• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Socialism could have succeeded?

Do you think socialism could have succeeded if capitalism wasn't standing on the way?

  • Don't know

    Votes: 3 3.8%
  • Don't care

    Votes: 3 3.8%
  • Absolutely

    Votes: 9 11.4%
  • I think it could

    Votes: 11 13.9%
  • I think it couldn't

    Votes: 16 20.3%
  • No way

    Votes: 37 46.8%

  • Total voters
    79
I'd rather have the original from Ferdinand Toennies - Community and Society

:peace
You can not use one individual as a source. So I won't accept that source.

Also, in this example it makes no sense to use any other source than Oxford definition. That is because they use their own definitions. We want to know what oxford mean by community, not what community is.
 
Allright, let's take a look at other sources. Of course there are slight variations, but they get to the same conclusion.

Wikipedia agrees with Oxford Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dictionary.com agrees with the oxford definition

Are they all wrong?

No one is arguing about pure socialism. Time to get your nose out of the books and get out into the real world where nothing is pure.
 
You can not use one individual as a source. So I won't accept that source.

Also, in this example it makes no sense to use any other source than Oxford definition. That is because they use their own definitions. We want to know what oxford mean by community, not what community is.

How dare you use a definition that is not Camlon-approved?

Did I call it, or what? :lol:
 
No one is arguing about pure socialism. Time to get your nose out of the books and get out into the real world where nothing is pure.
I already responded to this argument.

There are of course some leeway, but if a system is clearly not following the principles of socialism, then it is certainly not socialism. Doesn't help if parts of the system is similar to socialism. It still won't be socialism.
 
And if you want to see any official sources from me, read the thread. You obviously have not done that
I took a look at the thread with the search button.

Not once did you source your own definitions. You were corrected and given the proper definition,

"Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are either state owned or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively, or a political philosophy advocating such a system"

then you misunderstood the definition and said it allows the means of production to be just regulated, then he pointed out how wrong you were. Then you said he didn't include the whole sentence, but the last statement doesn't make your statement right. It only says that socialism can be a political philosophy.
 
Last edited:
Reality stands in the way of socialism.

Perhaps in it's purest "text book form" but it seems to me it, like a virus, simply mutated and lives dormant most of the time. In a way, some of the aspects have stayed but the totalitarian side effects and defects are rejected. I know it's not a very good analogy but I sorta see Socialism as herpes... you never get rid of it and it only makes its appearance once in a while as a minor annoyance.
 
In what ways are they socialist? For instance take a look at Germany.

Economic freedom (heritage): 77.8 (US) ... 71.8 (Germany)
Economic freedom(fraser) : 8.0 (US) ... 7.5 (Germany)
Government spending: 42.46 (US) ... 47.00 (Germany)

And just for the comparison, governmental spending in Switzerland is 34.17% and 17% in Singapore in 2010. Also, economic freedom in Switzerland is 81.9 (heritage) and 8.1 (fraser)

Why do people think Scandinavia or any of the European countries are socialists? They are not, regulations are low, there is huge support for free trade. Private people, not the government own the means of production, charter schools are normal. It is easy to open up a business, and taxes are just marginally higher than the US. However, if you take into account the upcoming mandatory private insurance in the US, taxes are about the same. If Germany is socialist, so is America.

OECD Statistics
Economic Freedom of the World
The Heritage Foundation

good way of looking at it. But they still have horrible gun control laws. I know Swiss aren't super strict but not very lax either. I'm in Missouri and we have some of the best LEAST gun control laws in the country. I'm in a smaller city of Kansas City and we have never had a murder in the 4 years I've lived in these two counties. People know someone probably carries.
 
Is it true that with socialistic nations they eventually run out of other people's money?

That being the case, how could socialism ever succeed?
 
Socialism means commonly owned and controlled, not just owned and controlled by employees or their representative (ie the union)

Means of production would be commonly owned, but self managed by those who use it. The unionism is an aspect of syndicalism, not libertarian-socialism in general.


Just don't include libertarian socialism or anarcho-anything. All socialism is authoritarian.

Except for you know, libertarian socialism and anarcho-anything.

The questioned asked in this poll is so stupid it's hardly worth addressing. It's like asking "could people fly if gravity wasn't standing in the way?"

Socialists want to abolish gravity. Not gonna happen. Let's focus our mental energies on something less stupid, shall we?

Derpa derp
 
Means of production would be commonly owned, but self managed by those who use it. The unionism is an aspect of syndicalism, not libertarian-socialism in general.

Well, I'm certainly no expert on leftist libertarianism, but I do see your point. However, it seems that this self-mgmt would be subject to the will of the public (ie the people who own it) so therefore, it sounds like we're just quibbling over semantics (as is GI, but to a much greater extent). In the end, it's the public who manages it, but they do it by delegating it to unions.
 
Is it true that with socialistic nations they eventually run out of other people's money?

Yeah, just printing the money is so much different. Give me a break. :)
 
Last edited:
Bardo said:
Except for you know, libertarian socialism and anarcho-anything.

Tell you what...I'll be fair. You show me any country even remotely successful on any level with any structure remotely related to libertarian socialism, and I'll retract my "all socialism is authoritarian" belief that I give ad nauseum.

Just one...remotely related. I mean remooooooooootely.
 
Maternity leave is so ****ing oppressive.
So is better internet and public utilities
and living under an economy not regulated by conflicting interests...
 
Tell you what...I'll be fair. You show me any country even remotely successful on any level with any structure remotely related to libertarian socialism, and I'll retract my "all socialism is authoritarian" belief that I give ad nauseum.

Just one...remotely related. I mean remooooooooootely.

If you want to be fair, care to tell us about any country that's been even remotely successful with any structure remotely related to libertarianism?
 
Tell you what...I'll be fair. You show me any country even remotely successful on any level with any structure remotely related to libertarian socialism, and I'll retract my "all socialism is authoritarian" belief that I give ad nauseum.

Just one...remotely related. I mean remooooooooootely.

This is a non-sequitur. A historical example of a ‘successful’ Libertarian Socialist society is not required to prove or disprove your thesis, which is wrong, incidentally.

Since you asked; the best, and largest example would be the Anarchist dominated areas of Revolutionary Spain, like Catalonia. It was a more-or-less fully realized, modern, technologically sophisticated Libertarian Socialist society of hundreds of thousands, over a period of several years. I’d also mention the Ukrainian Makhnovischina. Smaller examples would include the Israeli Kibbutzim, Denmark’s Free Christiania, and the Mexican Zapatistas.
 
Tell you what...I'll be fair. You show me any country even remotely successful on any level with any structure remotely related to libertarian socialism, and I'll retract my "all socialism is authoritarian" belief that I give ad nauseum.

Just one...remotely related. I mean remooooooooootely.

Libertarian socialism, the best example is probably the Spanish Revolution. Of course, if you change that to democratic socialism, you've got most of Europe, Australia, Canada, Japan, etc etc etc.
 
Libertarian socialism, the best example is probably the Spanish Revolution. Of course, if you change that to democratic socialism, you've got most of Europe, Australia, Canada, Japan, etc etc etc.
By extension, United States is a democratic socialist country since Australia is more capitalist than the US? Although, there are no consensus what democratic socialism is, I think very few would agree with you there. Why do you keep insisting on putting socialist labels on capitalist countries?

Today, we call countries like Germany, France,Italy, and Sweden social democratic. Not democratic socialism. Countries like the US, Australia, Canada and Switzerland are following the anglo-saxon model.
 
I love how the anarcho-syndicalist's big success story is a few misguided Catalans who unwittingly paved the way for Franco.
 
In theory any economic system could succeed. Lenin's form of communism was perfect. But people found out how to cheat it. People learned they can stay home and still pull the same amount from the pot.

BTW, I am not a communist
 
In theory any economic system could succeed. Lenin's form of communism was perfect. But people found out how to cheat it. People learned they can stay home and still pull the same amount from the pot.

BTW, I am not a communist

People are always going to "cheat." But it's only called "cheating" when you're living under an authoritarian regime. When you're free it's called "capitalism."
 
In theory any economic system could succeed. Lenin's form of communism was perfect. But people found out how to cheat it. People learned they can stay home and still pull the same amount from the pot.

BTW, I am not a communist

Hence why it was not perfect...
 
Back
Top Bottom