• 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
Capitalism doesn't stand in the way of Socialism... Capitalism supports Socialism and keeps it alive.

if it weren't for Capitalism, Socialism would be long dead and buried.

Yup. And if it weren't for socialism, capitalism would have collapsed a long time ago. You need a mix of both.
 
Yup. And if it weren't for socialism, capitalism would have collapsed a long time ago. You need a mix of both.

I agree that a mix is necessary (Capitalism with government regulation). However, pure capitalism would not collapse, you would have immense poverty and immense wealth with most people living in poverty.
 
I agree that a mix is necessary (Capitalism with government regulation). However, pure capitalism would not collapse, you would have immense poverty and immense wealth with most people living in poverty.

In other words, instant revolution, just add water.
 
In other words, instant revolution, just add water.

I'm not too sure if the poor could revolt against the rich who would likely fund a militia to keep revolution under control. The same could also be said about socialism without any capitalism.
 
As of now, the U.S. is partly capitalistic and partly socialistic. Also, the term "succeed" is a subjective one. Does this mean the greatest good for all or the greatest good for a few? Also what does "good" mean? Does this mean allowing unequal opportunities and no safety nets or does it mean equal opportunity and safety nets. A lot of what you are askign depends on how you define terms such as "success" and "good". The idea of capitalism is just that, an idea. It does not exist as it is regulated - i.e. there is no truly free market. Pure socialism does not exist either. These are just concepts/theories/ideas/philosophies. So the truth of the matter is that all systems have qualities of both capitalism and socialism, i.e. policies allow certain characteristics of both philosophies at varying degrees.
 
You are right, folks, that was socialism as much as the Federal Reserve or Federal Express are federal.
Socialism wouldn't want to take over the world, for a start, but it would be local. Second, it would give power to the people not to the very few on the top. Third, "socialism" was conceived in sin - violent revolution and forcing people to submit.
It was doomed to fail.
 
Socialism has always failed and always will because it's a race to the bottom and there is no way for it to be anything but a loser.

Only the foolish could think it could ever work. Get real and look at history, it's always failed and always will.
 
Socialism has always failed and always will because it's a race to the bottom and there is no way for it to be anything but a loser.

Only the foolish could think it could ever work. Get real and look at history, it's always failed and always will.

Well, let's get real:

The word socialism refers to a broad range of theoretical and historical socio-economic systems, and has also been used by many political movements throughout history to describe themselves and their goals, generating numerous types of socialism. Different self-described socialists have used the term socialism to refer to different things, such as an economic system, a type of society, a philosophical outlook, a collection of moral values and ideals, or even a certain kind of human character. Some definitions of socialism are very vague, while others are so specific that they only include a small minority of the things that have been described as "socialism" in the past. There have been numerous political movements which called themselves socialist under some definition of the term; this article attempts to list them all. Some of these interpretations are mutually exclusive, and all of them have generated debates over the true meaning of socialism.

Types of socialism

But if we stick to the word, socialism has to do something with society, not the individual per se.
 
Food, education and medicine is socialized?
Must have a different version of socialism than the standard definition.

Food - the govt provides huge subsidies and price supports for the majority of the food grown in the US and businesses that sell food are subject to a vast array of govt regulation

Education - most education is done in public schools

medicine - Obamacare is socialized medicine

And libertarians use a different version of reality in order to believe in their demented excuse of an ideology
 
sure it could have. for ants.
 
sure it could have. for ants.

Ah - see. . .all the little busy workers slaving away for the queen. At least some of them get to have some sex in their life - talk about domination.
 
sure it could have. for ants.

For ants may be but obviously not for aunts. The last ones will prefer sex on the back seat before socialism. :lol:

Anyway, I wish "socialism" wasn't such a complicated term. :)
 
Socialism will only work for creatures who are extraordinarily simplistic, or extraordinarily intelligent.

We fall somewhere in the middle, which is why Capitalism is generally our best fit.
 
Socialism will only work for creatures who are extraordinarily simplistic, or extraordinarily intelligent.

We fall somewhere in the middle, which is why Capitalism is generally our best fit.

I don't fall in the middle. I'm both.
 
I put it couldnt...I am not a socialist nor do I believe socialism is a good thing....Socialism breeds dictators and every socialist society that I can think of had just that....but more importantly it makes people lazy...there is nothing to shoot for...
Having said that I am for some socialized programs...that keep our misery level far above other countries in the world....after all we are the RICHEST by far
 
Nah, the possible range is circular, not linear.

Like this?

diagram.JPG
 
Dude, haven't you heard that we will make a leap in consciousness in 2012? ;) So, get ready for socialism. :mrgreen:

Haha,

I however believe Aliens will descend upon us in 2012 and turn us into cosmic slaves and we will all be forced to mine Iridium, young and old alike.

Dick Cheney will be finally killed off after the Aliens easily discover and destroy his 6th and 7th (the final) Horcrux.
 
Last edited:
Food - the govt provides huge subsidies and price supports for the majority of the food grown in the US and businesses that sell food are subject to a vast array of govt regulation

Yes but it is not, state owned, owned in commons nor is it controlled cooperative.

Education - most education is done in public schools

Attaching public in front of something does not make it socialist.
The vast majority of things done to build and supply the schools are done by private enterprise and that doesn't even address that not all education is done through schooling.

medicine - Obamacare is socialized medicine

No it isn't, saying it is doesn't make it so.
The medical system is not, state owned, owned in commons and is not controlled cooperatively.

And libertarians use a different version of reality in order to believe in their demented excuse of an ideology

No it's just that you guys use whatever definition you like, most especially when it suites your agenda.
These areas commonly described as "socialist" are really more akin to economic fascism.
 
Norway's public sector is just as large as it's private sector. This isn't what makes it socialist, but it shows that it's not predominantly capitalist. Like I said, it doesn't have a totally planned economy but it is a social-democracy.

It's has the trappings of a quasi economic fascist society, yes.

What exactly is the standard definition? When can a country be described as "socialist" and when can it be described as "capitalist"?

"Socialism
11px-Loudspeaker.svg.png
/ˈsʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system in which the means of production are either state owned or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively"

Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Yes but it is not, state owned, owned in commons nor is it controlled cooperative.

Socialism doesn't require "ownership", just control, and agriculture is controlled by the govt (on edit: I see that the definition you posted agrees with what I say here). If you disagree, just try to run a farm or a restaurant or a food service company and you'll quickly be disabused of your libertarian fantasy


Attaching public in front of something does not make it socialist.
The vast majority of things done to build and supply the schools are done by private enterprise and that doesn't even address that not all education is done through schooling.

The vast majority of education in this country is done by people who work for the govt. And the people who build and supply schools are not in the education business; Only a fool would think a construction company is an educational organization.

:cuckoo:




No it isn't, saying it is doesn't make it so.
The medical system is not, state owned, owned in commons and is not controlled cooperatively.

Once again, socialism does not require govt ownership; just govt control and the medical industry is under govt control.

No it's just that you guys use whatever definition you like, most especially when it suites your agenda.
These areas commonly described as "socialist" are really more akin to economic fascism.

That sounds more like libertarians and their bogus "ideology" which is nothing more than a facade they use to blame society for their own failures
 
Last edited:
Socialism doesn't require "ownership", just control, and agriculture is controlled by the govt (on edit: I see that the definition you posted agrees with what I say here). If you disagree, just try to run a farm or a restaurant or a food service company and you'll quickly be disabused of your libertarian fantasy

You obviously didn't read the definition then.
It says some form of ownership and control.

The vast majority of education in this country is done by people who work for the govt. And the people who build and supply schools are not in the education business; Only a fool would think a construction company is an educational organization.

:cuckoo:

You're one of those people that believe the only way people learn stuff is through schools.
Sad, I guess all new workers that come to a construction company are perfectly knowledgeable, about the entire construction process, and will never learn anything new and beneficial about construction.



Once again, socialism does not require govt ownership; just govt control and the medical industry is under govt control.

Incorrect.
It requires some form of ownership, either in commons or under the state.

That sounds more like libertarians and their bogus "ideology" which is nothing more than a facade they use to blame society for their own failures

Post 7934 of sangha derailing a topic to take shots at his political opponents.
Stay on topic and you may just earn some credibility.
 
Back
Top Bottom