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

People seem to say this a lot and I am not sure why. A command structure designed to allocate for industries with market failures is not socialist. Just because something is a public utility doesn't mean it's owned by the public. It just means that a centralized bureaucracy is required to run it to counterbalance the potential for inefficiency.
 
If you know what socialism is, then why are you posting data about "economic freedom" and govt spending?
Because it is relevant. definition of socialism from Oxford Dictionaries Online

And, as it has been mentioned several times in this thread, a large portion of the US economy is socialized
Now, you are sidetracking. He never said large parts of Europe economy is socialized. He said Europe has proven the success of socialism. If it's going to prove the success of socialism, it better be socialism. I then ask you, is US socialist?

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
Having large parts of the economy being socialized is not socialism. Today's economies have proven the success of mixed economies, not socialism which has been a complete failure.
 
Hardcore socialism, I very much doubt it, as it is against some aspects of human nature. Socialism mixed with capitalism to smooth over the rough edges of either system, absolutely. However, I am not sure how to answer because of the way the OP's question is framed.
 
People seem to say this a lot and I am not sure why. A command structure designed to allocate for industries with market failures is not socialist. Just because something is a public utility doesn't mean it's owned by the public. It just means that a centralized bureaucracy is required to run it to counterbalance the potential for inefficiency.

For one thing, when a public utility is owned by the govt, it is socialist by definition.

Secondly, there's a lot more to the socialized economy of the US than public utilities (ie electricity, water, etc). There's SS, Medicare, and a host of other programs that are socialistic
 
Because it is relevant. definition of socialism from Oxford Dictionaries Online


Now, you are sidetracking. He never said large parts of Europe economy is socialized. He said Europe has proven the success of socialism. If it's going to prove the success of socialism, it better be socialism. I then ask you, is US socialist?


Having large parts of the economy being socialized is not socialism. Today's economies have proven the success of mixed economies, not socialism which has been a complete failure.

1) Your definition says nothing about economic freedom or the amt that govt spends. Your response is non-responsive

2) Your claim that "If it's going to prove the success of socialism, it better be socialism" is your standard. IIRC, the argument is that capitalism requires some amount of socialism to succeed

And (again) the US is partially socialized

3) And again, no one is saying that it's 100% socialism. The argument is that it's foolish to claim that socialism is dead when a large portion of the worlds largest economies are socialized. Your claim that socialism is a complete failure is proven untrue by the facts.
 
However, I am not sure how to answer because of the way the OP's question is framed.

You are so right, megaprogman. :) The OP regards to "Bolshevism" - a brand of socialism practiced in the USSR, the Eastern block and some other countries. It was doomed to fail, imho.

This socialism business is getting really annoying. I'm seriously considering starting a new thread where we try to distinguish well the different types of socialism and end that constant confusion of terms. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Just don't include libertarian socialism or anarcho-anything. All socialism is authoritarian.
 
1) Your definition says nothing about economic freedom or the amt that govt spends. Your response is non-responsive
Really, let's go through.
Oxford Definition said:
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

I the meains of production is owned by the community as a whole, then economic freedom will be reduced and governmental spending will increase.
If distribution and exchange is owned by the community as a whole it will reduce the economic freedom majorly.

Governmental spending and economic freedom are certainly relevant to socialism.


2) Your claim that "If it's going to prove the success of socialism, it better be socialism" is your standard. IIRC, the argument is that capitalism requires some amount of socialism to succeed
Again, you are sidetracking. Some amount of socialism is not the same as socialism. Likewise, some amount of liberalism is not liberalism. Hence, saying that Europe show the success of socialism, is wrong because Europe is not socialist.

Would you say US show the success of socialism?


3) And again, no one is saying that it's 100% socialism. The argument is that it's foolish to claim that socialism is dead when a large portion of the worlds largest economies are socialized. Your claim that socialism is a complete failure is proven untrue by the facts.
You seriously need to learn the difference between being partly socialized and socialism. It's not the same.
 
Can you cite that definition? I have never seen any official source define socialism in that way. Oxford doesn't definition of socialist from Oxford Dictionaries Online

Your source defines socialism as
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

And the Oxford dictionary is not the end-of-all-discussion authority for all definitions. Socialism is often defined as govt ownership of the means of production, distribution, etc
 
This socialism business is getting really annoying. I'm seriously considering starting a new thread where we try to distinguish well the different types of socialism and end that constant confusion of terms. :roll:
I would love that, but I'm sorry it's impossible. It is much easier to defend yourself if you can make the definitions. We do have the definition of socialism. Oxford dictionary tell us what the definition of socialism is. Problem is, getting socialists to use the proper definitions is a very difficult task.
 
Really, let's go through.


I the meains of production is owned by the community as a whole, then economic freedom will be reduced and governmental spending will increase.
If distribution and exchange is owned by the community as a whole it will reduce the economic freedom majorly.

Your claim is untrue. You assume freedom decreases with govt ownership. The truth is the opposite.


Governmental spending and economic freedom are certainly relevant to socialism.

Then why did you claim the opposite earlier in this thread



Again, you are sidetracking. Some amount of socialism is not the same as socialism. Likewise, some amount of liberalism is not liberalism. Hence, saying that Europe show the success of socialism, is wrong because Europe is not socialist
.

No, you are sidetracking with straw men. No one has claimed that Europe is 100% socialist.

Would you say US show the success of socialism?



You seriously need to learn the difference between being partly socialized and socialism. It's not the same.

You need to learn the difference between a straw man and arguments that have actually been made. No one has said that Europe is 100% socialist
 
I would love that, but I'm sorry it's impossible. It is much easier to defend yourself if you can make the definitions. We do have the definition of socialism. Oxford dictionary tell us what the definition of socialism is. Problem is, getting socialists to use the proper definitions is a very difficult task.

No, getting anyone to use YOUR narrow definition is an impossible task. The rest of us recognize that socialism comes in many forms.
 
Your source defines socialism as

a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

And the Oxford dictionary is not the end-of-all-discussion authority for all definitions. Socialism is often defined as govt ownership of the means of production, distribution, etc
Socialism is a political theory, and is not an adjective.

I think you meant socialist which can be an adjective. Oxford definition say
oxford definition said:
adhering to or based on the principles of socialism:the history of socialist movement

The principle of socialism is not just government take over, hence oxford definition disagree. I never said oxford definition is the perfect source, but I have yet to see any official sources from you.
 
Last edited:
Oxford dictionary tell us what the definition of socialism is.

Well, in this case I'm afraid they never had socialism in the USSR. The majority of decisions were made in Moscow, i.e. such a centralized system is not socialism (which presumes local government by the community, right?) according to that definition. ;)
 
This socialism business is getting really annoying. I'm seriously considering starting a new thread where we try to distinguish well the different types of socialism and end that constant confusion of terms. :roll:

It's all the same, it's just a question of degree. All communist/socialist governmental systems are equally morally illegitimate.
 
Your claim is untrue. You assume freedom decreases with govt ownership. The truth is the opposite.
This is called economic freedom, not freedom. They do assume economic freedom decreases with govt ownership, hence your point is moot.

Then why did you claim the opposite earlier in this thread
I have never claimed the opposite. Cite me.

No, you are sidetracking with straw men. No one has claimed that Europe is 100% socialist.
You are the one sidetracking here, because if Europe is 60% socialist, whatever that means. It is not socialist anymore. Hence it does not prove the success of socialism. Similarly, Nazism is maybe 60% socialism as well. It still doesn't prove the failure of socialism. To prove the success or failure of socialism, then you have to look at socialist countries, which Europe is not.

No, getting anyone to use YOUR narrow definition is an impossible task. The rest of us recognize that socialism comes in many forms.
You need to learn what socialism is. Socialism is not a term that has many different meanings. Socialism is a collection of ideologies, with all of them having some similar ideas. These ideas, can you find in the Oxford definition.
 
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?
 
Socialism is a political theory, and is not an adjective.


I think you meant socialist which can be an adjective. Oxford definition say
adhering to or based on the principles of socialism:the history of socialist movement

The principle of socialism is not just government take over, hence oxford definition disagree. I never said oxford definition is the perfect source, but I have yet to see any official sources from you.

Since I just posted the definition of socialism as a theory (a noun, not an adjective) it is foolish to claim that I used socialism as an adjective. I posted the definition of socialism because saying that socialist means "adhering to or based on the principles of socialism" means nothing without understanding the meaning of the word socialism.

And I didn't claim that socialism is "just govt takeover". You're arguing another straw man

And if you want to see any official sources from me, read the thread. You obviously have not done that

It's time for you to take your nose out of the dictionaries and textbooks. Out in the real world, most people realize that nothing is pure. We don't have pure capitalism not pure socialism.
 
This is called economic freedom, not freedom. They do assume economic freedom decreases with govt ownership, hence your point is moot.


I have never claimed the opposite. Cite me.


You are the one sidetracking here, because if Europe is 60% socialist, whatever that means. It is not socialist anymore. Hence it does not prove the success of socialism. Similarly, Nazism is maybe 60% socialism as well. It still doesn't prove the failure of socialism. To prove the success or failure of socialism, then you have to look at socialist countries, which Europe is not.


You need to learn what socialism is. Socialism is not a term that has many different meanings. Socialism is a collection of ideologies, with all of them having some similar ideas. These ideas, can you find in the Oxford definition.

I can see that it's a waste of time to respond to you. Your narrow definition is not worth discussing because not one socialist or marxist is arguing that pure socialism exists and you're completely unwilling or unable to discuss anything but pure socialism.

Have fun with your hobby horse. Keep beating it


And again you are using one defintion out of many and insisting it's the only one that can be discussed
 
Last edited:
Since I just posted the definition of socialism as a theory (a noun, not an adjective) it is foolish to claim that I used socialism as an adjective. I posted the definition of socialism because saying that socialist means "adhering to or based on the principles of socialism" means nothing without understanding the meaning of the word socialism.
You didn't relate it to why institutions can be socialist. I said, oxford dictionary disagree with your usage of socialist.

And if you want to see any official sources from me, read the thread. You obviously have not done that
I don't think you have noticed, but the thread is 20 pages long. I'm sure you have your sources readily available, so quote some official sources. BTW; just because someone is a socialist, doesn't make them an official source. You need to rely on Wikipedia, or famous dictionaries.

It's time for you to take your nose out of the dictionaries and textbooks. Out in the real world, most people realize that nothing is pure. We don't have pure capitalism not pure socialism.
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.

The reason I'm so nazi on the textbooks, is to prevent socialists from making their own definitions.
 
And again you are using one defintion out of many and insisting it's the only one that can be discussed
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?
 
Back
Top Bottom