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 42 of 51 FirstFirst ... 324041424344 ... LastLast
Results 411 to 420 of 502

Thread: Socialism could have succeeded?

  1. #411
    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?

    Sorry, double post
    Last edited by Canell; 09-25-11 at 07:38 AM.

  2. #412
    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 think our recent "Stimulus" Plans have proven that this is not always the case.
    It wasn't nearly large enough. One third of it was comprised as tax breaks too.

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenvilleGrows View Post
    If you're a street sweeper in a capitalist society, you might also work part time landscaping in hopes of saving enough to start your own business. Once your business gets going, you might hire a couple of your street sweeper friends and expand. If it goes well, you might provide jobs for your kids while they grow up so they can learn the family business. Once they get through college, they might diversify the family business and expand. By the time their kids are going to law school, maybe they'll be employing 1,000 people and have a plaque on the wall in the CEO's office showing the founder on his street sweeper.
    And they call socialists the dreamers

    If you're a street sweeper in a socialist society you'd be more likely to have a job for life. There's nothing keeping you from becoming a landscaper, and there's nothing keeping your kids from working either. Their education is also free so you don't have to strike it rich or put yourself in debt in order to send them through law school.

    In your scenario the vast majority will fail. They won't become CEOs and they won't become rich. They'll end up in the middle no matter how hard they try.
    "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

  3. #413
    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 Khayembii Communique View Post

    Then you're a huge self-contradicting dunce as the USSR had money and government.




    The USSR was nothing close to communism.
    You sir are the dunce then...


  4. #414
    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
    Would you PLEASE elaborate?

    If a general, DEEP definition could be agreed upon, that'd be awesome.
    Just read the past 300 posts over socialism.......
    Hell go back a couple pages and you will see a pretty "deep definition" on socialism.
    Or you could do the common sense thing and read or watch interviews with socialists...


  5. #415
    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 Fubar View Post
    really?
    Yes....
    Do you understand what communism is?

    look man u are debating an ideal that can never be achived
    Democratic socialism can never be achieved?

    as long as greed pride and lust for power are parts of the human dna.
    Human nature differs from person to person...
    Its not my ideal to have all this money and absolute power...
    Plus you can still make money and be "greedy" under socialism...

    socialism,build by the communist party we were suposedly building.
    Much of the Eastern Bloc was building something completely different from socialism and communism...

    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.
    Im describing a "utopia"?


    in the usa we have olygarchy.it's not hard to see.
    The Eastern Bloc was an oligarchy... Just instead of the rich ruling it was the party leaders...


  6. #416
    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 Mach View Post
    Those poor chaps were from a different era,
    So sense time moved on i guess socialists decided that the gov should do everything?
    Is that what you are getting at?

    that didn't have the benefit that freedom has ushered in to us lucky Americans.
    So many early American socialists didnt have the "freedom"?

    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 (!)
    Your point being????





    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.
    Let me guess the Eastern Bloc...
    I would say look at Latin America the vast majority of the countries are turning to the Left and socialism through democratic means.

    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.
    Even in a democratic process?
    It seems like what you think is where there is socialism there will be a dictatorship...


  7. #417
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Dixieland South
    Last Seen
    10-11-11 @ 09:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    364

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Socialism is the next thing to Communism...Who in their right mind wants that sort of Goverment Rule?
    There are those that are simply lazy, ignorant, envious of those that self acheive in life, that would approve of Socialism.
    Having a Ruling Goverment that controls everyones life. A Big Brother Eye in the sky watching every move you make.
    Ignorance is not that bliss in America, I hope not.

  8. #418
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by dixiesolutions View Post
    Ignorance is not that bliss in America, I hope not.
    How happy are you?

  9. #419
    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 PzKfW IVe View Post
    I know that -I- laughed when I read your response...
    Your the smart one...
    All hail you and your knight...


    It does when discussing the term in any meaningful way.
    Of course it does.
    Socialists do believe that some party of the economy should be nationalized...
    But what you are saying is exactly this (which i believe you even said earlier): "When the government/state owns all industries and a centrally planned economy" (or something along those lines.)

    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.
    Wait!
    Didnt you just give a weak minded basis fear mongering scary definition?
    "Socialsim is where the state owns/controls the means on producing and distributing wealth,"





    Oh wait you did...
    Hypocrite.

    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.
    No i didnt....
    I agreed with Wake said as a very basic definition...
    Its impossible to define any political system or generate an understanding of it with just a basic definition.



    Except that, since socialsim can exist under such a system, you're wrong. you're wrong.
    So sense a dictator can use socialism and give people worker ran industries like Lenin did in the USSR im wrong?

    Socislism is an economic system, and therefore can exist under any sort of government.
    You were blaming things such as loosing freedom of speech and what not on an economic system....


    Thank you for confirming the obvious.
    Then thanks for pointing out the obvious.

    Redistribution of wealth thru anything other than a fully voluntary system of charity, in and of itself, runs contrary to human nature,
    Uhhh then why do people vote for it??

    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.
    Then why do people vote for it?


    I didnt say anything about the nanny state. Did you read my post?
    My apologies.
    I miss read and thought welfare state was nanny state...
    But what do you mean by welfare state?
    Do you mean that the gov carries you from cradle to grave?



    Aww. That's special.
    I know right...

    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.
    How does it go against human nature if someone votes for it?



    You certainly know that this is not at all what I mean; your ineffective response indicates that you cannot counter what I said.
    You haven't even tried to explain even the basics of socialism... All you have said is that "redistribution of wealth is bad... human nature... your wrong..."
    Your just like everyone on the right thinking that the USSR was socialism or the little 2nd grade definition of socialism we all come to fear because our teachers say its when the government owns everything.

    Under socialism, I -cannot- own or control a means or producing wealth
    Uhhh yes you can. You can own it along with your workers if you are a employer.

    - that is, a for-profit business
    It still will be.

    - 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.
    The only difference in the workplace is that the workers will own the means of production/workplace............



    Your response does not address what I said.
    Yes it does.
    You are hung up on this claim about socialism and you cant have any private property...
    You can own property.
    One individual however cannot own the workplace...


    Under socialism, I do not have the freedom to own property
    Yes you do.

    AND use it to produce wealth.
    If you mean that one individual cannot own the workplace then you are right.
    Socialism holds that should be in the workers hands equally.

    Your attempt to remove the conjunction indicates that you cannot counter what I said.
    What that you cannot own private property....
    Let me do something straight from the Socialist Party of Kansas website:
    "Does Socialism really want to take all my possessions and redistribute them to everyone else?

    Answer: No. It is a myth that Socialism seeks to do away with all personal property. Socialists have no intention of taking away your house, your car, your material possessions, etc. What Socialists do desire, however, is public ownership of utilities, communication, and transportation entities, etc."


    As previously noted and left unaddressed by you.
    On the pursit of happiness as Garry Wills stated on this: "When Jefferson spoke of pursuing happiness, he had nothing vague or private in mind. He meant a public happiness which is measurable; which is, indeed, the test and justification of any government."

    As previously noted and left unaddressed by you.
    I asked you...
    Still waiting on a explanation...
    You seem to be the master here...


  10. #420
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist
    The USSR was nothing close to communism.
    Reread what I quoted:

    Quote Originally Posted by You
    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.
    "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 42 of 51 FirstFirst ... 324041424344 ... 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
  •