 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 12:29 pm

Yup, Id say bringing nearly a billion people out of poverty is quite remarkable.  They build beautiful infrastructure for their people.
Their cities are 2nd to none.

They invest in the people. 

Murica builds hideous consumer boxes and invests in the MIC.  Tucker Carlson said recently that the reason Murica
only builds hideous boxes is because we are soulless. 
And he added that we have been soulless ever since murdering 300,000 Jap women and children.

Oh, I'm not questioning China's progress. It's North Korea's...

LowIQTrash » 05 Jan 2024, 8:03 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 8:03 pm

Oh, I'm not questioning China's progress. It's North Korea's...

Fair enough. BUT - I know enough to know that if the Empire of Chaos is ALWAYS

purporting that NK folks are eating rats and bat anuses and are near

cannibalism.....then likely the opposite is true. 


 

HarveyMushman » 05 Jan 2024, 8:48 am » wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2024, 8:48 am

Reactionaries and liberals often assert that socialist societies were failures. However, throughout their respective socialist experiments, workers' lives in the U.S.S.R., the GDR, and other former socialist societies improved immensely. Average life expectancy in the Soviet Union, for example, went from 32 years in 1917 to 68 years by 1975.

Socialism worked far better in Germany than in the USSR, because it was employed on behalf of a specific race of people. One of the worst enemies of socialism is "diversity," as there are races of man which are geared by nature to strive, and there are races of man which are geared by nature to take the path of least resistance. 

If one believes AT ALL in the theory of evolution, one must observe that the african diaspora into europe occasioned nature to select for intelligence among those who survived the harsh winters newcomers encountered. The ability to create a plan to survive when nature ceased to provide required two traits for which white europeans are known: the ability to delay gratification and the ability to think and plan well into the future. 

I believe that the proximity of pygmies, who average 3.5 feet tall, and the giants of the savanna, who come in at close to twice that, amply demonstrates the extreme power of nature to shape the creatures it sustains. Nature is above all things brutally efficient and never wasteful. She endows her creatures with the IQs they need to function in the eco-system they are in. Africans were taken from an ecosystem wherein physicality was more important than intelligence. To this day, they are ON AVERAGE more athletic and physical, and ON AVERAGE less intelligent, than whites.

Such a group as this, allowed unfettered freedom and sustained in any numbers to which they wish to grow, will quickly become an enormous drain on a socialist system. While their white counterparts work and save and delay gratification so that they can build dynasties and make meaningful contributions, a class of impulsive dark skinned takers will breed themselves into unsustainability. 

Socialism no - national socialism, yes. But this requires chopping up the country into racial zones.