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 27 of 51 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 502

Thread: Socialism could have succeeded?

  1. #261
    Only Losers H8 Capitalism
    Spartacus FPV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In your echo chamber
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,893

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    These terms mean absolutely nothing outside of their concrete expression in reality, so why don't you go ahead and define what they mean for us.
    The individual rights that can be easily and concisely articulated are incompatible with socialism/communism.
    Haymarket's "support" of the 2nd Amendment, a right he believes we never had.
    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    no. You cannot lose rights you do not have in the first place. There is no such thing as the right to have any weapon of your choice regardless of any other consideration. It simply does not exist.

  2. #262
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,887

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    The individual rights that can be easily and concisely articulated are incompatible with socialism/communism.
    Okay, let's take freedom of speech as an example. How does this freedom play out in the US, for example?
    "I do not claim that every incident in the history of empire can be explained in directly economic terms. Economic interests are filtered through a political process, policies are implemented by a complex state apparatus, and the whole system generates its own momentum."

  3. #263
    Only Losers H8 Capitalism
    Spartacus FPV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In your echo chamber
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,893

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    Okay, let's take freedom of speech as an example. How does this freedom play out in the US, for example?
    What does "how it plays out in the US" have to do with its compatibility with the authoritarian nature of socialist/communist regimes who'd oppose it?
    Haymarket's "support" of the 2nd Amendment, a right he believes we never had.
    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    no. You cannot lose rights you do not have in the first place. There is no such thing as the right to have any weapon of your choice regardless of any other consideration. It simply does not exist.

  4. #264
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,887

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    What does "how it plays out in the US" have to do with its compatibility with the authoritarian nature of socialist/communist regimes who'd oppose it?
    Because it has to do with its compatibility with the nature of any regime.
    "I do not claim that every incident in the history of empire can be explained in directly economic terms. Economic interests are filtered through a political process, policies are implemented by a complex state apparatus, and the whole system generates its own momentum."

  5. #265
    Only Losers H8 Capitalism
    Spartacus FPV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In your echo chamber
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,893

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    Because it has to do with its compatibility with the nature of any regime.
    I don't follow... what is your point? How is the statement "The individual rights that can be easily and concisely articulated are incompatible with socialism/communism." false?

    I can cite various incompatibilities, property rights being the softball, but can you explain to me how a socialist/communist regime could support individual liberties and remain socialist/communist?

    Would I still be free to trade value for value or for labor, earn/save up capital, and have the government defend my rights (like my property rights) or would said actions and freedoms be limited? There are reasons why authoritarian regimes oppose freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and allowing citizens the freedom to accumulate wealth.
    Last edited by Spartacus FPV; 09-21-11 at 03:11 PM.
    Haymarket's "support" of the 2nd Amendment, a right he believes we never had.
    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    no. You cannot lose rights you do not have in the first place. There is no such thing as the right to have any weapon of your choice regardless of any other consideration. It simply does not exist.

  6. #266
    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 Lachean View Post
    What does "how it plays out in the US" have to do with its compatibility with the authoritarian nature of socialist/communist regimes who'd oppose it?
    Libertarian Socialism is fundamentally antithetical to authoritarianism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lachean View Post
    I don't follow... what is your point? How is the statement "The individual rights that can be easily and concisely articulated are incompatible with socialism/communism." false?
    Libertarian Socialists have historically placed a high premium on individual rights. They bitterly condemned the Soviet Union (Rightfully so.) on these grounds.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    I can cite various incompatibilities, property rights being the softball, but can you explain to me how a socialist/communist regime could support individual liberties and remain socialist/communist?

    Would I still be free to trade value for value or for labor, earn/save up capital, and have the government defend my rights (like my property rights) or would said actions and freedoms be limited?
    Libertarian Socialism precludes the existence of any sort of regime. The Nation-State is dismantled.

    Property rights don't exist because property is theft. You don't have the right to take other people's earnings.
    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

  7. #267
    Only Losers H8 Capitalism
    Spartacus FPV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In your echo chamber
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,893

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by NGNM85 View Post
    Libertarian Socialism is fundamentally antithetical to authoritarianism.

    Libertarian Socialists have historically placed a high premium on individual rights. They bitterly condemned the Soviet Union (Rightfully so.) on these grounds.

    Libertarian Socialism precludes the existence of any sort of regime. The Nation-State is dismantled.
    Then how do you stop people from trading like capitalists?

    Quote Originally Posted by NGNM85 View Post
    Property rights don't exist because property is theft. You don't have the right to take other people's earnings.
    How is property theft? That is a contradiction in terms. Sounds to me like that "Freedom is slavery, war is peace" tripe.

    Something must be owned before it can be looted. Do I not own what I have earned, or have traded my earnings for?
    Haymarket's "support" of the 2nd Amendment, a right he believes we never had.
    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    no. You cannot lose rights you do not have in the first place. There is no such thing as the right to have any weapon of your choice regardless of any other consideration. It simply does not exist.

  8. #268
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,887

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lachean
    I don't follow... what is your point?
    My point is that "rights" as you and others discuss them only exist abstractly and not in the real world. There is no such thing as "freedom of speech" because such a freedom is constrained by a variety of factors which make the entire idea of concrete "freedom" completely arbitrary.

    I can cite various incompatibilities, property rights being the softball, but can you explain to me how a socialist/communist regime could support individual liberties and remain socialist/communist?
    I don't deal in meaningless mental masturbation, take this up with NGNM85.

    Would I still be free to trade value for value or for labor, earn/save up capital
    In order to do so value and capital would need to exist.

    and have the government defend my rights (like my property rights) or would said actions and freedoms be limited
    What are "property rights" in reality? Please define how they exist in reality and not in some abstract entirely mental way.

    There are reasons why authoritarian regimes oppose freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and allowing citizens the freedom to accumulate wealth.
    All regimes are authoritarian, all oppose "freedom of the press" and "freedom of speech" to an extent.
    "I do not claim that every incident in the history of empire can be explained in directly economic terms. Economic interests are filtered through a political process, policies are implemented by a complex state apparatus, and the whole system generates its own momentum."

  9. #269
    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 Lachean View Post
    Then how do you stop people from trading like capitalists?
    Socialism does not preclude the existence of markets, at least, not necessarily.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lachean View Post
    How is property theft? That is a contradiction in terms. Sounds to me like that "Freedom is slavery, war is peace" tripe.

    Something must be owned before it can be looted. Do I not own what I have earned, or have traded my earnings for?
    No, it isn't. When Anarchists' talk about 'property' they are referring exclusively to the means of production.

    The means of production belong to the workers, themselves. your earnings, or whatever posessions or services you seek to purchase with those earnings are absolutely your. However; you cannot purchase the 'right' to exploit other individuals and forcibly deprive them of their earnings.
    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

  10. #270
    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 NGNM85 View Post
    Socialism does not preclude the existence of markets, at least, not necessarily.
    Of course it doesn't. Nothing can preclude the existence of markets. Socialist-authoritarianism (which is redundant, since socialism can only be authoritarian) just changes the focal point of the economy to bureaucratic influence rather than the free market, and in so doing drives true markets underground into "black markets."

Page 27 of 51 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... 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
  •