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 28 of 51 FirstFirst ... 18262728293038 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 502

Thread: Socialism could have succeeded?

  1. #271
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    01-19-12 @ 03:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    358

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    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 don't deal in meaningless mental masturbation, take this up with NGNM85.



    In order to do so value and capital would need to exist.



    What are "property rights" in reality? Please define how they exist in reality and not in some abstract entirely mental way.



    All regimes are authoritarian, all oppose "freedom of the press" and "freedom of speech" to an extent.
    Your ideas are dancing upon a fine line. It's fine and even fun to think about from time to time: What rights and freedom actually exist (none you may say) and what is created by man. If created by man, then why not start at the begining and do what is best for all of mankind instead of the individual.

    I believe your point is that rights are what society defines them as at any point in history, not unchanging philosophical truths. Is this correct? This seems to be the core question as to what type of organizational system society should follow.

    I would argue that the right to your property has always existed. When society has taken property rights away, it was theft then and theft now. Except now it is recognized as such. Not recognizing theft as theft doesn't mean it's not theft. But to your point that I believe you were trying to fish out: I cannot prove this.

    Why can't I? Because society has to prioritize the rights of the individual. Limit some rights to protect others. Most obviously, you cannot yell "FIRE" in a theatre. The question is, put simply: at what cost do we protect these individual rights? When is exercising your right at the expense of another's right allowed and when isn't it allowed? The right to life vs property. Do my starving neighbors have the right to life? Isn't that a priority over my right to property? Or do they only have the right to the opportunity of life? Is my owning property directly causing their death? If not, do they have the right to my property to save their life? Or did they give up the right to life by not taking advantage of opportunity?

    If I am correct and these rights do exist in reality, then society must answer these very difficult questions. If you are correct and the rights do not actually exist, then we are best served as a slave to society as a whole. But it needs to be organized. And only the emotional man can organize society. With greed and power, the men organizing will inevitably corrupt. So without knowing absolutely who is right between the two of us, where is man better served? A guaranteed slavery? Or freedom potentially at the cost of other freedoms? Look at the best case of both, admit your best case isn't truly possible given the nature of man and proceed from there.

  2. #272
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,897

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Your ideas are dancing upon a fine line. It's fine and even fun to think about from time to time: What rights and freedom actually exist (none you may say) and what is created by man. If created by man, then why not start at the begining and do what is best for all of mankind instead of the individual.
    The individual and "all of mankind" are not inherently in opposition to one another. Quite the contrary, the individual is by necessity tied to "all of mankind," hilariously enough, even in capitalist society.

    I believe your point is that rights are what society defines them as at any point in history, not unchanging philosophical truths. Is this correct? This seems to be the core question as to what type of organizational system society should follow.
    No, my point is that rights themselves are philosophical abstractions that do not exist in reality. Their concrete expression is self-refuting.

    I would argue that the right to your property has always existed. When society has taken property rights away, it was theft then and theft now. Except now it is recognized as such. Not recognizing theft as theft doesn't mean it's not theft. But to your point that I believe you were trying to fish out: I cannot prove this.
    You cannot prove this because you cannot explain what "the right to your property" actually means in concrete terms.

    Why can't I? Because society has to prioritize the rights of the individual. Limit some rights to protect others. Most obviously, you cannot yell "FIRE" in a theatre.
    Sure, there are limits to right based on security and physical limitations. There are also limits to right based on power. "Freedom of speech" is only tolerated by states insofar as it is not perceived as a threat. In this universal truism we can conclude that freedom of speech, the abstract and unlimited ideal of the right, does not exist in reality simply due to the fact that no states allows such.

    Why is the US one of the "freest" nations in the world? Because its citizens, their voices, are most powerless.

    And only the emotional man can organize society. With greed and power, the men organizing will inevitably corrupt.
    Society isn't organized rationally, as I have already said. Nor is man "inevitably corrupt".
    "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. #273
    Only Losers H8 Capitalism
    Spartacus FPV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In your echo chamber
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,893

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by NGNM85 View Post
    Socialism does not preclude the existence of markets, at least, not necessarily.

    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.
    I do not regard employment as exploitation. Either way, if I cannot start up a business then you are in fact necessarily precluding the existence of various markets.
    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. #274
    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 Guy Incognito View Post
    Nothing can preclude the existence of markets. Socialist-authoritarianism (which is redundant, since socialism can only be authoritarian)
    America stands for freedom but if you think you're free try walking into a deli and urinating on the cheese!

    (song quote)
    So, is America authoritarian or just repressive, Guy Incognito?
    Why do you think socialism could only be authoritarian? Please don't give this USSR BS.
    Last edited by Canell; 09-21-11 at 05:17 PM.

  5. #275
    Only Losers H8 Capitalism
    Spartacus FPV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In your echo chamber
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,893

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    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.
    So long as you have a government who will defend your rights, and a law court to appeal to them on, they exist. The only abstract notion is that of the "inalienable right."

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    I don't deal in meaningless mental masturbation, take this up with NGNM85.
    Translation: I don't answer for the contradictions in my logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    In order to do so value and capital would need to exist.
    So long as there is a means of exchange that both parties agree has value, then thats not a concern.

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    What are "property rights" in reality? Please define how they exist in reality and not in some abstract entirely mental way.
    A law court and men with guns will defend them, that is no mere mental abstraction. But your utter disregard for rights (like all socialists necessarily are) is noted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    All regimes are authoritarian, all oppose "freedom of the press" and "freedom of speech" to an extent.
    Source for that claim? You do realize that every regime, no matter how brief, that made no actions against the freedom of the press debunks your ridiculous absolute.
    Last edited by Spartacus FPV; 09-21-11 at 05:21 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. #276
    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
    I do not regard employment as exploitation. Either way, if I cannot start up a business then you are in fact necessarily precluding the existence of various markets.
    Work is not inherently exploitative. Wage-slavery is inherently exploitative. Most workers are wage-slaves.

    You can create an enterprise with other individuals, but you can't take the proceeds of their labor, or deny them democratic participation over their productive lives.
    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. #277
    Only Losers H8 Capitalism
    Spartacus FPV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In your echo chamber
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,893

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by NGNM85 View Post
    Work is not inherently exploitative. Wage-slavery is inherently exploitative. Most workers are wage-slaves.
    Please share with me your distinction. I get paid a wage for my time that I considered fair when the job was offered to me, how am I being exploited?

    Quote Originally Posted by NGNM85 View Post
    You can create an enterprise with other individuals, but you can't take the proceeds of their labor, or deny them democratic participation over their productive lives.
    What do you mean "take the proceeds of their labor"? Do you mean everyone working for a company must engage in profit sharing? An equal share? Despite the relationship of their position to revenue? The guy who cleans the gutters of all the local buildings too?

    What sense does this make to you? I'll tell you what I understand, paying someone for their time at a rate they both agree to. No exploitation there, just voluntary labor. I have no idea how one even compute's "the proceeds of their labor."

    For example, I'm an Accountant and handle payroll. We pay our sales reps a salary + a commission, which is a % of the payments of their clients. Under your "system" would all revenue, not just a percentage, go to sales reps? How would their salaries and operating expenses be paid?
    Last edited by Spartacus FPV; 09-21-11 at 05:33 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.

  8. #278
    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
    Why do you think socialism could only be authoritarian? Please don't give this USSR BS.
    Strawman. I doubt many people will tell you, with a purely straight face, that America is not at least semi-authoritarian. We're called a police state by so many people, we've had threads about the TSA on other fora and countless on DHS. We're more free than many who adopt a more mixed/command economy, but we still have distinct hierarchies and parts of our structure meant to scare the bejeezus out of normal folk. The only difference is that wealth disparity, to a certain extent, does not lead to an authoritarian structure in the means of government force, because that government has to keep financial freedom in place for commerce to continue. Need proof? Look at the "Big Corp vs Obama" standstill right now. They don't approve of Obama and his wishy-washy domestic policies, so they're holding the American economy hostage through retained earnings and treasury liquidity. Truth be told, I'm somewhat happy for this because, if it were to flow free, there would be no real "checks and balances" set for him. Major American businesses right now are keeping Obama in check.

    In socialist and communist regimes, those who display traits of avarice, ambition, and lust will seek to excel above the crowd through excessive means, at which point the collective will have to use an iron fist grip to placate what they would perceive as a "threat". To think that mankind would live robotically like Smurfs is just ludicrous. By sheer human nature, these systems would have to be incredibly authoritarian to pull the tallest weeds down to the ground.

  9. #279
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    01-19-12 @ 03:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    358

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    The individual and "all of mankind" are not inherently in opposition to one another. Quite the contrary, the individual is by necessity tied to "all of mankind," hilariously enough, even in capitalist society.



    No, my point is that rights themselves are philosophical abstractions that do not exist in reality. Their concrete expression is self-refuting.



    You cannot prove this because you cannot explain what "the right to your property" actually means in concrete terms.



    Sure, there are limits to right based on security and physical limitations. There are also limits to right based on power. "Freedom of speech" is only tolerated by states insofar as it is not perceived as a threat. In this universal truism we can conclude that freedom of speech, the abstract and unlimited ideal of the right, does not exist in reality simply due to the fact that no states allows such.

    Why is the US one of the "freest" nations in the world? Because its citizens, their voices, are most powerless.



    Society isn't organized rationally, as I have already said. Nor is man "inevitably corrupt".

    Simply because a right cannot be adhered to completely does not mean that it does not have a concrete foundation. It does. There is a line somewhere though where that freedom starts to work against itself and other supposed inalienable rights.

    So I accept the challenge of finding that line and proving to you that it is not arbitrary, but is based on reason.

    My first attempt at defining, concretely, what a right is:

    I have the freedom of speech so long as my speech does not directly prevent another from practicing his/her own rights.

    Replace "freedom of speech" with any number of things: "right to safety", "right to life", "right to property", etc. These are the additional 'rights' that the above statement refers to.

    This is my first attempt. Poke holes. If you are right, I will concede. But I believe we can describe individual liberty to a 'T'. And then base the government's job around our individual liberties.

  10. #280
    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
    Strawman.
    Look who's talkinng:

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    In socialist and communist regimes, those who display traits of avarice, ambition, and lust will seek to excel above the crowd through excessive means, at which point the collective will have to use an iron fist grip to placate what they would perceive as a "threat". To think that mankind would live robotically like Smurfs is just ludicrous. By sheer human nature, these systems would have to be incredibly authoritarian to pull the tallest weeds down to the ground.
    Now, that's (the above that is) a straw man. You can sign this for a semi-ad hominem attack. lol
    Last edited by Canell; 09-21-11 at 05:45 PM.

Page 28 of 51 FirstFirst ... 18262728293038 ... 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
  •