[ConstIva]

1) You make *a lot* of statements without proof, facts or references.

You quoted this: "Unfortunately, too few Americans are afraid of Socialism, only approximately a half of the entire nation." and then say that I make a lot of ...without proof?

Either you build your sentences on a logic I am not aware of, or you just forgot that the "bigger half" of Americans have elected obama recently.
What more proof do you need?

[ConstIva]

2) Please give a detailed definition of the word "socialsm"

The problem between you and me seems to be that you ask me for a definition that is publicly available since the Communist Manifesto, 1848, while your interpretation of socialism is definitely different from what the Founding Fathers of Socialism said.

So, why should I give you the definition of a well established philosophical notion, instead of you giving me your interpretation of it?

[shooz]

Meaning what?

[ConstIva]

3) Have you read Lenin? Can you make a reference to your statement please?

Yes, I have read first forcedly, then voluntarily the entire 52 Volumes of Lenin.
And not only him.
40 years ago, as many other Soviet musicians and so-called "intelligentsia," I was forcedly attending the Marxism-Leninism University and got a Diploma with Honor.

So, when I speak of Communist ideology and its roots, I am pretty much aware of what I am talking about. Unlike many Americans....

As for particular quote, this is it:

First time, in his "Childish illness of Leftism in Communism", April 1920, Lenin said this:

"Завоевание политической власти пролетариатом есть гигантский шаг вперед пролетариата, как класса, и партии приходится еще более и по-новому, а не только по-старому, воспитывать профсоюзы, руководить ими, вместе с тем, однако, не забывая, что они остаются и долго останутся необходимой «школой коммунизма»..."

Next time, in his article "Once more about Unions", Lenin said this:

"Профсоюзы - резервуар государственной власти, школа коммунизма, школа хозяйничанья. В этой области специфическое и главное есть не управление, а "с в я з ь" "между центральным" (и местным, конечно, тоже) "государственным управлением, народным хозяйством и широкими массами трудящихся" (как говорит наша программа партии, § 5 экономической части, посвященный профсоюзам)"

Oh, I am sorry, you probably can't read in Russian.
Did you read Lenin in English translations? I gave you the translated titles of those works, so you can easily find the paragraphs. Good luck!

[ConstIva]

Meaning what?

You ask whom?

Well-brought-up people call interlocutors by name (or at least nickname).

I was responding to "bymy141" which is clearly indicated in my responses (by quotes).

[shooz]

I keep forgetting.

You are evading me.
Are you a plutocrat?

[ConstIva]

Well, not good for you.

Sorry, I don't understand what this relates to: that I don't believe any propaganda?
Or that I am not interested in Leftists mentality?

If you've lived in one of the eastern european states, then you have experiences many of us have not.

You're right. I was born and lived in the USSR 50 years and left it by political reasons shortly before it collapsed.
That's why you are exactly right saying that I have an experience not many Americans have.

Whatever the name of ideology or faith, when extermists or selfish rulers take over, the effects are always the same. No matter what system. It is true for communism, islam, christianity and capitalism as well.

I don't agree, if you include in your list Socialist countries.
I emphasize: Socialist, not Capitalist countries with strong social-democratic regimes (aka widely developed welfare benefits system) like Sweden and Finland.

Socialist countries WITH NO EXCEPTION have proven that their governments do not depend on human characteristics of governing individuals: the system itself is doomed to corruption, no matter who are at Power.

[ConstIva]

Are you a plutocrat?

Are you a roughneck?

[shooz]

I never worked in a oil field. You?

[ConstIva]

I never worked in a oil field. You?

Sorry for my bad English.
I meant "Are you a boor?" Or a teaser?

[shooz]

Only to some, as are you.
What has that to do with anything?

[ConstIva]

as are you

With a slight diligence you may find that I DID NOT insult anybody personally; I was only objecting the ideology you seem to be an adherent of.

But your and your companions' remarks regarding particular individuals and views that you don't share, reveal your intolerance to different opinions.

So, I am sure that any decent and honest person who reads this entire topic, will find no ground to insult me, as you did.

I don't want to talk with you anymore.

I will, though, talk with well-bred respectful people, if they want me to.

By the way, to satisfy your "curiosity":
no, I am not a plutocrat, if you understand the notion of "plutocrat" as "a representative of a rich top of ruling classes."
Never was. Never will be.

[shooz]

Boorishness is in the eye of the beholder.
Not an insult as you insinuated.

That is the meaning of what I wrote.

You have yet to converse with me anyway.

[Wheatfield]

It's always amusing to see a person call Socialists "lefties" of a derivative of that, and then go on about how "Socialist" countries such as the old USSR or Nazi Germany were Socialist.
The sad reality is, the "Socialist" governments of the USSR, Nazi Germany and all the other dictatorships that are held up as poster children for the evils of Socialism were also about as far to the right of the political spectrum as one could ever dream of.
It is ironic that those who bleat about the evils of Socialism are the same ones who are living with a rapidly self destructing Capitalist system that is moving more and more towards total failure.
If Socialism is so bad, why are countries with strong social programs doing so much better than the capitalist countries such as the USA in terms of looking after their own citizens?

[lithos]

"Socialism" is, strictly speaking, an economic system, not a political one.