funny how all those Countries,like Venezuela and others are touted Socialist,yet when they fail,you can hear their Supporter moan:"B-b-but they were really never true Socialists"!

You aren't reading carefully. It's different people saying each thing. And the only ones who are right, are the ones saying that they weren't "real" socialist nations.

However, it is also true, that socialism is no more magic than capitalism. Neither system causes countries to do well, when they are being run by inept fools, or corrupt jerks.

That's the main area where people who attack either system always seem to completely get everything wrong (as is being done in this thread).

Socialism haters in particular, blind themselves to the FACT that every successful organization, company, or country, contains elements of, and follows principles of socialism, in one or more areas of endeavor. Every single one. It is also true, that every organization, company or country which has ever collapsed or otherwise failed in the world, was utilizing elements common to capitalism in one or more areas of endeavor. In neither case, is the failure or success due to THE FACT that they used socialist or capitalist principles, the success or failure is due to THE FACT that they used each principle in the wrong application, and or did so very badly.

yep,I am reading very carefully!
You Guys never explain your definition of Socialism!
Like I said,your claim is that it never was Socialism when it fails,or the "Principles" were applied wrong!
But that argument is getting sort of worn and threadbare!
That Bird doesn't fly anymore!

I love it when they stupidly nationalize businesses and industry. Then
blame them when they fail or leave.

http://fee.org/articles/under-socialism-morality-is-scarcer-than-bread/

<<<<Socialism is a utopian ideal intended to solve all of humanity’s problems including, above all, poverty and inequality. The theory and practice, alas, have tended to be at odds with one another.

Here is how Karl Marx outlined the future benefits of a socialist society:

“If we have chosen the position in life in which we can most of all work for mankind, no burdens can bow us down, because they are sacrifices for the benefit of all; then we shall experience no petty, limited, selfish joy, but our happiness will belong to millions, our deeds will live on quietly but perpetually at work, and over our ashes will be shed the hot tears of noble people.”

Leon Trotsky, the Soviet revolutionary, wrote that in a socialist society:

“Man will become immeasurably stronger, wiser, and subtler; his body will become more harmonious, his movements more rhythmic, his voice more musical. The forms of life will become dynamically dramatic. The average human type will rise to the heights of an Aristotle, a Goethe, or a Marx. And above these heights, new peaks will rise.”
<<<<

This relationship, clearly visible in Venezuela today, was first identified by the Nobel Prize-winning economist Friedrich Hayek in The Road to Serfdom.

In 1944, when he wrote his book, Hayek noted that the crimes of the German National Socialists and Soviet Communists were, in great part, the result of growing state control over the economy.

As he explained, growing state interference in the economy leads to massive inefficiencies and long queues outside empty shops. A state of perpetual economic crisis then leads to calls for more planning.

But economic planning is inimical to freedom. As there can be no agreement on a single plan in a free society, the centralisation of economic decision-making has to be accompanied by centralisation of political power in the hands of a small elite. When, in the end, the failure of central planning becomes undeniable, totalitarian regimes tend to silence the dissenters—sometimes through mass murder.

Political dissent under socialism is difficult, because the state is the only employer. To quote Trotsky again, “In a country where the sole employer is the State, opposition means death by slow starvation. The old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced by a new one: who does not obey shall not eat.” A free economy, in other words, is a necessary, though not a sufficient condition, for political freedom.

In East Germany, people often spied on their neighbours and, even, spouses.

Obviously, not everyone feels that dictatorship and mass murder are too high a price to pay for equality. Eric Hobsbawm, the British Marxist historian, for example, was once asked whether, if Communism had achieved its aims, but at the cost of, say, 15 to 20 million people – as opposed to the 100 million it actually killed in Russia and China – would he have supported it? His answer was a single word: Yes. Even today, many people, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau among them, fawn over Cuban dictatorship, because of its delivery of supposedly free health and education to the masses.

I did not see becoming capitalist or are all ready ...

I believe we have hit bottom with what republicans ...
wants to do and change ... Lieberman might be coming in ...
to take James Comey place... not sure though ... just hear say ...

socialist democrats or elitist/classist/bourgeoisie republicans,, which extreme should we imagine,,?

an IDEAL where everyone gives what they can in return for basic needs

or

an IDEAL where a small fraction have the wealth and power and the rest get to toil and sweat under their feet in return for their crumbs

I'll stick with the elitist/classist/bourgeoisie republicans.

Socialism is a great idea....but it doesn't work.

Illusionists make me

and elitism only 'works' for the elite few,,,

and socialism only 'works' for the elite few.

which is why its silly to compare the two as if either does not get abused for the benefit of the elite few,,,,

You made the comparison.

Hillary,The "Daughter" of Saul Alinsky!

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/files/hillaryclintonthesis-ocr.pdf

https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/49-abominable-facts-about-hillary-the-media-wont-tell-you

did you know these other important points about Hillary’s life-long run to the White House?
Saul Alinsky

During her college years at Wellesley, Hillary Clinton formed her political ideology as a close friend and confidant of Saul Alinsky, the Marxist firebrand who resurrected the “Communist Manifesto” and urged young liberals to agitate and create unrest to establish communist ends.
Hillary Clinton’s senior thesis at Wellesley College was locked at her husband’s request during his time as president. The 92-page thesis was about Alinsky, with whom Clinton shared a mentor/apprentice relationship.
According to NBCNews, David Brock called Hillary “Alinsky’s daughter” in his 1996 biography, “The Seduction of Hillary Rodham.”
Hillary Clinton wrote in her thesis, “Much of what Alinsky professes does not sound ‘radical.’” This, coming from the man who dedicated his book, “Rules for Radicals” to Lucifer, “the first radical.”
To read a more in depth article about Hillary and Saul Alinsky, read, “Alinsky’s Daughter: Here’s the truth about Hillary the media won’t tell you.”
.....................

and Hillary is still the face of today's Democrat Party!

wow, an 18 year old out of high school was a close 'confidant' of a nearly 60 year old man,,,

wonders never cease,,,

Politics and Religion...the fall of mankind...everybody's right 'till no one is left when will we learn..
The systems were developed for the betterment of humans yet, we continue to kill and destroy everything in a feudal attempt to make things better. Toss in a monetary system and here we are.

the love of power and money, ingrained into the human psyche, creeps into any system that humans are a part of

we do not crave order, we crave a chaos where everyone does what they want, short of murder and theft and humans only hold real value based upon the money they can produce for themselves and others

and when we do not desire order, when we resist order as a bad thing, when we embrace only 'subjective' standards and diminish the value of human life to a dollar sign

we invite the fall of mankind,,, and here we are

I don't know how to tell you this but your ex husband or whichever male figure pumped these ideas into your head was grossly misleading you. Your points are inaccurate and your line of thinking is skewed.
Finally, your last little statement regarding modern day Republicans being in any fashion associated with the KKK; simply because of an endorsement from one of the group's leaders, is laughable.
You might want to quit posting for a bit and go do some research on the following: "Hillary Clinton Robert Byrd."

Sorry ladies and gents, my comment was supposed to be directed towards (msharmony.)

anyway , back to the Democrat Party morphing into the Communist Party.
Democrats campaign and win elections as tax predators.
"Their supporters unreservedly embrace the second plank of Karl Marx's ten-point platform for socializing an economy, the graduated income tax. The property rights of the rich are disparaged, with mobs of voters believing that it is "greedy" for rich Americans to want to keep what they've earned (note: cronies and others enriching themselves at the public trough are not earning that wealth) but it is not greedy for other Americans to want to take property away from them or for politicians to assume an ersatz veneer of virtue by taking property from some citizens to give to others".