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 38 of 51 FirstFirst ... 28363738394048 ... LastLast
Results 371 to 380 of 502

Thread: Socialism could have succeeded?

  1. #371
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wake View Post
    Can socialists agree on this meaning or no?
    Yea. As a basic definition, but it goes much deeper that that.


  2. #372
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wake View Post
    Can socialists agree on this meaning or no?
    are you from WI?

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

    These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.


  3. #373
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 12:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,536
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    Yea. As a basic definition, but it goes much deeper that that.
    Would you PLEASE elaborate?

    If a general, DEEP definition could be agreed upon, that'd be awesome.

  4. #374
    Student Fubar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    greenville sc
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 10:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    201

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    really? look man u are debating an ideal that can never be achived as long as greed pride and lust for power are parts of the human dna.socialism,build by the communist party we were suposedly building.i have heard the concepts all my life.is no different to what the church/bussiness concept.they both sell.... utopia.hope.meanwhile the people in power get the entitlement virus,become visionaries and start building their own version.it's...human.
    in the usa we have olygarchy.it's not hard to see.

  5. #375
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 12:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,536
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    are you from WI?
    Wisconsin?

    Why?

    Interesting, since I am from/in Wisconsin.

  6. #376
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wake View Post
    Wisconsin?

    Why?

    Interesting, since I am from/in Wisconsin.
    it was this: [QUOTE]Can socialists agree on this meaning or no?[QUOTE]

    i spent a few years in wi.

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

    These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.


  7. #377
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 12:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,536
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    it was this:
    Can socialists agree on this meaning or no?
    i spent a few years in wi.
    ...

    ah ha ha heh heh...


  8. #378
    Sage
    Mach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    11,507

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    Early socialists called for no such thing as ownership being controlled by the state.
    Socialism means the workers have direct control and management of the industries/workplace.
    Those poor chaps were from a different era, that didn't have the benefit that freedom has ushered in to us lucky Americans.
    Specifically, I am pointing out that in the U.S., we are already free to establish industry and workplaces where workers have direct control and management (!)

    Not only are you factually FREE to do this, right now in the U.S., and have been since it's formation (in most industries), it has been gaining steam lately. A lot of the new tech companies and even an older one (Apple), are demonstrating a different way. However, it's minefiled for the "intellectual" (read, ignorant fool) who tries to then exclaim "the top 5 new big companies use this method, THEREFORE it's the best method and everyone should implement it". Well, no. Tech companies may have a far different worker base, all fairly well educated, analytical, etc., and what may work for them may fail miserably for a call-center. But then, that's why markets always do it best.

    Of course, "labor" is a tiny fraction of the economic success. If you knew that, you wouldn't still think of that archaic notion of 'worker labor is the bomb'. That was from a fairly strict era where you had government backed industry that paid slave wages to a large work force...those workers had ever right to rise up against that. Yes, that's what free markets are, the answer to that. Now, you're free to bust the company, sue them, legislate against them, start your own company, compete with them, make a company where you equally share ownership, public ownership, non-profit private, etc., etc. Welcome to the 21st century.

    Fortunately, we're free in the U.S. by in large, and I hope we remain so. If I had to live under the rule of half the jack-asses that post on these forums, I would seriously consider an alternative line of work. Maybe time for some V for Vendetta.

    Socialism does not mean government or state ownership. It does not mean a closed party run system without democratic rights. Those things are the very opposite of socialism.
    Ah, in theory it doesn't literally state that as a goal, maybe. However, in practice, and in a more holistic "theoretical", it appears to mean some sort of single party, authoritarian type regime.
    There will be leaders, there will be key figures, they will start to consolidate power for the good of the many. They will seek to protect that power, they will then rule the country, and its people, for the greater good.
    Last edited by Mach; 09-22-11 at 05:39 PM.

  9. #379
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    10-16-11 @ 03:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,845

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    This should be fun.
    I know that -I- laughed when I read your response...

    Early socialists called for no such thing as ownership being controlled by the state.
    Socialism means the workers have direct control and management of the industries/workplace.
    Socialism does not mean government or state ownership
    It does when discussing the term in any meaningful way.
    A sure sign of a weak argument is when one is forced to resort to conveninet botique definitions of the terms under discussion - such as you have.
    And, as you said, you agreed with my defintion "As a basic definition", so your points, and the complaints that stem from them, are moot.

    It does not mean a closed party run system without democratic rights. Those things are the very opposite of socialism.
    Except that, since socialsim can exist under such a system, you're wrong.
    Socislism is an economic system, and therefore can exist under any sort of government.

    Sure we believe in a redistribution of wealth through a progressive tax system.
    Thank you for confirming the obvious.
    Redistribution of wealth thru anything other than a fully voluntary system of charity, in and of itself, runs contrary to human nature, as people, given the choice, will only give their wealth to others when they believe it is in their best interest to do so, arrived at by whatever meas. You advocate the removal of that choice, and as such, act in opposition to human nature.

    What do you mean by "nanny state"?
    I didnt say anything about the nanny state. Did you read my post?

    I believe that homeless people should have the right to shelter. I believe that impoverished people should have the right to some food assistance. I believe everyone has the right to a high school education. I believe everyone has the right to healthcare.
    Aww. That's special.
    What you fail to understand is that having a right to something is not the same as being entitled to the means to exercise that someting.
    You seek not the right - as those rights already exist - but the entitlement to the means.
    The entitlement comes thru rediustribuion of wealth, which is, as noted, an indication that socialism runs contrary to human nature.

    What do you mean?
    Yes you can own producing that wealth as long with the workers.
    You certainly know that this is not at all what I mean; your ineffective response indicates that you cannot counter what I said.
    Under socialism, I -cannot- own or control a means or producing wealth - that is, a for-profit business - and I can neither own/control the means to distribute that wealth, nor keep my wealth from being distributed to others. This absolutely negates the right to pursue happiness.

    You can own property.
    You can create wealth through how you do it now. Through work.
    Your response does not address what I said.
    Under socialism, I do not have the freedom to own property AND use it to produce wealth.
    Your attempt to remove the conjunction indicates that you cannot counter what I said.

    How so?
    As previously noted and left unaddressed by you.

    How does it run to the contrary?
    As previously noted and left unaddressed by you.
    Last edited by PzKfW IVe; 09-22-11 at 05:44 PM.

  10. #380
    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?

    Well. I can see this thread has been going well...

    Quote Originally Posted by Wake
    Laws are made by people whose beliefs are in the majority.


    Really? So you think the laws of North Korea or Syria currently are made by people whose beliefs are in the majority?
    Laws are based on morality, whether religious or secular.
    So the law that prohibits restaurants in Wisconsin from serving margarine instead of butter is based on morals?

    Quote Originally Posted by fredmertz
    Simply because a right can be forbidden physically and even perhaps justifiably does not mean that it does not concretely exist. It simply means that it concretely exists in some situations and not others.
    A conditional right, then, is not a right.


    You can stop pounding the table with this idea that rights aren't concrete because of the fact that in some situation, a right must be sacrificed to protect itself or other rights. That's just natural order.
    Yet I am speaking of situations in which rights are violated specifically not to protect other rights. I don't know why you can't understand that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pfk
    Human nature, not capitalism, is the bane of socialism.

    No such thing

    Quote Originally Posted by Wake
    People like owning things.

    They like to be free.


    The latter is meaningless without concrete definition.

    I worked hard for it, I earned it, I deserve it, I don't want to share it with lazy people just because we're citizens of the same nation. Or how about, Mine! Mine! I want more! I want it all! This, sadly, comprises a great deal of human nature......and it generally doesn't fit well with the whole socialist mantra.
    This is not inherent to humans irrespective of social situation. You are abstracting out illogically.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zang
    In my vision of an ideal socialist society, you can own private poperty just as you do now and you can even start a small buisness if you want. It's just the large, greedy corporations that own america that I believe should be government run.
    Liberal bull****. Small companies turn into corporations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gip
    That's socialists for you. They manipulate definitions of words, in this case words like "own" and "earn". Your terms are subjective, and they're held to the whims of an oppressive aggregate.
    LOL yes and "people like to be free" isn't subjective and vague at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fubar
    i lived in the socialist republic of romania for 20 years.
    Romania under Ceauscesceau was not "socialist".

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist
    Romania or any of the USSR satalite states were never socialist.. The people were basically slaves of the gov.
    That's the dumbest ****ing thing I've ever heard. Yeah, Romania and the USSR were slave societies. Seriously, go read a ****ing book Jesus Christ.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wake
    Can socialists agree on this meaning or no?


    Yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist
    Communism is there is no gov, there is no money, there are no classes, the workers own everything communaly.
    I would say communism was a stalinist state as much of eastern europe was.
    Then you're a huge self-contradicting dunce as the USSR had money and government.




    "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 38 of 51 FirstFirst ... 28363738394048 ... 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
  •