Democracy, religion, women and equality. Justice demands affirmative action.

[reverendjeremiah]

OK, IMO religion can not exist in a true socialist society, people would be at odds with each other, if for no other reason than a moral code of law.

..and of course you can hold that opinion. Others that have come before you have considered otherwise. Christian socialism, Christian anarchy, even the followers of Jesus created a system very similar to communism in the book of acts. I am of the opinion that a socialist type society can have a diverse population of different religious types. What must be emphasised in these situations is that those citizens must keep it to them selves. In other words, you cant have a "pure" socialism (as you called it) where people are allowed to make laws based on their personal religions. The Christians would quickly legislate Jesus as God and the Muslims would be up in arms over it. So, IMO, a "pure" socialism would have to have a very strong secular lean in order to survive and in order to make equity more apparent and atainable.

One of my other personal opinions that one of the many screw ups of the soviet union was it insistance in pushing atheism to its citizens. I am pretty hard core about my atheism, but in no way would I want my government or ANY government to tell me how I should be an atheist, or that my liberal christian mother should be an atheist, or that YOU should be an atheist. The soviets should have stuck to strict secularism. By choosing a side on a metaphysical debate, they made themselves less socialist and antagonistic to vast amounts of people on the opposite side of the metaphysical divide. Secularism isnt easy, but if utilized with caution will not alienate the people whom you wish to bring together in solidarity.

No, that's not what I mean, I do things and never look to profit from them, creative or not. Some however earn a living on being creative and that earning is subjective to those who are willing to or not willing to pay for said creative work i.e. a painting. So if one has to deal with the subjective does this not go against a socialistic society where ideas are discouraged.

These are traits dealing with the authoritarian left. This is where you concpet of "pure socialism" no longer holds well. I will also argue that there is no "pure capitalism" either, but that is probably for another topic. When you have an authoritarian collective, which is what the soviets turned out to become, the state becomes to controller of all things. This means the collectivisation of goods and resources under a single centralised power. Immediately you start to have problems with it as what is good for city populations is not necesarily good for agrarian. I just finished reading up on car manufacturing in Russia, and the storms of complaints that came from them: Too expensive, took forever to get one, didnt work well, etc... This is because a centralisation of everything into the executive control of the few negates any meaningful trial and error. The system is no longer bottom up (bottom being the workers, top being the rich powerful), but is now top down. The exact thing that Marx railed against. A huge centralised state is a terror to many people. this means that many legitimate complaints and suggetions that could have fixed the problem with these automobiles would never be heard for fear of angering or embarassing those who are higher up the pyramid than you are.

In an anti-authoritarian structure, centralisation of power and goods is removed. Everything is locally owned and controlled by those who live in its jurisdiction. There would no longer be a pyramid of authority (workers on bottom, leaders on top) because the workers WOULD be the leaders. This is what "syndicate" means. It is not perfect, and much arguing would take place. the system would be slow but the product produced would be a higher quality. Trial and error would be inherent in the system and doing what it should, as opposed to fear of the state comming down upon you. Those jurisdictions that make the best cars would naturally draw the resources towards it to continue their excellent trade. Jurisdictions of high populations would have their own specialties where agrarian jurisdictions would not be encumbered with having to follow the same centralised system of the city dwellers. Thus desentralised collectivisation becomes syndicated cooperation in solidarity and respect of the other trades.

I believe in an equal opportunity for all and for those who do not take advantage only have themselves to blame, all societies will have to carry some, the mentally ill, physically disable, criminals and ect. I believe all are created equal and no one should be revered above another, but all should be respected unless they do something that deems otherwise. Being a thief or denying people insurance they deserve (which by the way would not exist in a social system) would be a crime and not rewarded. Though it seems to be that way in this country at times, I mean rewarded.

Everything you just said is exactly what a syndicalist would say. Granted, syndicalism is not the only system that would agree with these concepts as well...but it was still worthy of mention.

Money does not always necessitate success, and yes life without achievements would be a bit boring.

Well, its hard to base an economical discussion on something as diverse as an opinion as "boring". I have no problem sitting around all day reading books. I find it to be a great acheivement, fulfilling, and enjoyable. Others have told me I am stupid for reading science books, biographies and history books. Get that, LOL, I am STUPID for educating myself in the machanics and facts of this world to them. Oh well, I deffinitely do not agree with them but it is their opinion.

Catch me on a good day and I would be willing to sit down and read the bible with you GC. We may not agree on opinions, but one thing you will notice is that I do take the book seriously on a personal level. As far as taking it serious on a historic or factual level...well...LOL...dont hold your breath on that one.