• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Socialism could have succeeded?

Do you think socialism could have succeeded if capitalism wasn't standing on the way?

  • Don't know

    Votes: 3 3.8%
  • Don't care

    Votes: 3 3.8%
  • Absolutely

    Votes: 9 11.4%
  • I think it could

    Votes: 11 13.9%
  • I think it couldn't

    Votes: 16 20.3%
  • No way

    Votes: 37 46.8%

  • Total voters
    79
Aunt Spiker said:
In a capitalism system - when we help others - what we try to do is give them the means to make something of their selves: educational support, temporary assistance, assistance finding jobs, quitting bad habits and other things that will hold them back.

Well spikey, socialism does that too. Just think of it like a whole bunch of your friends going out to Applebee's. One orders an appetizer of chicken wings and potato skins. One orders the 16 ounce steak for dinner. Another orders 3 or 4 pina coladas.

When the waitress comes around at the end, everyone says one check. Oh, and one person forgot their wallet at home.

It's great and all, except the person who just got the salad and an ice water is getting jobbed over pretty damn hard. They have to subsidize appetizers, steak, drinks, and a forgotten wallet.

Socialism can only exist as long as the salad and ice water doesn't mind being exploited in order to support the collective. Once they figure out how to keep the salad quiet, it's utopian.
 
Well spikey, socialism does that too. Just think of it like a whole bunch of your friends going out to Applebee's. One orders an appetizer of chicken wings and potato skins. One orders the 16 ounce steak for dinner. Another orders 3 or 4 pina coladas.

When the waitress comes around at the end, everyone says one check. Oh, and one person forgot their wallet at home.

It's great and all, except the person who just got the salad and an ice water is getting jobbed over pretty damn hard. They have to subsidize appetizers, steak, drinks, and a forgotten wallet.

Socialism can only exist as long as the salad and ice water doesn't mind being exploited in order to support the collective. Once they figure out how to keep the salad quiet, it's utopian.

:roll: Something tells me I should just jab a fork into the neck of the guy with more money than everyone in every Applebees in America then give everyone free Applebees. Much easier. :roll:

Aren't there like 5 guys with more wealth than the bottom half of the country...

Or maybe I just heard that on the news. :shrug:
 
How wonderfully authoritarian of you. Rich is evil. Let's just kill off the top 5% of America and redistribute everything.

That'll be great...for now. When the mean income and wealth level gradually dwindle down without that 5%, what next? There will be nobody left to kill, Mr. Stalin.
 
How wonderfully authoritarian of you. Rich is evil. Let's just kill off the top 5% of America and redistribute everything.

That'll be great...for now. When the mean income and wealth level gradually dwindle down without that 5%, what next? There will be nobody left to kill, Mr. Stalin.

Not that your argument has any bearing on socialism... or reality except in and of itself without application to anything external or having to do with anything that at all resembles anything that has ever happened in reality. So the work that say... the top 20 richest men in the world do... are they psychic do they have laser eyes? They must be god's who do something no other men can to deserve that wealth... correct? We should leave the financial interests of the planet or lets say the US in control of a few people in good faith they have no personal flaws? They couldn't crash the global economy could they *cough*. Now be honest... what work or knowledge could they possibly bring to planet earth that merits that wealth... if they are not gods?
 
They manage money. They have experience in operations. They're the final word on design, engineering, marketing, and a plethora of other channels.

They are still the smartest men in the room. If someone else becomes the brain, he would most likely have target on that position.

It's that same ol' "too many chiefs, not enough indians" problem. Do you think the average worker is going to not become a god unto himself? Unless you're Japanese, you've probably never been a part of a successful syndicate.
 
They manage money. They have experience in operations. They're the final word on design, engineering, marketing, and a plethora of other channels.

They are still the smartest men in the room. If someone else becomes the brain, he would most likely have target on that position.

I see... a outpouring of faith in ze gods... of course you know this because you've met them. Or have sources on what exactly it is they do... privately in their businesses?
 
I've worked in corporations plenty. You don't just stumble into or get nepotized into the head of all tables. I've met Iacocca when I worked at Daimler-Chrysler. Dude's got skills.

I know you don't want to think of other people as "better" or "smarter", but shuck the ego for a while. We're not exactly talking about fluff in a suit here.
 
I already live in a nation that's pretty socialistic. It's called the United States of America, where we have a socialized transportation system (roads, bridges, airports, trains, etc), water system, retirement system (ie SS), medical system (Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare), military, police, fire depts, mail system, electrical grid, financial system (ie central bank, SEC, regulated banks and stock exchange), etc
 
You can't privatize the vast majority of what you just listed. That is not socialism - it's just efficient allocation. You can't choose which people in a nation get defended, you can't choose which people get access to mail, and you can't choose people who get to drive on roads. You know, there is actually some grey area between anarchy and socialism. Just a little.
 
I've worked in corporations plenty. You don't just stumble into or get nepotized into the head of all tables. I've met Iacocca when I worked at Daimler-Chrysler. Dude's got skills.

I know you don't want to think of other people as "better" or "smarter", but shuck the ego for a while. We're not exactly talking about fluff in a suit here.

Im sure the head of daimler-c is quite the guy, I don't doubt it at all. Yet no human performs the value in labor that merits the wealth that the top handful (lets put it at a dozen) garner. I wouldnt stab them in the neck of course, they're likely nice people (I hope). But I still believe the point stands.
 
You can't privatize the vast majority of what you just listed. That is not socialism - it's just efficient allocation. You can't choose which people in a nation get defended, you can't choose which people get access to mail, and you can't choose people who get to drive on roads. You know, there is actually some grey area between anarchy and socialism. Just a little.

It sure is socialism. You cant make it capitalism by redefining what words mean to suit your argument. Even the rightwing acknowledges that the things I mentioned are socialistic. They even called Obamacare "socialized medicine"

And states most certainly can decide who gets defended, who gets mail, etc and the right has made some of those arguments (re privatizing mail, medicine, and the roads)
 
Quite possibly no, but there is scarcity (I know you hate the word) in intellectual capital while mules still roam the streets in droves. Without the fatcat from the giant office window in his 3 piece suit, the workers wouldn't know what to do or what to build. The value added on his end much outweighs the value added on their end because they might have negative effects if he is unable to perform, while any of those workers could be shuffled in and out at any time with an endless pool.

The "average people" have all the power in these situations. If you don't want Iacocca (suspend disbelief and time travel with me for this one) rich and in charge, don't buy Chrysler. If you have a particular hatred for Bill Gates and his fisting of symbiotic software companies, buy a Mac. Not a big fan of the Waltons? Shop at the local grocery store.

People have more power than they think, but are hesitant to use it. You don't need to wait for November to vote for anything. You vote every time you pull out your wallet.

That's economic freedom.
 
sangha said:
It sure is socialism. You cant make it capitalism by redefining what words mean to suit your argument. Even the rightwing acknowledges that the things I mentioned are socialistic. They even called Obamacare "socialized medicine"

And states most certainly can decide who gets defended, who gets mail, etc and the right has made some of those arguments (re privatizing mail, medicine, and the roads)

You can have socialistic characteristics, but it won't make you socialist. Unless you're totally anarchistic, there are going to be certain aspects of national infrastructure that are "socialized".

And yes, in an anarchistic structure you could do all that, but not only would they be inefficient as all hell, but prone to massive levels of corruption. This is why I hate seeing people who identify as "anarcho-capitalists" because they make libertarians look downright stupid.
 
You can have socialistic characteristics, but it won't make you socialist. Unless you're totally anarchistic, there are going to be certain aspects of national infrastructure that are "socialized".

And yes, in an anarchistic structure you could do all that, but not only would they be inefficient as all hell, but prone to massive levels of corruption. This is why I hate seeing people who identify as "anarcho-capitalists" because they make libertarians look downright stupid.

Not sure what you mean by socialism then. If you mean that the entire economy (or economic sub-system) is owned and controlled by the govt, then you're using the wrong definition, IMO. As it stands today, the systems I mentioned are subject to a vast amount of govt control, and in some examples, complete control AND ownership

And there's a difference between private ownership of the roads, electricity, water etc and anarchism.
 
Gipper said:
The scarcity is surely not artificial

Of course it is, crises of overproduction are common in capitalism, and preventing such a crisis requires a limitation on the productive forces, hence artificial scarcity to maintain profitable price levels.

and full employment would be an overall drag on society and economy because of diminishing returns on marginal labor after peak efficiency.

Full employment is a drag on a capitalist economy, yes. Again, here we have artificial scarcity in the labor market.

You can't just give someone a job for the sake of giving someone a job.

If production was organized around the needs of people then there would be no such thing as "giving someone a job for the sake of it". Full employment would also reduce the work day which would provide more free time for individuals to pursue other aims.

Gipper said:
Every country in the past who has tried to establish themselves as a "worker's paradise" has become an oppressive, totalitarian hellhole

Which countries are those?
 
KC said:
Of course it is, crises of overproduction are common in capitalism, and preventing such a crisis requires a limitation on the productive forces, hence artificial scarcity to maintain profitable price levels.

That's great and all for supply, but what about resources and capital? Those are definitely scarce. Efficient allocation is necessary to eliminate waste, and demand sets a curve that allows for need to be met with those available resources.

Full employment is a drag on a capitalist economy, yes. Again, here we have artificial scarcity in the labor market.

If production was organized around the needs of people then there would be no such thing as "giving someone a job for the sake of it". Full employment would also reduce the work day which would provide more free time for individuals to pursue other aims.

Full employment is a drag on all economies. Also, if you limit work, what does that give you? Frankly, I'd rather be at work than have to spend time with my family...not to mention that all that extra work lets me buy cool stuff. Once again, socialism tries to curtail individual pleasures in an effort to conform to the collective. The last thing I really want is no money and excessive free time. I masturbate enough, thank you very much.

Which countries are those?

Any nations that end in "-ia" or "-stan".
 
That's great and all for supply, but what about resources and capital? Those are definitely scarce. Efficient allocation is necessary to eliminate waste, and demand sets a curve that allows for need to be met with those available resources.

There is more than enough of both to provide for the worlds population



Full employment is a drag on all economies. Also, if you limit work, what does that give you? Frankly, I'd rather be at work than have to spend time with my family...not to mention that all that extra work lets me buy cool stuff. Once again, socialism tries to curtail individual pleasures in an effort to conform to the collective. The last thing I really want is no money and excessive free time. I masturbate enough, thank you very much.

Correction: Full employment is a drag on all capitalist economies. And if you limit work, that gives you more free time. It's bass-ackwards to claim that more free time is a way to curtail individual pleasures. Not everyone finds time with their families to be as unpleasant as you seem to find it
 
Sangha said:
Correction: Full employment is a drag on all capitalist economies. And if you limit work, that gives you more free time. It's bass-ackwards to claim that more free time is a way to curtail individual pleasures. Not everyone finds time with their families to be as unpleasant as you seem to find it

And just what am I supposed to do with no money and lots of free time? Sleep? Watch flowers grow? Discuss the birds and the bees with my buddies over a cup of Taster's Choice?

The things I do take money. Football tickets aren't cheap (except when I went to U of M). Skiing is a rather expensive sport. Gas is three and a half bucks a gallon.
 
Gipper said:
That's great and all for supply, but what about resources and capital? Those are definitely scarce. Efficient allocation is necessary to eliminate waste, and demand sets a curve that allows for need to be met with those available resources.

It's quite absurd for you to speak of capitalism being "efficiently allocating" resources. Starving African children and whatnot.

Full employment is a drag on all economies.

Full employment is a drag on all economies operating within capitalist relations of production. Again, we're back to artificial scarcity.

Also, if you limit work, what does that give you?

WTF are you talking about? Shortened work hours provide less obligatory work time. Why the hell would anyone stop you if you want to contribute more?

not to mention that all that extra work lets me buy cool stuff.

Um are you talking about a capitalist or socialist society? Because a shortening of the work week wouldn't happen under capitalism anyways. You clearly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and are very confused.

Any nations that end in "-ia" or "-stan".

Oh I get it, you're a troll. Nevermind, then.
 
A commune is about social structure not technology.
Why so few people live in a community? Because with so much legislation and regulation the commune is practically forbidden.
So who is going to stop you if you start building a commune somewhere in Siberia, or Alaska? The reason you don't try is because you want to live in a modern society.
 
KC said:
WTF are you talking about? Shortened work hours provide less obligatory work time. Why the hell would anyone stop you if you want to contribute more?

Because eventually you'd lack viable ways to contribute. Of course, I keep forgetting that resources are unlimited, as is demand, so you could just work as much as you want because there will always be some use for whatever you make.

God bless the LTV, laughable as it is.
 
So who is going to stop you if you start building a commune somewhere in Siberia, or Alaska? The reason you don't try is because you want to live in a modern society.

1. I can't stand severe cold, I need Sun and heat. Ever occurred to you, smarty pants?
2. Russian is not mother tongue. Nor is English.
3. Russian state and bureaucracy are terrible. America is better but getting a visa for both countries will be a challenge and I don't want to be a criminal.

So, what is this monopolistic attitude "it's my country, my land, if you don't like it go to the Moon"? Should I remind you how Americans got their land?

P.S. Oh, I see you are in New Zealand. You have plenty of land. How about if we have the commune there, huh?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom