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 30 of 51 FirstFirst ... 20282930313240 ... LastLast
Results 291 to 300 of 502

Thread: Socialism could have succeeded?

  1. #291
    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?

    Money doesn't create authoritarian tendencies, but it does give people the power to act on their own authoritarian tendencies. IMO, this is the main flaw with capitalism.
    Still ipso facto. I was just stating the starting point and the ending point. Didn't feel the need to connect dots, especially since it's rather self-explanatory.

    And as far as permanence goes, nothing is permanent; Everything changes. Eventually, we're all dead.
    But if a president has dictatorial powers or a politburo governs in a totalitarian fashion, when that person(s) is not in power, another comes along and inherits that power.

    In America, I remember (not firsthand) when the Carnegies and the Rockefellers were the shotcallers. Nowadays it's the Gates and the Buffets. In fifty years, it could easily be other mega-rich entities.

  2. #292
    Cynical Optimist
    jambalaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Last Seen
    11-28-12 @ 05:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,481

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    No. There was always a need to address the limitations of socialism. If not capitalism, something else would have got in it's way.

  3. #293
    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 Gipper View Post
    Still ipso facto. I was just stating the starting point and the ending point. Didn't feel the need to connect dots, especially since it's rather self-explanatory.



    But if a president has dictatorial powers or a politburo governs in a totalitarian fashion, when that person(s) is not in power, another comes along and inherits that power.

    In America, I remember (not firsthand) when the Carnegies and the Rockefellers were the shotcallers. Nowadays it's the Gates and the Buffets. In fifty years, it could easily be other mega-rich entities.
    IMO, it's concentrations of power that allow authoritarian systems to persist, and like the Founding Fathers, I believe concentrations of wealth make that easier. Just note how all of the "shotcallers" you mention are wealthy
    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..

  4. #294
    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
    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?
    The fact that you donít feel exploited doesnít mean that you arenít exploited, or that it doesnít matter if you are exploited.

    Wage-slaves are workers who are forced by poverty to perform repetitive, monotonous jobs for very low wages, with no negotiating power or democratic participation. That describes the circumstances of the vast majority of Americans, myself included.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lachean View Post
    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?
    Everyone should have a balanced job complex, and democratic participation in their productive lives, which would mean participation in a workersí council.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lachean View Post
    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."
    Who has experienced this? This is completely alien to nine-tenths of the American people. Such negotiations are rare. Most Americans, like myself, are wage-slaves who never had any negotiating power. We accept the terms of whichever private dictatorship will hire us, or we starve to death.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lachean View Post
    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?
    Iíd need to know more to give you a meaningful answer. Also; there is no universal consensus on how a Libertarian Socialist society would function. There are several models, with varying degrees of complexity. I tend to lean towards Parecon, and Parpolity, developed, respectively, by Professors Michael Albert and Stephen Shalom. However, again, these are just models, it isnít doctrinal law.
    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

  5. #295
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,887

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lachean
    So long as you have a government who will defend your rights
    The government isn't interested in defending the rights of its citizens. How'd that work out for Troy Davis?

    Translation: I don't answer for the contradictions in my logic.
    There is no contradiction.

    So long as there is a means of exchange that both parties agree has value, then thats not a concern.
    These are determined by social relations, not individuals.

    You do realize that every regime, no matter how brief, that made no actions against the freedom of the press debunks your ridiculous absolute.
    There is no regime that would not infringe upon the freedom of speech of its citizens if they perceive such speech to be a threat to the existing order. That is the entire point of the state.

    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.
    You're going at this problem backwards. Government and state are not based around rights, rights are privileges granted by government/state and exist within existing social relations.
    "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."

  6. #296
    All Warm and Fuzzy
    FluffyNinja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Miss-uh-Sippie
    Last Seen
    10-21-17 @ 04:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    4,831

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    You're going at this problem backwards. Government and state are not based around rights, rights are privileges granted by government/state and exist within existing social relations.
    So, I take it you would disagree with Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Voltaire, Montesquieu, Thomas Jefferson, and billions of other humans both past and present who seem to believe in the concept of "natural rights".......... that some rights are simply inherent in being part of humanity (i.e. life, liberty, property, or the pursuit of happiness)? Even the State must inherently believe in these, otherwise it would simply be working toward its own demise, which is quite illogical. We musn't forget that it is indeed humans who come together and form the state (the reasons for which they agree to form it and the form in which it takes is of no significance). How could this even occur without concurrence among the founders that these most basic rights exist?
    Last edited by FluffyNinja; 09-22-11 at 01:14 AM.
    "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." - Dr. Carl Sagan

  7. #297
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In your dreams...
    Last Seen
    05-29-12 @ 02:53 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,621

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by FluffyNinja View Post
    So, I take it you would disagree with Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Voltaire, Montesquieu, Thomas Jefferson, and billions of other humans both past and present who seem to believe in the concept of "natural rights".......... that some rights are simply inherent in being part of humanity (i.e. life, liberty, property, or the pursuit of happiness)? Even the State must inherently believe in these, otherwise it would simply be working toward its own demise, which is quite illogical. We musn't forget that it is indeed humans who come together and form the state (the reasons for which they agree to form it and the form in which it takes is of no significance). How could this even occur without concurrence among the founders that these most basic rights exist?
    I could disagree with a bunch of white european dudes who owned slaves and were largely silent on the massacre of natives in the americas and colonialism. Also a billion dont believe in nautural rights... a quadrillion trillion do . The degree of liberty in a country is a function of the nature of it's security.

  8. #298
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    EUSSR
    Last Seen
    03-24-14 @ 01:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,851

  9. #299
    All Warm and Fuzzy
    FluffyNinja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Miss-uh-Sippie
    Last Seen
    10-21-17 @ 04:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    4,831

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    In his post above, KC did not distinguish between legal and natural rights. He simply said that "rights are priveleges granted by government/state....." and I responded in kind. I've noticed that many who claim to be hard-line communists or socialists here, prefer to "skate around" these convenient little concepts such as "natural rights" which tend to separate us humans from other, less "self-aware" animals. Some, like myself, may even go as far as to say that these are not only inherent in human nature, but God-given........perhaps this association is what makes some in this arena a bit uneasy about including these rights in their discussions? Regardless there is "something" that makes these natural rights inherent in most humans - if not the state, then what? I'm sure the blathering Wiki-hounds on this site can provide ample possibilities
    What is it in us that causes us to seek out freedom, life, and to pursue what makes us happy at almost any costs (And not simply strive to propagate and fulfill a given function, like other animal species - which seems to me what is essentially behind the basic premise of communism)? Perhaps my comments would have been better received in the "Philosophy Forum"? Oh well.
    Last edited by FluffyNinja; 09-22-11 at 09:18 AM.
    "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." - Dr. Carl Sagan

  10. #300
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,887

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Regardless there is "something" that makes these natural rights inherent in most humans - if not the state, then what?
    Natural rights do not exist, the state is not founded upon natural right. I don't know why you have so much trouble understanding this.
    "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."

Page 30 of 51 FirstFirst ... 20282930313240 ... 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
  •