Is Socialism really that bad?

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Togo1
Posts: 541
Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 9:52 am

Re: Is Socialism really that bad?

Post by Togo1 »

Fan of Science wrote:People here are not distinguishing socialism from capitalism, however. Capitalism has never been just free-markets. That's a myth of history and an ideological claim, not one supported by actual history.
Capitalism and socialism are definitional claims. Actual history has nothing to do with it.

Define the terms how you want. If you define them as you do, you end up with a straw man arguement, where Capitalism is apparently free markets and socialism apparently the abolistion of any kind of market whatsoever so that even prices themselves cease to exist. Since that doesn't match any form of socialism either proposed or enacted, and ignores several forms of controlled-market capitalism, it's a straw man.

You can twist definition like this to produce logically satisfying results that flatter your existing beliefs, but it's not a terribly useful exercise.

Generally speaking, capitalism is taken to mean running the economy for the benefit of the holders of capital, and socialism as running society for the benefit of the social group as a whole. Hence the names. In practice they never exist in a 'pure' form.

If you want to include other elements, such as freedom/law, big government/small government, free markets/regulated markets, and so on, it's as well to say so explicitly, as not everyone will agree with you.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Is Socialism really that bad?

Post by LuckyR »

Togo1 wrote:
Fan of Science wrote:People here are not distinguishing socialism from capitalism, however. Capitalism has never been just free-markets. That's a myth of history and an ideological claim, not one supported by actual history.
Capitalism and socialism are definitional claims. Actual history has nothing to do with it.

Define the terms how you want. If you define them as you do, you end up with a straw man arguement, where Capitalism is apparently free markets and socialism apparently the abolistion of any kind of market whatsoever so that even prices themselves cease to exist. Since that doesn't match any form of socialism either proposed or enacted, and ignores several forms of controlled-market capitalism, it's a straw man.

You can twist definition like this to produce logically satisfying results that flatter your existing beliefs, but it's not a terribly useful exercise.

Generally speaking, capitalism is taken to mean running the economy for the benefit of the holders of capital, and socialism as running society for the benefit of the social group as a whole. Hence the names. In practice they never exist in a 'pure' form.

If you want to include other elements, such as freedom/law, big government/small government, free markets/regulated markets, and so on, it's as well to say so explicitly, as not everyone will agree with you.
Good point. Discussions of these economic subjects can only be rational if either citing actual existing systems/countries (acknowledging that none of them are a pure form of any particular theoretical system), or debating hypothetical systems of your own design where you get to stipulate the variables. Otherwise when using labels with variable interpretations of how the details work, leads to a mess of miscommunication.
"As usual... it depends."
Fan of Science
Posts: 172
Joined: May 26th, 2017, 1:39 pm

Re: Is Socialism really that bad?

Post by Fan of Science »

History has a lot to do with the issues. Trying to make claims without respecting actual historical facts is one of the hallmarks of delusional beliefs. Austrian economists deny the actual history regarding the development of capitalism being dependent on a government, as well as denial of the nature of currency under the gold-standard and the disastrous impact of deflation. Socialists deny the failure of the USSR, Red China, the Soviet Bloc states, Cuba, etc., etc.

Some of this is also the fault of economists suffering from physics-envy. Economists all too often want to come up with "the economic model" like the universal laws of physics. This has never been done, and most likely never will be done. An economic model only makes sense given certain underlying specific factual assumptions. For example, price ceilings do not always reduce production and cause shortages. That will occur in a market with many producers, but, if there was a monopoly? Then a price ceiling would likely increase production. So, any economist who claims that it is some universal law of economics that price ceilings cause shortages is wrong, and likely suffering from a lot of physics envy. Knowing that we are dealing with thousands of different economic models, tells us that economics is far closer to history than it is to physics.
Togo1
Posts: 541
Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 9:52 am

Re: Is Socialism really that bad?

Post by Togo1 »

Fan of Science wrote:History has a lot to do with the issues.
But nothing at all to do with how you're choosing to define your terms. Which is rather the point I was making.
Fan of Science
Posts: 172
Joined: May 26th, 2017, 1:39 pm

Re: Is Socialism really that bad?

Post by Fan of Science »

History most definitely does deal with how we define our terms. Why wouldn't it? History shows us what capitalism is and what it consists of, same with socialism.
Togo1
Posts: 541
Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 9:52 am

Re: Is Socialism really that bad?

Post by Togo1 »

Fan of Science wrote:History most definitely does deal with how we define our terms. Why wouldn't it? History shows us what capitalism is and what it consists of, same with socialism.
Apparently not, since your own chosen definitions vary quite sharply from those of many others. If 'history' showed us what the definitions are, we would all be in agreement, but we demonstrably aren't. It's far safer to explicitly say what you mean.

In this case you're confident that socialism is an unmitigated disaster, because it flows quite clearly from your definitions.
Fan of Science
Posts: 172
Joined: May 26th, 2017, 1:39 pm

Re: Is Socialism really that bad?

Post by Fan of Science »

The fact that others ignore history and come up with ahistorical definitions that are false, does not refute my position, but rather, strengthens it. Socialism is a disaster, we know this as a fact of history -- Red China, the USSR, Cuba, etc., all failures on a massive scale. When people like you ignore historical reality to promote an ideological viewpoint, we end up with history repeating itself. How many times does socialism before people recognize it doesn't work? It's unfortunate that so many people ignore actual evidence from history regarding socialism, because economics is not a discipline where we can run actual experiments on a national level without causing extreme hardships for people, so the best evidence we have regarding economics often comes from history.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Is Socialism really that bad?

Post by Burning ghost »

I think it was Lenin who said Socialism stood the best chance of working from an already stable nation. Of course this does not do much to push the case for socialism in general, he (or whoever said that) realized that socialism being established by a nation under strain was not a good thing. Ironically we could very well say the same for any political ideology so I am not defending these words.

The point is to understand what benefits there are in any ideology and putting some of them to use. Some socialist ideas are actively used today in, I imagine, every government.

Economics is the distribution of resources. Socialism is employed to help those get to resources which would otherwise be unobtainable to them in normal circumstances. It is about allowing a more equal distribution (a completely equal distribution is, in my mind, counter productive).

As has already been mentioned I do not agree with complete state ownership of every institution. Private institutions are required to keep the government in check, and the government can be held to account for certain controls. We cannot complain to the government about institutions that are privately funded and run and expect them to have much they can do in the matter. The obvious problem is finding a balance in the law that allows degrees of privatization and state ownership without undermining the ability of the public to influence these institutions.

Socialism points out possible harms of extreme capitalistic mentality. I don't think we're there yet, but it without doubt helps us guard against the possible loss of government control possible, and therefore public control, of the institutions used in day-to-day society.

Capitalism is the best we have today, no doubt. Eventually, once economics shifts into other regions (such as now with information resources) we would be dumb not to assess the possible problems this may involve, and look to counter positions of capitalism to heed certain potential misuses of a capitalistic system in todays ever expanding global community.

As a be all and end all socialism is bad. As a be all and end all ANY economical ideology is bad. I don't see how we can escape capitalism in general, and I don't think we should look to. I view the future as being more about complimenting capitalism with some new ideology (no idea what).
AKA badgerjelly
User avatar
ZoneOfNonBeing
Posts: 93
Joined: June 8th, 2016, 9:41 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Alan Watts

Re: Is Socialism really that bad?

Post by ZoneOfNonBeing »

I think we need to re-calibrate the register of discourse a bit here - as the commentary from Burning Ghost is based on partial/inaccurate information about capitalism and socialism. To answer the question "is socialism really that bad?" we need to first ask ourselves: what is capitalism?

Let’s begin with the premise that labor is a fundamental human activity. By working, we use our brains and/or our muscles to transform nature into useful products. So, for instance, the process of work transforms a pile of wood into a table and chairs.

The survival of every society hinges upon two factors. The first is a means of production –which simply refers to the land, raw materials, resources, and factories that are necessary for the productive process and survival of the human race. The second is a group of workers who can perform the laborious and strenuous tasks of production.

The most important question is: who owns the means of production? Keep in mind – there are 7 billion people on this planet. But the means of production are owned privately by a small group of elites. This means that the vast majority of the resources and wealth necessary for the survival of all human beings is concentrated into the hands and bank accounts of a minute segment of the population that sits at the top of the pyramid.

This leaves the masses of people in a desperate position, because they have nothing but their hands to work with. The structure of society is determined by whether or not you own those means of production. If you own the means of production, you are part of the “bourgeoisie” or “the ruling class” which survives simply by owning. But if you do not own means of production, you are part of the “proletariat” or “the working class” which survives by working for the bourgeoisie. Almost the entire planet must beckon to the needs of a few people in seats of power in the ruling class. The bourgeoisie is greedy for money and power, at the expense of the proletariat; while the proletariat is simply trying to survive. Society is composed of two groups or “classes” that will never see eye to eye: the haves (the ruling class) and the have-nots (the working class). The differences between these two groups are irreconcilable. Society is structured by these class antagonisms. Any thought and/or plan that seeks to perpetuate the antagonistic relationship between these classes is reformism. Any thought and/or plan that seeks to destroy the antagonistic relationship between these classes is revolutionary. The commentary of Burning Ghost is reformist and, for that reason, only entrenches the privileges of the ruling class at the expense of the working class around the globe.
"Burning Ghost" said: Economics is the distribution of resources
.

While this is not incorrect, it is only a partial explanation. Whenever workers produce, the goal is to produce more than what is necessary – the goal is to produce a surplus – because we are not in scarcity anymore. We have to produce enough to feed, clothe, and shelter those who cannot work – such as children, the disabled, and the elderly – and to provide security during emergency situations. Once again: the question becomes: who gets to control that surplus value? Under capitalism, the surplus is produced by workers through labor, but it is appropriated and distributed by the ruling class for expenses that do not benefit the working class (i.e. to pay for CEO bonuses, luxury cars, etc). Workers produce a massive amount of wealth, but receive only a fraction of it in return – that which we call a “wage” or a “salary“. A clear example is the prostitute-pimp relationship. The prostitute charges each customer, lets say, $100 for intercourse. In a day, they meet with 8 customers, which means $800 in value was produced. Does the prostitute take home $800? No. They are given only a fraction of that amount, closer to $100, while the surplus goes to the pimp. Keep in mind: it was the prostitute who performed the services, but the pimp is the primary recipient of labor. Bosses are like vampires who become wealthy by sucking the blood of workers. The ruling class is lazy; a bunch of parasites who prosper off of our labor. They talk about "creating jobs" - but jobs do not create wealth. Labor is the source of all value (that, and nature); so the money they are using to "create jobs" to exploit us was stolen from us in the first place!

This is key: when the group of people who produces the surplus is different than the group of people that appropriates and distributes the surplus it is exploitation. But when the group who produces the surplus is the same as the group who appropriates and distributes the surplus, there is freedom. The goal is to build a society where there is no exploitation. The goal is to build a society where the means of production are not owned privately, but are owned collectively by the people. In doing so, everyone benefits from the surplus that is generated. Such a society is defined as socialism (the first step toward communism) – which simply means all the resources necessary for human survival are owned in common, not privately.
"Burning Ghost" said: private institutions are required to keep government institutions in check.
This is out of step with historical materialism. What we call "government" - or the State - only came into existence once class society began. In other words: the modern conception of government began as a consequence of exploitation. Before slavery began thousands of years ago, people were in constant survival mode. But when they learned to domesticate animals and get involved in agriculture, a surplus was accrued for the new slave masters - who relied on government to maintain their power. As stated above, exploitation is the privatization of wealth, whereas freedom is the socialization of resources. The government exists to maintain the regime of private property, not the other way around (i.e. read Friedrich Engels' "The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State").

This is the thing about the ruling class: they always make it seem as if the government is a horrible and bloated force that intrudes upon their existence. Thus, they do not want the government to tax them or regulate them because it would adversely impact their profits. But the ruling class loves the military and the police: both in which are government forces, and they love to pass laws, which is a governmental function. The ruling class picks and chooses when government is important (coercing the working class) and when it is not important (dodging the demands for higher wages, health care, environmental protections, etc).

Capitalism is not freedom. Capitalism is not compatible with democracy. Capitalism is legitimized theft and normalized barbarism. Capitalism is not efficient for anyone except the ruling class. We need to organize against capitalism and build a more humane world. Socialism is a necessary step in that direction.
What is the answer to
the Question of U?
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Is Socialism really that bad?

Post by Burning ghost »

I am not a reformist.

I was attempting to describe certain "socialist" ideas obviously present alongside "capitalistic" ideas, nothing more.

I admit my take on the term "economics" is a little askew compared to most. Simplistically I just view it a "resource distribution" - it may seem inhuman to talk about humans as "resources" but I mean this as certain skills and abilities being of value to social groups.

Going back to prehistory there is a lot of interest in what anthropologists refer to as "the birth of inequality". We could digress a lot here quite easily.

The main gist of the post is saying socialism is BAD. I am saying that is nonsense, and I am not saying socialism or capitalism are separate either. I am suggesting, I thought quite clearly, that both are in todays society. We see the ideas of each.

I paid particular attention to "institutions" because we are effectively talking about the main difference between socialism and capitalism being about public and private ownership. When we observe one overwhelming the others problems arises. Pulling "institutions" into the private domain essentially works toward creating a new elite, whilst the old more "subdued" elite (the monarchies and such) have been replaced by governments working for the people. Today we see a very strange dynamic between the balance of the privately owned elites, the governemnts laying down the laws, and the public, when it can, forcing the hand of the government to do its duty.

I do see things coming to a head before I believe today we've seen a shift of ownership from public being taken into more private circles and these institutions have become so wealthy they are playing a bigger and bigger role in government affairs. The elites are essentially edging closer to the older regime of elitist and hereditary rule, although it is a little early to say this is actually happening to any significant degree just yet!

Marxism, as I have come to understand it a little, is more about the personal value one has for themselves in work. This was a reaction against the industrial revolution more than anything, in which people were viewed as merely being parts in a greater machine and taking away the sense of societal value. Knowing you can be replaced so easily hardly inspires someone in day-to-day life. Marx , from my limited understanding of him (and it is currently very limited) seemed very concerned about the human spirit rather than simply taking into account the "economics". This is again a point where I would say "capitalism", or rather "meritocracy" took a hold of a Marxist view of the human being in striving for value in society.

It is a fascinating area to look at. I don't quite know what I mean by "information" being important, but I do feel the whole communications explosion over the past couple of decades has yet to settle enough for us to see the possible future course of "economics".
AKA badgerjelly
User avatar
ZoneOfNonBeing
Posts: 93
Joined: June 8th, 2016, 9:41 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Alan Watts

Re: Is Socialism really that bad?

Post by ZoneOfNonBeing »

Burning ghost: I view the future as being more about complimenting capitalism with some new ideology (no idea what).
This is a reformist statement - because instead of calling for a revolution against capitalism, it suggests that we can make capitalism work to our advantage if we amend it with a new ideology. Unless one is explicitly anti-capitalist, they are supporting capitalism.

It is also necessary to debunk the idea that capitalism and socialism exist, in harmony, at the same time. There is a different between private capitalism and state capitalism. The former refers to a society where elite individuals own the means of production outside the auspice of government. The latter refers to a society where elite individuals own the means of production within the auspice of government. The U.S. is, for the most part, private capitalist. But at the same time, we can point to the existence of welfare programs that benefit the poor, the disabled, etc., the are very socialistic. I would argue that this not true socialism - it is state capitalism. To understand this, we need to take a step back ...

In 1929, the Stock Market crashed and the working class was down and out in a Depression. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a few years later, implemented the New Deal: a litany of programs that provided relief to working class people, and gave them work in the interim to stimulate the economy. But this is how we need to approach the matter: welfare programs are not a challenge to capitalism, they are an expansion of capitalism. Roosevelt saved capitalism by implementing the New Deal. How? He was smart enough to realize that if workers remained idle and poor long enough, they would become angry and start a revolution to overthrow capitalism. Therefore, the New Deal was a bribe - a form of anger management to contain the resistance against an unjust economic system. Welfare programs benefit the ruling class more than anyone.

State capitalism is not the same as socialism. Under state capitalism, the surplus is still concentrated in the hands of a small few, and workers are still being exploited. This was the case in China, the Soviet Union, Cuba - and is the case today in Denmark and Switzerland. I do not doubt the sincere Marxist allegiances of the leaders of these countries - and they undoubtedly declared themselves "communist" or "socialist" - but the most they ever implemented was state capitalism. There is a difference between what we say and what we do. The U.S. says it is a democracy and, well, it is obvious that is false. We have never seen true socialism: a situation where the workers own the factories and benefit collectively.

It is incorrect to claim that Marxism is mostly about the personal value one has in work as opposed to economics. Marx himself wrote volumes and volumes devoted to the science of capitalism. Marxism is a theory dedicated to dialectical materialism - a science - not psychobabble about individual meaning that can be filed next to self-help books at the library. In light of your admitted lack of understanding of Marxism, I do not think it is proper or justified to conclude that socialism is bad. One would need to rid their mind of all preconceptions of Marx/socialism/communism and read the work of Marx and Marxists with an open mind.
What is the answer to
the Question of U?
Fan of Science
Posts: 172
Joined: May 26th, 2017, 1:39 pm

Re: Is Socialism really that bad?

Post by Fan of Science »

It's rather comical that socialist apologists claim that capitalism is evil because some private individuals own the means of production. So? They also have to compete with other capitalists, and in free-markets cannot force people to buy their products. Yet, the mere ownership of capital is considered to be some sort of moral offense? So, what does the socialist-apologist produce to do about this supposedly harmful situation? Give ownership of the means of production to a tiny handful of government officials who will somehow, mysteriously, not abuse this power and bring about some miracle of social well-being. This is nonsense. Once the government owns the means of production, this gives far too much power to a government over its citizens. Moreover, once the government owns the means of production, competition is done away with, which gives the government owners far more power than individual capitalists who faced competition from other capitalists ever had.

It's not just that socialism has failed miserably throughout history --- it's also that its ideology is borderline delusional.
User avatar
ZoneOfNonBeing
Posts: 93
Joined: June 8th, 2016, 9:41 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Alan Watts

Re: Is Socialism really that bad?

Post by ZoneOfNonBeing »

Well, first of all, I am not apologizing for anything. I am condemning capitalism as an unjust system. Socialism does not need an apology. Capitalism, on the other hand, will require many exorcisms and excuses.

The ownership of the means of production is not only a moral offense - it is the most amoral offense we can comprehend. The land, water, and resources beneath the ground exist to provide for all of us, not just a few people at the top of the pyramid. At present, 5 men possess more wealth than 50% of the world's population. A person needs to be seriously disconnected from humanity to justify the fact that one individual now possesses more wealth than 10,000 garment workers in Bangladesh. What entitles that one individual to a more comfortable existence than 10,000 people?! Anyone who justifies the avarice and pure, unadulterated greed of capitalism subscribes to a neo-Darwinist school of thought of survival of the fittest whereby whoever has the most toys wins.
Give ownership of the means of production to a tiny handful of government officials who will somehow, mysteriously, not abuse this power and bring about some miracle of social well-being.
What you are describing here is state capitalism, not socialism. What I am describing is socialism: ownership of the means of production by the people: everyone owning the resources for the benefit of everyone.

It has been argued that socialism has "failed miserably throughout history". As I stated above, the world has never seen true socialism - it has only heard socialist declarations followed by a lack of socialist actions. But this is the take home point: capitalism has failed, is currently failing, and will always fail. 50% of the globe lives in poverty, on less than $2 a day. Look at what capitalism has done for Africa. Look at what capitalism has done for Palestine. Look at what it has done for Native Americans on reservations. Look at what it is doing for Flint, Michigan.

Lets play a game: show me a place where capitalism is prospering, and I will show you two places that were dispossessed to make that prosperity possible. The Americas were developed by enslaving Africans and colonizing the natives. Defending capitalism is a defense of oppression.
What is the answer to
the Question of U?
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Is Socialism really that bad?

Post by Burning ghost »

Just lost my rather long post :(

Anyway, I am not a reformist. Stating what I think will happen is not the same as stating what I wish to happen.
AKA badgerjelly
User avatar
ZoneOfNonBeing
Posts: 93
Joined: June 8th, 2016, 9:41 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Alan Watts

Re: Is Socialism really that bad?

Post by ZoneOfNonBeing »

Eh, that wasn't the thrust of your claim. The topic of this discussion is a moral one: is socialism bad. And you answered in the affirmative - that socialism is unproductive or counterproductive and bad. Your argument was not making a forecast of the future, it was rendering a critique based on the past and present.

And our view of the future is determined by our view of the past and present. Since it is obvious you do not think capitalism is a problem, this limits your ability to envision a society without capitalism.
What is the answer to
the Question of U?
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021