“Socialism means equality of income or nothing... under socialism you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you like it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live you would have to live well.”

This may sound extreme, but it is not far off the mark. China most closely fits the bill, but certainly there are folks in power in the West that are pushing for the same kind of national uniformity.

China executes pacificst Falun Gong members by removing their internal organs. I guess that is kind, if they use anesthesia. There is no socialism in evidence, in fact, in China, North Korea, Cuba, or any of the totalitarian regimes, other than in their rhetoric and slogans.

As a playwright, Shaw almost instinctively leaned towards exaggeration and hyperbole in the interest of keeping the attention of the audience. All stage presence, including the lines, must, by nature of the venue, be exaggerated and/or romanticized. This 'quote' is no exception. It's good theater though. David must yearn to be a playwright:

"The People’s Liberation Army engages in systematic harvesting and marketing of human organs extracted from executed prisoners."

My big problem with these quotes is that they are irrelevant to the current political struggle going on in the USA (and bound to slip over the border into Canada.) Very few people are advocating Socialism or Communism. I personally am advocating a slightly left of center position that I call liberalism. None of these quotes offers any criticism of the lies, cheating, character assassination and foul deeds being commited by the current fairly right wing US government - and the refusal of any of the major press to even cover the numerous scandals currently occuring, not the least of which is the ongoing war for lies and oil going on in Iraq. Am I to assume that this absence of criticism is approval?

Evidently there are two schools of thought, Libertarian and Socialist, and nothing in between. It's a time-tested strategy of war to 'frame' debates/perceived differences/'ethnicities'/'religious differences in that manner. It always works on most members of any society.

Exactly Terry, and it seems stranger and stranger to me that the quotes on this site and their supporters seem to spend 100% of their time attacking the extreme left and none attacking the extreme right, when it is the extreme right that is the far greater threat to the USA - there no longer being a far or even middle left in the USA. You Libertarians - I think you are hypocrites and I don't think you have a workable vision of society, your way may have worked in a frontier town of a few hundred people in the mid 19th century. I think your philosophy is another way to justify greed and selfishness, I am going to unsubscribe from this "service", good night and good luck!

Simon: ..."100% of their time"?... Are you high?

Simon, Where else can you get the straight-party-line 'dope' (LOL) on some of the ideology driving this country over the cliff? If nothing else, it's, well, humorous to hear the diatribes of the true believers as they try to denigrate anyone not in lock-goose-step with the likes of Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand by calling them 'lazy' and 'socialist'. I mean, 'liberal' has become one of the 7 unspeakable 'words' in this country. Look, it's always better to know what's going on than not. Would you let the local sanctimonious preacher-hypocrite browbeat you into submission (in this day and age)? I'm guessing not.

What's funny is that I saw a quote by John Kenneth Galbraith on the 'parent' site (to this site) the other day and it struck me as a huge incongruity (that he should merit mention) to much of what's posted here.

No, Terry, not a playwright...I yearn to be like you when I grow up.

There's that 'drug obsession' thing again - LOL - From someone who may actually know a bit about that sort of activity.

Why, that's so sweeeet! You must know I live for your admiration.

"He writes his plays for the ages--the ages between five and twelve." - - - George Nathan (about George Bernard Shaw)

I just read the Wikipedia article on him. At no time in his career did he recant his extreme and violent view that force must be used for equality. He even defended the Russian use of star chambers for killing those that aren't pulling their weight.
The most interesting thing about Shaw is how intelligent a man can be seduced by socialism. If his views weren't so violently Stalinist (not just Marxist) one might be troubled by the fact that so many intellectuals are Democrats. But here with Shaw is a clear example of how brilliance, has nothing at all to do with wisdom.

If it isn't completely accurate, it's pretty darn close.

ahhh, kinda sorta

I agree with Terry Berg

Just a thought, being so radically socialist, why didn't he give away all his money beyond the average wage of the factory worker in the country?