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

Voters
104. You may not vote on this poll
  • Don't know

    3 2.88%
  • Don't care

    3 2.88%
  • Absolutely

    10 9.62%
  • I think it could

    16 15.38%
  • I think it couldn't

    17 16.35%
  • No way

    55 52.88%
Page 2 of 51 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 502

Thread: Socialism could have succeeded?

  1. #11
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    Socialism is succeeding just fine. It's the direction that civilization has been heading towards for centuries. Or rather, we've been heading away from inequality and mass ownership and control by the powerful few. Capitalism, with protections for the property rights of many, was a hugely important step in this process. The trend is continuing past that towards socialist ideals, and will continue even past them. Socialism is working just fine, and will continue to do so, up until the next step comes along.

    Gipper's above statement about inevitability was half right, in that progressing past capitalism is just as inevitable as progressing to it in the first place.
    This always gets me per socialism. It's always described as " heading away from inequality and mass ownership and control by the powerful few. "

    Well - in a socialist society - who DOES claim ownership and control?

    The powerful - VERY few.

    It's like a Monarchy on steroids . . . and it's suppose to be ok for such a small group to be so dominant and oppressive as long as everyone has food to eat.

    And individuals still have to work their asses off to provide for everyone and fill their piece of the puzzle in. . . I'd much rather work my ass off and benefit exponentially - and my children - and my great grandkids. . . and so on.
    Last edited by Aunt Spiker; 09-15-11 at 04:58 PM.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  2. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    EUSSR
    Last Seen
    03-24-14 @ 01:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,851

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    However, if you're talking waaaay old times - feudal China, natives in the Western Hemisphere, Biblical times in the Middle East - they seemed pretty socialist. There really was no "money", per se, in Macchu Picchu or Mesopotamian settlements.
    Not to mention that Christianity seems pretty socialist too - love your fellow man, be humble, the love of money is the root of all evil, it's easier for the camel... etc.

  3. #13
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by Canell View Post
    Not to mention that Christianity seems pretty socialist too - love your fellow man, be humble, the love of money is the root of all evil, it's easier for the camel... etc.
    LOL - and lame

    "No sex before marriage"

    "No sex on your period"

    *yawn*
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  4. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    EUSSR
    Last Seen
    03-24-14 @ 01:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,851

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker View Post
    LOL - and lame

    "No sex before marriage"

    "No sex on your period"

    *yawn*
    Well, capitalist countries were Christian countries, weren't they?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker View Post
    Well - in a socialist society - who DOES claim ownership and control?

    The powerful - VERY few.
    No, that's "banksters socialism".
    Last edited by Canell; 09-15-11 at 05:10 PM.

  5. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Everywhere and Nowhere
    Last Seen
    03-07-12 @ 03:28 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,692

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    I don't favor complete socialism but every country requires social systems to function for the health of populations to increase. It just depends on what those are.

  6. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by Canell
    Not to mention that Christianity seems pretty socialist too - love your fellow man, be humble, the love of money is the root of all evil, it's easier for the camel... etc.
    Yeah I always chuckle at how America still fancies itself a "Christian nation" and does what it does.

    Jesus turned some scraps into a plentitude to feed thousands. Wal-mart would send you a bill.

    Jesus healed the sick and the lame. Blue Cross would send you a bill.

    Jesus set up inspirational sermons for the masses. Tony Robbins would send you a bill.

    But hey - you gotta let people think what they think. Why rock the boat?

  7. #17
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker View Post
    This always gets me per socialism. It's always described as " heading away from inequality and mass ownership and control by the powerful few. "

    Well - in a socialist society - who DOES claim ownership and control?

    The powerful - VERY few.

    It's like a Monarchy on steroids . . . and it's suppose to be ok for such a small group to be so dominant and oppressive as long as everyone has food to eat.

    And individuals still have to work their asses off to provide for everyone and fill their piece of the puzzle in. . . I'd much rather work my ass off and benefit exponentially - and my children - and my great grandkids. . . and so on.
    Or this is exactly the opposite of actual socialist ideals, where the public owns everything, and it's run for the benefit of society as a whole, and not just the few powerful people. Honestly, I think you're confusing "socialism" with "military dictatorship", like the USSR did.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  8. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    That's the progression though. Eventually you must elect leaders who will do anything to get and retain power, at which point you have an overblown junta like Stalin.

    The Soviet Union essentially started out as a socialist "worker's paradise" during the October Revolution and the ousting of the Czar. Eventually, power centralized though. It always does. No matter what the intention, it always does. There are number of nations that have similar beginnings, only to federalize into a totalitarian or dictatorial body. I don't say "all socialism is authoritarian" because it sounds catchy. Once you centralize power, it's too difficult to decentralize. The people begin to obey out of fear.

    Asian nations such as China and India only began to prosper when they started to allow laissez-faire market forces permeate through the borders. Before then, they were a system of stagnation that could have long been able to be a superpower, but never able to capitalize.

  9. #19
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    That's the progression though. Eventually you must elect leaders who will do anything to get and retain power, at which point you have an overblown junta like Stalin.

    The Soviet Union essentially started out as a socialist "worker's paradise" during the October Revolution and the ousting of the Czar. Eventually, power centralized though. It always does. No matter what the intention, it always does. There are number of nations that have similar beginnings, only to federalize into a totalitarian or dictatorial body. I don't say "all socialism is authoritarian" because it sounds catchy. Once you centralize power, it's too difficult to decentralize. The people begin to obey out of fear.

    Asian nations such as China and India only began to prosper when they started to allow laissez-faire market forces permeate through the borders. Before then, they were a system of stagnation that could have long been able to be a superpower, but never able to capitalize.
    So then your problem is with elections, then. There's nothing inherent about capitalism to escape the elections of power hungry madmen (see also 2000-2008). The problem you see is one that stems from political stagnation, like having a country dominated by a single political party, as Russia and China were. You make a lot of assumptions about inevitable dystopia stemming from centralized power, but you also seem to ignore the very simple solution of a constitutional authority. The same thing that prevents those abuses in the United States can prevent them anywhere else. There is nothing about a constitution-based government that is hostile or antithetical to socialism. Again, the confusion here is that military dictatorship, like the ones employed by China and Russia, have nothing to do with socialism.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  10. #20
    Professor
    NGNM85's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Last Seen
    11-10-17 @ 11:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    1,571

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    That's the progression though. Eventually you must elect leaders who will do anything to get and retain power, at which point you have an overblown junta like Stalin.
    There's no law of physics, etc., that necessitates this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    The Soviet Union essentially started out as a socialist "worker's paradise" during the October Revolution and the ousting of the Czar. Eventually, power centralized though. It always does. No matter what the intention, it always does. There are number of nations that have similar beginnings, only to federalize into a totalitarian or dictatorial body. I don't say "all socialism is authoritarian" because it sounds catchy.
    No, it was bad from the very start. Lenin was never a Libertarian. There was absolutely no intention of establishing workers’ democracy. He made some concessions and used some of the rhetoric, as in State & Revolution or the April Thesis, but that was just political pandering. As soon as power was consolidated; all of that went out the window, but it was never genuine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    Once you centralize power, it's too difficult to decentralize. The people begin to obey out of fear.
    Libertarian Socialism, real Socialism, is antithetical to the Nation-State. It ceases to exist.
    Economic Left/Right: -7.25, Authoritarian/Libertarian:-7.13
    All over the place, from the popular culture to the propaganda system, there is constant pressure to make people feel that they are helpless, that the only role they can have is to ratify decisions and to consume. -Noam Chomsky

Page 2 of 51 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •