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 40 of 51 FirstFirst ... 30383940414250 ... LastLast
Results 391 to 400 of 502

Thread: Socialism could have succeeded?

  1. #391
    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 PzKfW IVe View Post
    This is no way keeps us free, as such a govrnment is perfectly capable of eliminating freedom.
    What -ultimately- keeps us free is a societal commitment to the ideals of liberty and the willingness to use force to protect it.
    I think this is obviously correct given the current state of the nation (US). Despite our form of government, we have managed to go from a society who used to believe that, in order to prohibit alcohol at the national level, we needed a constitutional amendment, to a society who now believes that Congress can force us to each individually buy health insurance without a constitutional amendment. People's views of the constitution are changing.

    And if the interpretation can change so wildly, it's not the form of government or piece of paper that keeps us in check; it's our own commitment to the idea (or lack thereof) of what the constitution is. As time goes on and we forget what has happened in the past or deny what could happen in the future, we lose that commitment.

  2. #392
    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 fredmertz View Post
    I think this is obviously correct given the current state of the nation (US). Despite our form of government, we have managed to go from a society who used to believe that, in order to prohibit alcohol at the national level, we needed a constitutional amendment, to a society who now believes that Congress can force us to each individually buy health insurance without a constitutional amendment. People's views of the constitution are changing.
    This illustrates that we're losing the societal commitment and the willingness to use force.

  3. #393
    Unnecessary Middleman Bardo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    10-27-11 @ 06:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    605

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by FluffyNinja View Post
    Yes, very different. If you can't understand that then you have a real problem understanding the whole premise of the free market or a truly capitalistic society which, inherently could/would not allow itself to be transformed into a truly authoritarian or fascist state. Private ownership and control over the means of production tends to be the stumbling block here.

    And I presented the two possibilities as different, but both extreme ends.
    Maybe your history is a little rusty then. Did Mussolini take away private ownership?

    "The [Fascist] government will accord full freedom to private enterprise and will abandon all intervention in private economy."
    - Mussolini

    Franco and the Spanish fascists followed this Italian model.

    Think about how many people initially supported the patriot act, the single most authoritarian and invasive piece of legislation ever passed in the United States. Fascism has always been a reactionary movement, which takes advantage of a fearful population.
    "It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this." Bertrand Russell

  4. #394
    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 Bardo View Post
    Maybe your history is a little rusty then. Did Mussolini take away private ownership?

    - Mussolini
    I don't know. Did Mussolini establish a TRULY fascist state or was it simply a weak mockery of fascism?
    Think about how many people initially supported the patriot act, the single most authoritarian and invasive piece of legislation ever passed in the United States. Fascism has always been a reactionary movement, which takes advantage of a fearful population.
    The Patriot Act is a far, far cry from establishment fascism......this is quite a stretch, even for you.

    By the way, how do you judge this to be the "single most authoritarian and invasive piece of legislation ever passed in the United States"? Can you prove this, or are you just repeating talking points presented by your Liberal, Poli-Sci Profs or the Left-wing establishment media?
    Perhaps it's YOUR history that is a bit rusty. Ever heard of the Dawes Act, Volstead Act, or Eminent Domain? Neither of these are all that "authoritarian" or "invasive", right?
    Last edited by FluffyNinja; 09-23-11 at 06:37 PM.
    "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." - Dr. Carl Sagan

  5. #395
    User Zang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    01-11-12 @ 07:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    20

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by PzKfW IVe View Post
    I laugh.
    Demonstrate my error.
    In Authoritarian Communism, there is one dictator, the government is corrupt, citizens are forced to share their private property, there are no private businesses and the rights of individuals are oppressed.

    In other forms of socialism such as democratic socialism, the government is run directly by the people, citizens have private property, citizens may have small businesses, and citizens have just as many freedoms if not more than there are in the current society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    It's not the stretch you think it is...
    Actually, it's a huge stretch.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wake View Post
    Can socialists agree on this meaning or no?
    That is an accurate description of the basics of socialism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mach View Post
    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.
    There has only been authoritarian communist states because that is all that has been established, it does not mean that it is impossible to create any other type of socialist society.

    Quote Originally Posted by PzKfW IVe View Post
    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.
    When did he agree with your definition?

    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.
    He assumes that it is contrary to the views of socialism, he is wrong.
    You assume that it represents the views of socialism, you are also wrong

    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 is the matter with the wealthy giving up part of their fortune in order to feed the poor?

    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.
    If there is no entitlement to the means to a right, then how can it be a right?

    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.
    Except you can under socialism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    Liberal bull****. *Small companies turn into corporations.
    In a capitalist system, yes they do.

    Quote Originally Posted by FluffyNinja View Post
    I totally agree with the Gip here. We cannot forget that Nazis were/are the "National Socialist" Party. * Tread lightly ye psuedo-Socialists, *Adolf Hitler began with similar ideology, and we all know where that eventually led.
    *
    Are you saying that the socialists here are pseudo-socialists?

    Quote Originally Posted by FluffyNinja View Post
    Yes, very different. *If you can't understand that then you have a real problem understanding the whole premise of the free market or a truly capitalistic society which, inherently could/would not allow itself to be transformed into a truly authoritarian or fascist state. * Private ownership and control over the means of production tends to be the stumbling block here. **

    And I presented the two possibilities as different, but both extreme ends.
    Likewise,*you have a real problem understanding the whole premise of a truly socialist society which, inherently could/would not allow itself to be transformed into a truly authoritarian or fascist state.*
    "The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil." -Albert Einstein

  6. #396
    Unnecessary Middleman Bardo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    10-27-11 @ 06:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    605

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by FluffyNinja View Post
    I don't know. Did Mussolini establish a TRULY fascist state or was it simply a weak mockery of fascism
    Mussolini pretty much set the standard for fascism in the 20th century.

    The Patriot Act is a far, far cry from establishment fascism......this is quite a stretch, even for you.
    I didn't call it fascism, I called it authoritarian and invasive, which you claim isn't compatible with a capitalist society. Fascism is more than just authoritarianism, it's a system of economics, it's a social climate and it's a reactionary movement.

    I'm just pointing out that this:

    If you can't understand that then you have a real problem understanding the whole premise of the free market or a truly capitalistic society which, inherently could/would not allow itself to be transformed into a truly authoritarian or fascist state. Private ownership and control over the means of production tends to be the stumbling block here.
    Isn't true at all. Atleast the bit about private ownership being an adequate defense.

    By the way, how do you judge this to be the "single most authoritarian and invasive piece of legislation ever passed in the United States"? Can you prove this, or are you just repeating talking points presented by your Liberal, Poli-Sci Profs or the Left-wing establishment media?
    Perhaps it's YOUR history that is a bit rusty. Ever heard of the Dawes Act, Volstead Act, or Eminent Domain? Neither of these are all that "authoritarian" or "invasive", right?
    I would call the Patriot Act more invasive and authoritarian than either of those. The unprecedented privacy restrictions draw a lot of criticism from the right as well as the left, so it's not just my "left-wing media establishment" saying so.
    "It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this." Bertrand Russell

  7. #397
    Sage
    ksu_aviator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Fort Worth Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    6,688
    Blog Entries
    10

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    The reason socialism fails is because it relies on the population to be satisfied with what is apportioned to them rather than what they can attain. Some call it greed, but I call it ambition. Most rich people are rich because they do something exceptionally well. They aren't rich because they hoarded money. They set out to do something and they were rewarded. If you take away the rewarded in the form of progressive taxes or blatant Marxism...what's left to achieve and why?
    You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love.For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

  8. #398
    Unnecessary Middleman Bardo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    10-27-11 @ 06:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    605

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by ksu_aviator View Post
    The reason socialism fails is because it relies on the population to be satisfied with what is apportioned to them rather than what they can attain. Some call it greed, but I call it ambition. Most rich people are rich because they do something exceptionally well. They aren't rich because they hoarded money. They set out to do something and they were rewarded. If you take away the rewarded in the form of progressive taxes or blatant Marxism...what's left to achieve and why?
    What can I do to pump my net worth up to $1bil? How do I set out to achieve that much money? I would go to work for a financial giant, produce absolutely nothing and move money around for a living. Or maybe win the lottery a few times.

    Do you think if tax rates were increased by %4 that the rich would just stop trying to make money? They wouldn't just give up on pursuing dollars if it's what they really want to do with their lives. Wouldn't progressive taxation be incentive to make even more so that they can keep more?
    "It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this." Bertrand Russell

  9. #399
    Advisor GreenvilleGrows's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    My version of reality
    Last Seen
    10-05-12 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    566

    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?

    "Socialism, on a very small, intimate level is called sharing. It can be good on a little larger level, like within a large family or group of families (a tribe for example) who know each other very well and who can see the benefits and be held accountable for their part. Once it involves "strangers", by design it will fail terribly. Ever read Animal Farm?
    The US is an odd ship. The captain yells out when he sees obtacles , but 535 individual propellers do the steering.

  10. #400
    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 Bardo View Post
    Wouldn't progressive taxation be incentive to make even more so that they can keep more?
    No! It will be incentive not to work. Why would anybody work harder when one knows that the harder s/he works the higher the taxes?

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenvilleGrows View Post
    "Socialism, on a very small, intimate level is called sharing. It can be good on a little larger level, like within a large family or group of families (a tribe for example) who know each other very well and who can see the benefits and be held accountable for their part. Once it involves "strangers", by design it will fail terribly. Ever read Animal Farm?
    I have.
    The system you describing is called "Anarchist communism":

    Anarchist communists propose that the freest form of social organisation would be a society composed of self-governing communes with collective use of the means of production, organized by direct democracy or, and related to other communes through federation.
    Last edited by Canell; 09-24-11 at 05:43 AM.

Page 40 of 51 FirstFirst ... 30383940414250 ... 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
  •