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 20 of 51 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 502

Thread: Socialism could have succeeded?

  1. #191
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by Canell View Post
    This socialism business is getting really annoying. I'm seriously considering starting a new thread where we try to distinguish well the different types of socialism and end that constant confusion of terms.
    It's all the same, it's just a question of degree. All communist/socialist governmental systems are equally morally illegitimate.

  2. #192
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Last Seen
    07-07-16 @ 08:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    2,854

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Your claim is untrue. You assume freedom decreases with govt ownership. The truth is the opposite.
    This is called economic freedom, not freedom. They do assume economic freedom decreases with govt ownership, hence your point is moot.

    Then why did you claim the opposite earlier in this thread
    I have never claimed the opposite. Cite me.

    No, you are sidetracking with straw men. No one has claimed that Europe is 100% socialist.
    You are the one sidetracking here, because if Europe is 60% socialist, whatever that means. It is not socialist anymore. Hence it does not prove the success of socialism. Similarly, Nazism is maybe 60% socialism as well. It still doesn't prove the failure of socialism. To prove the success or failure of socialism, then you have to look at socialist countries, which Europe is not.

    No, getting anyone to use YOUR narrow definition is an impossible task. The rest of us recognize that socialism comes in many forms.
    You need to learn what socialism is. Socialism is not a term that has many different meanings. Socialism is a collection of ideologies, with all of them having some similar ideas. These ideas, can you find in the Oxford definition.

  3. #193
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    The questioned asked in this poll is so stupid it's hardly worth addressing. It's like asking "could people fly if gravity wasn't standing in the way?"

    Socialists want to abolish gravity. Not gonna happen. Let's focus our mental energies on something less stupid, shall we?

  4. #194
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Last Seen
    07-07-16 @ 08:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    2,854

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by Canell View Post
    Well, in this case I'm afraid they never had socialism in the USSR. The majority of decisions were made in Moscow, i.e. such a centralized system is not socialism (which presumes local government by the community, right?) according to that definition.
    A community doesn't have to be small. definition of community from Oxford Dictionaries Online

  5. #195
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    Socialism is a political theory, and is not an adjective.


    I think you meant socialist which can be an adjective. Oxford definition say
    adhering to or based on the principles of socialism:the history of socialist movement

    The principle of socialism is not just government take over, hence oxford definition disagree. I never said oxford definition is the perfect source, but I have yet to see any official sources from you.
    Since I just posted the definition of socialism as a theory (a noun, not an adjective) it is foolish to claim that I used socialism as an adjective. I posted the definition of socialism because saying that socialist means "adhering to or based on the principles of socialism" means nothing without understanding the meaning of the word socialism.

    And I didn't claim that socialism is "just govt takeover". You're arguing another straw man

    And if you want to see any official sources from me, read the thread. You obviously have not done that

    It's time for you to take your nose out of the dictionaries and textbooks. Out in the real world, most people realize that nothing is pure. We don't have pure capitalism not pure socialism.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  6. #196
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    This is called economic freedom, not freedom. They do assume economic freedom decreases with govt ownership, hence your point is moot.


    I have never claimed the opposite. Cite me.


    You are the one sidetracking here, because if Europe is 60% socialist, whatever that means. It is not socialist anymore. Hence it does not prove the success of socialism. Similarly, Nazism is maybe 60% socialism as well. It still doesn't prove the failure of socialism. To prove the success or failure of socialism, then you have to look at socialist countries, which Europe is not.


    You need to learn what socialism is. Socialism is not a term that has many different meanings. Socialism is a collection of ideologies, with all of them having some similar ideas. These ideas, can you find in the Oxford definition.
    I can see that it's a waste of time to respond to you. Your narrow definition is not worth discussing because not one socialist or marxist is arguing that pure socialism exists and you're completely unwilling or unable to discuss anything but pure socialism.

    Have fun with your hobby horse. Keep beating it

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    A community doesn't have to be small. definition of community from Oxford Dictionaries Online
    And again you are using one defintion out of many and insisting it's the only one that can be discussed
    Last edited by sangha; 09-19-11 at 12:25 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  7. #197
    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 Camlon View Post
    A community doesn't have to be small. definition of community from Oxford Dictionaries Online
    I'd rather have the original from Ferdinand Toennies - Community and Society


  8. #198
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Last Seen
    07-07-16 @ 08:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    2,854

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Since I just posted the definition of socialism as a theory (a noun, not an adjective) it is foolish to claim that I used socialism as an adjective. I posted the definition of socialism because saying that socialist means "adhering to or based on the principles of socialism" means nothing without understanding the meaning of the word socialism.
    You didn't relate it to why institutions can be socialist. I said, oxford dictionary disagree with your usage of socialist.

    And if you want to see any official sources from me, read the thread. You obviously have not done that
    I don't think you have noticed, but the thread is 20 pages long. I'm sure you have your sources readily available, so quote some official sources. BTW; just because someone is a socialist, doesn't make them an official source. You need to rely on Wikipedia, or famous dictionaries.

    It's time for you to take your nose out of the dictionaries and textbooks. Out in the real world, most people realize that nothing is pure. We don't have pure capitalism not pure socialism.
    There are of course some leeway, but if a system is clearly not following the principles of socialism, then it is certainly not socialism. Doesn't help if parts of the system is similar to socialism. It still won't be socialism.

    The reason I'm so nazi on the textbooks, is to prevent socialists from making their own definitions.

  9. #199
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by Canell View Post
    I'd rather have the original from Ferdinand Toennies - Community and Society

    How dare you use a definition that is not Camlon-approved?
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  10. #200
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Last Seen
    07-07-16 @ 08:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    2,854

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    And again you are using one defintion out of many and insisting it's the only one that can be discussed
    Allright, let's take a look at other sources. Of course there are slight variations, but they get to the same conclusion.

    Wikipedia agrees with Oxford Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Dictionary.com agrees with the oxford definition

    Are they all wrong?

Page 20 of 51 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... 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
  •