Point of order, David F.

China today allows free enterprise, but it still has a Socialist government.

Germany under Hitler also allowed free enterprise, but it still had a Socialist government.

The primary difference between Stalin's Socialism and Hitler's Socialism, was that the Russian Socialists demanded that all Socialist parties throughout the world be subject to Russian control. Hitler was a nationalist and he would not allow Germans to be subject to the Kremlin's will. Same for China. The big split between China and the USSR occurred in the 70's when the Chinese refused to be subject Socialists to the Kremlin.

Like the German Socialists of the National Socialist German Workers (Nazi) Party, the Chinese Socialists are nationalists first.

Josef Broz Tito was a Socialist who also allowed free enterprise within Yugoslavia. He refused demands by Stalin to make Yugoslavia part of the Warsaw pact and be subject to Soviet control because like the Germans and the Chinese, he was a nationalist. When the Soviets moved forces to invade Yugoslavia, Tito promised Stalin that he would give him twenty years of war. Stalin backed off.

Sorry, but however much you lefties hate the idea, Hitler was one of your own.

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJYHCUM8QNs
How Adolf Hitler Destroyed Germany | George Reisman and Stefan Molyneux
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BfuEFSI3w0

LEGO, Exactly right, the German communists were directed from Moscow and led by Bolshevik Jews and they were running amok in Germany, carrying out assassinations, rioting, and all the usual Left wing sabotage, arson and intimidation of the population. Hitlerian socialism had a Nordicist character as you'd expect while the Soviet Union,the PRC,DPRK,Kampuchea and Vietnam all have an Asiatic character. Marx and Engels definitely envisioned a Nordicist brand of Socialism for Europe and from a purely practical point of view Hitler was correct in putting down the Asiatic, Jewish led Bolshevism in Germany as it threatened to destroy not only the nation but the German people.Hitler believed, as did many Socialists of that era in an organic "natural socialism" dormant within the German race and that under the leadership of the party and the Germanic (Aryan)Herrenvolk he could promise Europeans an eternal Socialist paradise. Sadly like all Socialist demagogues Hitler was wrong but what exacerbated the situation was his declining health, in late 1940 Hitler was diagnosed with atherosclerosis, he was dying and he was beginning to endure the dementia like symptoms, the palsy, the vison problems etc so he simply sped up the program, bet all his chips at once and lost, end of story.

phanto: (again this is not on topic- but the thread is dead anyway)
You appear to have missed the point I was trying to make about science being a religion. At the foundational level there are things that you just believe to be true: it is not a case of assuming something before you gather enough evidence to support your case. These things can not be "tested" at all. I previously gave you the example of the belief that the laws of physics holdout throughout the universe: you can never prove this, to prove it you would have to conduct experiments in every single instant of space which is obviously an impossibility. The other example I gave is the belief that time really does exist: actually some physicists don't believe this tenet, they are therefore practising a different version of the religion. There are also other foundational beliefs, such as the beliefs invoked in the answer to the question of whether the universe is computable- specifically, "Is it at its lowest level governed by mathematical laws*".

Now, once you've established and believe the foundational doctrine of beliefs associated with your version of science, it is possible build hypotheses on top of it that can be accepted or rejected by evidence. This evidence is gathered and analysed in a systematic way-- this is "doing" part of science, ie, applying the scientific method. Of course, the hypotheses proposed which are acceptable and the existence of/along with the permissible ways to analyse the evidence are only allowed/accepted/performed if they accord with the fundamental beliefs.

*This question to me is the most profound question ever asked by mankind. There are way greater than questions such as our quibbles over whether a god exists or not-- these other questions cannot even be formed meaningfully for rational discussion until you determine your position on the universe's computability. For me, I believe that the universal is non-computable (ie: it cannot be emulated on a Turing machine).

Dear Thinkabit,

While the belief in science is irrational, that doesn't qualify it as a religion.

(that is not to deny that there are individuals whom science benefits as part of their spiritual path)

I agree that the question about God's existence is childish and also tend to agree that the universe is non-computable, but I am curious as to why you consider this, of all questions, to be the most profound?

Yuyutsu: I'm not saying that science is irrational. It is actually the opposite that holds- it is very rational. Scientists routinely make logical arguments to derive conclusions.
I also say that it is a religion, because:
1) its foundational statements have to be believed on faith,
2) it has a central dogma (there are some variations among the different versions of science but within the participants of given version there is substantial agreement on dogma)
3) it has social organizational structures and is a community endeavour not just a personal belief system,
4) lastly, various branches of it make statements about how we should live our lives (eg: ethics of laboratory animal experiments, environmental statements, ethics of psychological experiments, etc). Admittedly you may say that this is not central/necessary for science, but the reality is that in the way that it is actually practised this is what happens.

So I say science is a religion heavily based on rational argument.

In general, many religion incorporate rational arguments. However, just because an argument is rationally sound and valid doesn't necessarily convince me to believe it. To explain why this is, I have to I first need to explain what a logic and deductive system is (sorry if you know all this already, but I really have no idea what you know about logic arguments).
In the modern sense pure logic is just rules that govern how to make proper (well formed) sentences written with symbols that belong to the logic. A deductive system are rules that allow one group of these sentences to be followed by another. The very first group of sentences is called the premise and after one or more uses of the deductive rules the very last group of sentences produced is called the conclusion. We say/state that the deductive system controls how some property changes for each application of a deductive rules and overall from the initial premise to the final conclusion (normally the change of property is that it doesn't, ie. it is maintained/preserved).
--continued--

--continued--
These properties are usually something like "truth" or "provability" or such (most usually is it "truth").
When we present either a single, or a repeated application of these deductive rules as a whole, this is what is called an argument. When we make an rational argument concerning some abstract concepts and/or parts of reality, we give these logic sentences semantic meaning.
Finally, we say that these arguments are "valid and sound" when the applications of the rules was done properly and the premises are "true" with-respect-to the universe of your semantics.
(Note that the above is a very, very rough, fast and loose/vague overview, you should consult the internet for a thorough explanation)

Some questions that naturally arise for any given argument or attempt at an argument are:
- do I even care about it -- eg: if you present me with an argument that the 100 billionth digit in the decimal expansion of pi is 7, I'm not going to read it. I really cannot care less.
-which logic/deductive system is being used and why,
-what are the inherent limits of this combination and do they effect what we are trying to achieve-- eg, are there logic sentences that we would like to make that cannot be made/derived within this framework
-is the argument valid,
-do we understand what the logic statements mean, ie, what are the argument's semantics.
-is the argument sound. This includes issues such as if it is meant to be about reality, does the argument's reality equate with mine, if not in which ways does it differ.
-with respect to its given semantics what are its limitations-- eg: are there some meanings you would like to have but the semantics just can't capture it properly
-what happens when we try to use other logic/deductive systems to construct something similar.

The reason why the answers to these questions are very pertinent is because to be convinced that an argument works for their reality most people have to:
-have a care about it in the first place
-agree that the argument is about their reality