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 4 of 51 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 502

Thread: Socialism could have succeeded?

  1. #31
    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 Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Reality stands in the way of socialism.
    I've heard that before, but it's funnier coming from a libertarian
    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..

  2. #32
    Global Moderator
    Custom User Title
    LaughAtTheWorld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Seoul/Chicago
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,542

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Socialism is a political system. Capitalism is an economic system. Most people don't realize comparing those two is illogical.
    On the issue, I disagree. Socialism is a political system in which the government wields immense power over the country politically. In that sense, many capitalistic countries were socialist such as South Korea during the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s. Socialism and capitalism coexisting together leads to what looks like fascism, which was what South Korea looked like during the 50s-80s. Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany were also socialist, and capitalistic (more like corporatism, but that's another story)
    The reason why socialism didn't succeed was because the ideology was born later than that of democracy, and was born in a time when democracy was the growing political fad. Granted, many countries became socialist, yet it was only in a short historical period of a century. In addition, socialism was also associated with brutality, communism, and persecution of freedom, which caused an avid aversion by the majority of the population in the democratic countries. All these factors ultimately lead to its demise
    "The misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all" - Joan Robinson
    "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries" - Winston Churchill

  3. #33
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    I've heard that before, but it's funnier coming from a libertarian
    That's only because you see what you want and not what is.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  4. #34
    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 Cephus View Post
    You mean if capitalism wasn't so superior and kicked it's ass?
    Presumably said 'ass-kicking' would include overthrowing the democratically elected governments of Iran, Chile, Guatemala, Zaire, and supporting the brutal police states that followed, at the cost of thousands of lives, as well as the terrorist war in Nicaragua, for which the United States was, quite rightly, convicted of international terrorism, by the International Criminal Court, etc., etc.
    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. #35
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by Proud South Korean View Post
    Socialism is a political system. Capitalism is an economic system. Most people don't realize comparing those two is illogical.
    On the issue, I disagree. Socialism is a political system in which the government wields immense power over the country politically. In that sense, many capitalistic countries were socialist such as South Korea during the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s. Socialism and capitalism coexisting together leads to what looks like fascism, which was what South Korea looked like during the 50s-80s. Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany were also socialist, and capitalistic (more like corporatism, but that's another story)
    The reason why socialism didn't succeed was because the ideology was born later than that of democracy, and was born in a time when democracy was the growing political fad. Granted, many countries became socialist, yet it was only in a short historical period of a century. In addition, socialism was also associated with brutality, communism, and persecution of freedom, which caused an avid aversion by the majority of the population in the democratic countries. All these factors ultimately lead to its demise
    Socialism is also an economic system, it's just entirely illogical.

    Comparing Nazism to corporatism is wrong.
    Nazi's clamped down heavily on corporations and there was only a visage of private ownership in a great many cases.
    Last edited by Harry Guerrilla; 09-15-11 at 07:24 PM.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  6. #36
    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 Proud South Korean View Post
    The reason why socialism didn't succeed was because the ideology was born later than that of democracy, and was born in a time when democracy was the growing political fad. Granted, many countries became socialist, yet it was only in a short historical period of a century. In addition, socialism was also associated with brutality, communism, and persecution of freedom, which caused an avid aversion by the majority of the population in the democratic countries. All these factors ultimately lead to its demise
    Libertarian Socialism is the apotheosis of democracy.
    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. #37
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,306

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by Canell View Post
    About 22 years ago socialism gave up and started disintegrating. Do you think it could have succeeded if capitalism wasn't standing on the way? You know, if capitalism didn't oppose and let it be?

    No, it is against human nature.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  8. #38
    Sage
    German guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Last Seen
    08-24-17 @ 06:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    5,187

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    In order to avoid confusion: I am using the terms not regarding the theory, but the reality, when I say --

    When facing the alternative between the capitalist model of society in Europe in the 19th century, and "really existing" socialism, I'd probably chose socialism. 19th century laissez faire-capitalism with mostly authoritarian political systems and highly discriminatory societies (very low social mobility, exclusion of minorities such as women, Jews, African-Americans and so on), I believe very much can be said in favor of socialism, even the "really existing socialism" in the East Bloc. I'd say even communist Russia was better for the masses, than authoritarian capitalism in many European countries was these days.

    If socialism (as it existed in some countries, USSR and the East Bloc after 1945) was good for anything, it put pressure on capitalist societies to improve, to tame its flaws, to encourage the capitalist Western World to come up with better alternatives. Western capitalism wasn't really the clearly better alternative to socialism, until it opened the society by eliminating legal discrimination, increased social mobility, allowed the creation of a really dominant middle class ("wealth for everybody") by opening the economy for mass participation and so on.

    Capitalism in the West showed its real strength after 1945: Using its exreme efficiency to improve itself and to reform society. By the end of the 1980s, the capitalist West was the obviously much superior model of society, compared to the East Bloc, which is why the latter failed.

    The problem is, without the competition by the East and without the according pressure to find solution beneficial for the masses, a neoliberal ideology of deregulation and privatization took over and many of the problems that burdened the ugly, authoritarian forms of capitalism came back. The financial sector went crazy, the middle class is shrinking and mass participation in general welfare decreases in favor of the incomes of very few hyper-rich again. We can see the wreckage of this development today, in the financial crisis. It's the result of untamed, unleashed capitalism.

    If the political forces don't find a way to tame capitalism again, and to castrate the rabid financial actors, when those who have few already will have to pay the bill for these failed policies of deregulation and the top few will not contribute at all, as it currently looks like, socialism as an alternative will be back again, regain a dangerous new popularity again with the masses -- quicker than you can say "class warfare". I would really regret such a development, because I feel any form of socialism would be a potentially very dangerous illusion.
    Last edited by German guy; 09-15-11 at 08:34 PM.
    "Not learning from mistakes is worse than committing mistakes. When you don't allow yourself to make mistakes, it is hard to be tolerant of others and it does not allow even God to be merciful."

  9. #39
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Not really, any country that you could possibly list as "socialist" is predominantly capitalist, with a teasing of socialism.
    Yeah, all the really fundamental and important stuff that keeps the society functioning is socialized, and the optional things are left up to capitalism. There's no need to socialize salad dressing or Chuck E Cheese's. There is no express social benefit in keeping private corruption and profit margins out of those areas. The same cannot be said for education or medicine.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  10. #40
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    Yeah, all the really fundamental and important stuff that keeps the society functioning is socialized, and the optional things are left up to capitalism. There's no need to socialize salad dressing or Chuck E Cheese's. There is no express social benefit in keeping private corruption and profit margins out of those areas. The same cannot be said for education or medicine.
    Food, education and medicine is socialized?
    Must have a different version of socialism than the standard definition.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

Page 4 of 51 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... 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
  •