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 47 of 51 FirstFirst ... 374546474849 ... LastLast
Results 461 to 470 of 502

Thread: Socialism could have succeeded?

  1. #461
    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
    You can't privatize the vast majority of what you just listed. That is not socialism - it's just efficient allocation. You can't choose which people in a nation get defended, you can't choose which people get access to mail, and you can't choose people who get to drive on roads. You know, there is actually some grey area between anarchy and socialism. Just a little.
    It sure is socialism. You cant make it capitalism by redefining what words mean to suit your argument. Even the rightwing acknowledges that the things I mentioned are socialistic. They even called Obamacare "socialized medicine"

    And states most certainly can decide who gets defended, who gets mail, etc and the right has made some of those arguments (re privatizing mail, medicine, and the roads)
    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. #462
    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?

    Quite possibly no, but there is scarcity (I know you hate the word) in intellectual capital while mules still roam the streets in droves. Without the fatcat from the giant office window in his 3 piece suit, the workers wouldn't know what to do or what to build. The value added on his end much outweighs the value added on their end because they might have negative effects if he is unable to perform, while any of those workers could be shuffled in and out at any time with an endless pool.

    The "average people" have all the power in these situations. If you don't want Iacocca (suspend disbelief and time travel with me for this one) rich and in charge, don't buy Chrysler. If you have a particular hatred for Bill Gates and his fisting of symbiotic software companies, buy a Mac. Not a big fan of the Waltons? Shop at the local grocery store.

    People have more power than they think, but are hesitant to use it. You don't need to wait for November to vote for anything. You vote every time you pull out your wallet.

    That's economic freedom.

  3. #463
    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 Gipper View Post
    ....That's economic freedom.
    Maaaaaaaan.


    Get oooutta here

  4. #464
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha
    It sure is socialism. You cant make it capitalism by redefining what words mean to suit your argument. Even the rightwing acknowledges that the things I mentioned are socialistic. They even called Obamacare "socialized medicine"

    And states most certainly can decide who gets defended, who gets mail, etc and the right has made some of those arguments (re privatizing mail, medicine, and the roads)
    You can have socialistic characteristics, but it won't make you socialist. Unless you're totally anarchistic, there are going to be certain aspects of national infrastructure that are "socialized".

    And yes, in an anarchistic structure you could do all that, but not only would they be inefficient as all hell, but prone to massive levels of corruption. This is why I hate seeing people who identify as "anarcho-capitalists" because they make libertarians look downright stupid.

  5. #465
    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
    You can have socialistic characteristics, but it won't make you socialist. Unless you're totally anarchistic, there are going to be certain aspects of national infrastructure that are "socialized".

    And yes, in an anarchistic structure you could do all that, but not only would they be inefficient as all hell, but prone to massive levels of corruption. This is why I hate seeing people who identify as "anarcho-capitalists" because they make libertarians look downright stupid.
    Not sure what you mean by socialism then. If you mean that the entire economy (or economic sub-system) is owned and controlled by the govt, then you're using the wrong definition, IMO. As it stands today, the systems I mentioned are subject to a vast amount of govt control, and in some examples, complete control AND ownership

    And there's a difference between private ownership of the roads, electricity, water etc and anarchism.
    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..

  6. #466
    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?




  7. #467
    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?

    He was in a Rodney Dangerfield movie. Credit debunked.

  8. #468
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,887

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper
    The scarcity is surely not artificial
    Of course it is, crises of overproduction are common in capitalism, and preventing such a crisis requires a limitation on the productive forces, hence artificial scarcity to maintain profitable price levels.

    and full employment would be an overall drag on society and economy because of diminishing returns on marginal labor after peak efficiency.
    Full employment is a drag on a capitalist economy, yes. Again, here we have artificial scarcity in the labor market.

    You can't just give someone a job for the sake of giving someone a job.
    If production was organized around the needs of people then there would be no such thing as "giving someone a job for the sake of it". Full employment would also reduce the work day which would provide more free time for individuals to pursue other aims.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper
    Every country in the past who has tried to establish themselves as a "worker's paradise" has become an oppressive, totalitarian hellhole
    Which countries are those?
    "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."

  9. #469
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by KC
    Of course it is, crises of overproduction are common in capitalism, and preventing such a crisis requires a limitation on the productive forces, hence artificial scarcity to maintain profitable price levels.
    That's great and all for supply, but what about resources and capital? Those are definitely scarce. Efficient allocation is necessary to eliminate waste, and demand sets a curve that allows for need to be met with those available resources.

    Full employment is a drag on a capitalist economy, yes. Again, here we have artificial scarcity in the labor market.

    If production was organized around the needs of people then there would be no such thing as "giving someone a job for the sake of it". Full employment would also reduce the work day which would provide more free time for individuals to pursue other aims.
    Full employment is a drag on all economies. Also, if you limit work, what does that give you? Frankly, I'd rather be at work than have to spend time with my family...not to mention that all that extra work lets me buy cool stuff. Once again, socialism tries to curtail individual pleasures in an effort to conform to the collective. The last thing I really want is no money and excessive free time. I masturbate enough, thank you very much.

    Which countries are those?
    Any nations that end in "-ia" or "-stan".

  10. #470
    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
    That's great and all for supply, but what about resources and capital? Those are definitely scarce. Efficient allocation is necessary to eliminate waste, and demand sets a curve that allows for need to be met with those available resources.
    There is more than enough of both to provide for the worlds population



    Full employment is a drag on all economies. Also, if you limit work, what does that give you? Frankly, I'd rather be at work than have to spend time with my family...not to mention that all that extra work lets me buy cool stuff. Once again, socialism tries to curtail individual pleasures in an effort to conform to the collective. The last thing I really want is no money and excessive free time. I masturbate enough, thank you very much.
    Correction: Full employment is a drag on all capitalist economies. And if you limit work, that gives you more free time. It's bass-ackwards to claim that more free time is a way to curtail individual pleasures. Not everyone finds time with their families to be as unpleasant as you seem to find it
    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..

Page 47 of 51 FirstFirst ... 374546474849 ... 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
  •