• 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
You are being dishonest again and failing to distinguish between the public and the employees, again. Bardo did not say or imply that unions are governing boards.


No I'm trying to understand what he is saying.

In all honesty, I've been describing libertarian socialism, not centralized or state socialism. In this set up, the workers would directly self-manage and control public means of production. The government as a central authority wouldn't own the means of production, it's a much more decentralized socialism. In syndicalism atleast, democratic work places would establish democratic trade unions, which would establish a democratically controlled economy.
 
In all honesty, I've been describing libertarian socialism, not centralized or state socialism. In this set up, the workers would directly self-manage and control public means of production. The government as a central authority wouldn't own the means of production, it's a much more decentralized socialism. In syndicalism atleast, democratic work places would establish democratic trade unions, which would establish a democratically controlled economy.

Fair enough. While it is one possible configuration, even libertarian socialism allows public management and not just employee mgmt. Of course, the public *could* delegate that mgmt to the employees, but that is not a requirement.

Also, my understanding of a libertarian socialist system is that there would be no govt aside from a minarchy (ie courts, police, military, etc but no role in managing the means of production) Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
I would agree that they technically own it but that they realistically don't.
I believe the heads of state largely believe they own and control these institutions.

I'm addressing ownership, not necessarily control. As taxpayers, you and I own our local public schools, this doesn't mean we have to control them. The school board generally manages the schools.


I'm saying that the vast majority of parents would have their kids educated, regardless of laws on compulsion.

Then they aren't affected by the compulsory education laws. If all schools were privatized there would be some parents who wouldn't. Again, this isn't doing harm to themselves, but to the kids.

The parents that wouldn't have their kids educated, are likely to produce kids that don't value education anyway.

The kids would be genetically predisposed to an indifference towards education? Or would whether or not they went to school as children make a difference? The parents that aren't educated would be the ones who wouldn't value education, thus passing it along to their kids. I would imagine the highly educated parents would be the parents who would educate their kids no matter what.

Eliminating compulsory education would start a cycle of indifference for education that would be passed down from generation to generation.
 
I'm addressing ownership, not necessarily control. As taxpayers, you and I own our local public schools, this doesn't mean we have to control them. The school board generally manages the schools.

In that case, I don't think it qualifies as socialism. As I understand it, socialism requires public or state ownership/control. Employee ownership is a different animal, regardless of what you name it.
 
I'm addressing ownership, not necessarily control. As taxpayers, you and I own our local public schools, this doesn't mean we have to control them. The school board generally manages the schools.

Sometimes against the will of the people.


Then they aren't affected by the compulsory education laws. If all schools were privatized there would be some parents who wouldn't. Again, this isn't doing harm to themselves, but to the kids.

They are in a way.
Currently you're limited to the schools in your district, you can't choose any other school outside of it, unless it is private or a charter school.

The kids would be genetically predisposed to an indifference towards education? Or would whether or not they went to school as children make a difference? The parents that aren't educated would be the ones who wouldn't value education, thus passing it along to their kids. I would imagine the highly educated parents would be the parents who would educate their kids no matter what.

Eliminating compulsory education would start a cycle of indifference for education that would be passed down from generation to generation.

Not genetically, but based on the environment that the parents create.

You can look at history to show that prior to compulsory education laws, people were already educating their kids in the various ways.
The literacy rate was climbing steadily.
In colonial Mass, people were largely, already literate.

Public education takes a lot of undeserved credit.
 
Also, my understanding of a libertarian socialist system is that there would be no govt aside from a minarchy (ie courts, police, military, etc but no role in managing the means of production) Correct me if I'm wrong.

There are different tendencies within libertarian socialism. There are anarcho-communists, who would dissolve the state as a hierarchal system of governance, and would focus more on commune decision making, which includes industry. Anarcho-syndicalists would set up a federation of unions, who would govern industry. Luxemburgists, as I understand, would leave a minarchist state.

The main idea is removing the government as a hierarchal entity that is separate from the needs of it's citizens. It's a way to achieve socialism without sacrificing freedom in the process.
 
Bardo said:
There are different tendencies within libertarian socialism. There are anarcho-communists, who would dissolve the state as a hierarchal system of governance, and would focus more on commune decision making, which includes industry. Anarcho-syndicalists would set up a federation of unions, who would govern industry. Luxemburgists, as I understand, would leave a minarchist state.

The main idea is removing the government as a hierarchal entity that is separate from the needs of it's citizens. It's a way to achieve socialism without sacrificing freedom in the process.

Ideology among the left has gotten absolutely nowhere, whether Luxemburgist, Trotskyist or Stalinist. They all have this same delusion in common.
 
Sometimes against the will of the people.

Aren't certain members of the schoolboard elected by the community?




They are in a way.
Currently you're limited to the schools in your district, you can't choose any other school outside of it, unless it is private or a charter school.

I can't speak for your area, but I went to school in three different towns without ever moving. Anything further away would've been impractical without moving. I don't really see how this means compulsory schooling is affecting the lives of parents who would educate their kids no matter what.


Not genetically, but based on the environment that the parents create.

Exactly, kids who's parents were apathetic about education will likely also grow up to be apathetic unless they were subject to education growing up. Then, oncethey reach a certain age, and can make their own decisions, they would no longer be compelled to go to school.
 
There are different tendencies within libertarian socialism. There are anarcho-communists, who would dissolve the state as a hierarchal system of governance, and would focus more on commune decision making, which includes industry. Anarcho-syndicalists would set up a federation of unions, who would govern industry. Luxemburgists, as I understand, would leave a minarchist state.

The main idea is removing the government as a hierarchal entity that is separate from the needs of it's citizens. It's a way to achieve socialism without sacrificing freedom in the process.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like you're agreeing with me (that libertarian-socialism isn't really socialism) while providing a lot more detail
 
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like you're agreeing with me (that libertarian-socialism isn't really socialism) while providing a lot more detail

What makes it unsocialist?
 
Socialism did succeed. It's called Norway, France, Germany, etc etc.
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
 
Yup. And if it weren't for socialism, capitalism would have collapsed a long time ago. You need a mix of both.
So now you're moving the goal posts.
 
Last edited:
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

Measures of economic freedom and government spending have little to do whether a government is socialist or not. I don't trust the heritage foundation to be able to conceive what socialism is.
 
Measures of economic freedom and government spending have little to do whether a government is socialist or not. I don't trust the heritage foundation to be able to conceive what socialism is.
So what else is socialism if it's not government regulation and government spending? A socialist country would get very low rankings on both indexes. If it get a high ranking, especially on the Fraser index, it shows that it's not a socialist country.

You are not the kind of people who determine socialism after it's success, and not its policies?
 
So what else is socialism if it's not government regulation and government spending? A socialist country would get very low rankings on both indexes. If it get a high ranking, especially on the Fraser index, it shows that it's not a socialist country.

You are not the kind of people who determine socialism after it's success, and not its policies?

There is no threshold for government spending at which a country becomes socialist or not. There is no one dimensional scale to define what philosophy a country has.
 
There is no threshold for government spending at which a country becomes socialist or not. There is no one dimensional scale to define what philosophy a country has.
Point out where I said it was, please.

And then respond to my argument in a proper manner. What is socialism if it's not government regulation and government spending? Where the limit of socialism is, is open to debate. But a country that has pretty much the same government spending and the same amount of regulations as the US, is not socialist.

What I think you are doing, is to determine socialism after success instead of policy. For instance income inequality, poverty rate, governmental services offered. Socialism is not defined by success. It is defined by policy. Which is an economic system in which the means of production are either state owned or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively.
 
Point out where I said it was, please.

And then respond to my argument in a proper manner. What is socialism if it's not government regulation and government spending? Where the limit of socialism is, is open to debate. But a country that has pretty much the same government spending and the same amount of regulations as the US, is not socialist.

What I think you are doing, is to determine socialism after success instead of policy. For instance income inequality, poverty rate, governmental services offered. Socialism is not defined by success. It is defined by policy. Which is an economic system in which the means of production are either state owned or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively.

Your question about what socialism is has been asked and answered several times in this thread.

Read your last sentence. In the countries named, a large part of the economy is socialized. No one here has claimed that they are 100% socialist.
 
Point out where I said it was, please.

And then respond to my argument in a proper manner. What is socialism if it's not government regulation and government spending? Where the limit of socialism is, is open to debate. But a country that has pretty much the same government spending and the same amount of regulations as the US, is not socialist.

What I think you are doing, is to determine socialism after success instead of policy. For instance income inequality, poverty rate, governmental services offered. Socialism is not defined by success. It is defined by policy. Which is an economic system in which the means of production are either state owned or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively.

You'll get the answer to your posts they garner by their own merit.

What I think you are doing, is to determine socialism after success instead of policy.

What I think you are doing, is assuming what I am doing.
 
Which makes it impossible in America due to turnover. This isn't Japan where someone gets a job and stays there until the day he dies.
 
Your question about what socialism is has been asked and answered several times in this thread.
I know what socialism is. In fact better than most socialists, who claim to be experts because they have read a book from Noam Chomsky. When we discuss definitions, I only use official definitions.

However, that's not the reason I asked. I asked, because I want him to explain how European countries are socialists. I have not gotten no response yet, apart from standard response. In fact I must say it is extremely difficult to get socialists to respond to anything they feel are uncomfortable. Had I said, socialism causes income inequality. I would probably get a long response, but if I mention some of the difficulties I just get insults and standard responses back.

Read your last sentence. In the countries named, a large part of the economy is socialized. No one here has claimed that they are 100% socialist.
So US is socialist, since large parts of the economy is socialized? Which country is not socialist under that definition?
 
Last edited:
I know what socialism is. In fact better than most socialists, who claim to be experts because they have read a book from Noam Chomsky. When we discuss definitions, I only use official definitions.

However, that's not the reason I asked. I asked, because I want him to explain how European countries are socialists. I have not gotten no response yet, apart from standard response. In fact I must say it is extremely difficult to get socialists to respond to anything they feel are uncomfortable. Had I said, socialism causes income inequality.I would probably get a long response, but if I mention some of the difficulties I just get insults and standard responses back.


So US is socialist, since large parts of the economy is socialized? Which country is not socialist?

If you know what socialism is, then why are you posting data about "economic freedom" and govt spending?

And, as it has been mentioned several times in this thread, a large portion of the US economy is socialized

And again, no one is claiming that these nations are 100% socialist. We're just pointing out the absurdity of those who argue that socialism is dead or unworkable when a large portion of the worlds largest economies are, in fact, socialized
 
Back
Top Bottom