• 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
Nor I you...

There's no comparison. While it can be scientific, I don't claim Anarchism is a science. I don't claim to have heretofore unknown or inacessible revelations about how the world, or the universe works. I don't claim to be able to predict the future. Etc., etc. I don't make any wild truth claims. I merely make philosophical and ethical arguments about how things should be.
 
There's no comparison. While it can be scientific, I don't claim Anarchism is a science. I don't claim to have heretofore unknown or inacessible revelations about how the world, or the universe works. I don't claim to be able to predict the future. Etc., etc. I don't make any wild truth claims. I merely make philosophical and ethical arguments about how things should be.

Wow, you just love getting the last word in don't you.

As far as I know, I haven't made any such claims...

I merely make ahistorical arguments about how things should be.

FTFY :)
 
You have claimed that Marxism is a science.

Well that depends on how you define the word science. This is obviously a discussion I'm not interested in having with you. And I haven't actually made that claim on this board, AFAIK.

The rest is implicit.

How is the rest "implicit"? Who is claiming to have inaccessible knowledge or be able to predict the future? Popper's work is trash, btw, because he takes on a very fundamentally flawed reading of Marx, akin to Bernsteinism/Economism which is obviously why he thinks it's reductionist (i.e. all three volumes of his work are one big straw man filled with worthless trash - and yes I read, and suffered through, all of them; then again, I don't ascribe to propagandistic crap like the totalitarianism school of thought).

I don't see anything 'ahistorical' about my perscriptions.

Your entire discussion with these turds that talk about how anarchism/socialism/communism has "failed" is entirely within an ahistorical dichotomy.
 
Last edited:
Well that depends on how you define the word science. This is obviously a discussion I'm not interested in having with you. And I haven't actually made that claim on this board, AFAIK.



How is the rest "implicit"? Who is claiming to have inaccessible knowledge or be able to predict the future? Popper's work is trash, btw, because he takes on a very fundamentally flawed reading of Marx, akin to Bernsteinism/Economism which is obviously why he thinks it's reductionist (i.e. all three volumes of his work are one big straw man filled with worthless trash - and yes I read, and suffered through, all of them; then again, I don't ascribe to propagandistic crap like the totalitarianism school of thought).



Your entire discussion with these turds that talk about how anarchism/socialism/communism has "failed" is entirely within an ahistorical dichotomy.

This is a complete waste of time. It's like arguing with an Evangelical Christian. **** it.

Incidentally; you did make that claim, here;
http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...n/105075-communism-faq-22.html#post1059697010
 
I think that comparing capitalism with socialism/communism is like... apples and oranges. Capitalism is a type of economic engine. Socialism/communism is a form of government. There's no reason you couldn't operate a country under Capitalistic Communism, is there? Seems to me that China's doing just that...No???
 
I think that comparing capitalism with socialism/communism is like... apples and oranges. Capitalism is a type of economic engine. Socialism/communism is a form of government. There's no reason you couldn't operate a country under Capitalistic Communism, is there? Seems to me that China's doing just that...No???

Freedom and liberty are incompatible with socialism/communism. Sure, you can have a capitalist-communist-authoritarian hybrid, but it sure isn't going to be free.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Freedom and liberty are incompatible with socialism/communism.

These terms mean absolutely nothing outside of their concrete expression in reality, so why don't you go ahead and define what they mean for us.
 
I think he means individual freedom and liberty, at which point it would be true. Individualism is squashed at the hands of the collective, thereby making it de facto authoritarian.
 
These terms mean absolutely nothing outside of their concrete expression in reality, so why don't you go ahead and define what they mean for us.

The individual rights that can be easily and concisely articulated are incompatible with socialism/communism.
 
The individual rights that can be easily and concisely articulated are incompatible with socialism/communism.

Okay, let's take freedom of speech as an example. How does this freedom play out in the US, for example?
 
Okay, let's take freedom of speech as an example. How does this freedom play out in the US, for example?

What does "how it plays out in the US" have to do with its compatibility with the authoritarian nature of socialist/communist regimes who'd oppose it?
 
What does "how it plays out in the US" have to do with its compatibility with the authoritarian nature of socialist/communist regimes who'd oppose it?

Because it has to do with its compatibility with the nature of any regime.
 
Because it has to do with its compatibility with the nature of any regime.

I don't follow... what is your point? How is the statement "The individual rights that can be easily and concisely articulated are incompatible with socialism/communism." false?

I can cite various incompatibilities, property rights being the softball, but can you explain to me how a socialist/communist regime could support individual liberties and remain socialist/communist?

Would I still be free to trade value for value or for labor, earn/save up capital, and have the government defend my rights (like my property rights) or would said actions and freedoms be limited? There are reasons why authoritarian regimes oppose freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and allowing citizens the freedom to accumulate wealth.
 
Last edited:
What does "how it plays out in the US" have to do with its compatibility with the authoritarian nature of socialist/communist regimes who'd oppose it?

Libertarian Socialism is fundamentally antithetical to authoritarianism.

I don't follow... what is your point? How is the statement "The individual rights that can be easily and concisely articulated are incompatible with socialism/communism." false?

Libertarian Socialists have historically placed a high premium on individual rights. They bitterly condemned the Soviet Union (Rightfully so.) on these grounds.

I can cite various incompatibilities, property rights being the softball, but can you explain to me how a socialist/communist regime could support individual liberties and remain socialist/communist?

Would I still be free to trade value for value or for labor, earn/save up capital, and have the government defend my rights (like my property rights) or would said actions and freedoms be limited?

Libertarian Socialism precludes the existence of any sort of regime. The Nation-State is dismantled.

Property rights don't exist because property is theft. You don't have the right to take other people's earnings.
 
Libertarian Socialism is fundamentally antithetical to authoritarianism.

Libertarian Socialists have historically placed a high premium on individual rights. They bitterly condemned the Soviet Union (Rightfully so.) on these grounds.

Libertarian Socialism precludes the existence of any sort of regime. The Nation-State is dismantled.

Then how do you stop people from trading like capitalists?

Property rights don't exist because property is theft. You don't have the right to take other people's earnings.

How is property theft? That is a contradiction in terms. Sounds to me like that "Freedom is slavery, war is peace" tripe.

Something must be owned before it can be looted. Do I not own what I have earned, or have traded my earnings for?
 
Lachean said:
I don't follow... what is your point?

My point is that "rights" as you and others discuss them only exist abstractly and not in the real world. There is no such thing as "freedom of speech" because such a freedom is constrained by a variety of factors which make the entire idea of concrete "freedom" completely arbitrary.

I can cite various incompatibilities, property rights being the softball, but can you explain to me how a socialist/communist regime could support individual liberties and remain socialist/communist?

I don't deal in meaningless mental masturbation, take this up with NGNM85.

Would I still be free to trade value for value or for labor, earn/save up capital

In order to do so value and capital would need to exist.

and have the government defend my rights (like my property rights) or would said actions and freedoms be limited

What are "property rights" in reality? Please define how they exist in reality and not in some abstract entirely mental way.

There are reasons why authoritarian regimes oppose freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and allowing citizens the freedom to accumulate wealth.

All regimes are authoritarian, all oppose "freedom of the press" and "freedom of speech" to an extent.
 
Then how do you stop people from trading like capitalists?

Socialism does not preclude the existence of markets, at least, not necessarily.

How is property theft? That is a contradiction in terms. Sounds to me like that "Freedom is slavery, war is peace" tripe.

Something must be owned before it can be looted. Do I not own what I have earned, or have traded my earnings for?

No, it isn't. When Anarchists' talk about 'property' they are referring exclusively to the means of production.

The means of production belong to the workers, themselves. your earnings, or whatever posessions or services you seek to purchase with those earnings are absolutely your. However; you cannot purchase the 'right' to exploit other individuals and forcibly deprive them of their earnings.
 
Socialism does not preclude the existence of markets, at least, not necessarily.

Of course it doesn't. Nothing can preclude the existence of markets. Socialist-authoritarianism (which is redundant, since socialism can only be authoritarian) just changes the focal point of the economy to bureaucratic influence rather than the free market, and in so doing drives true markets underground into "black markets."
 
My point is that "rights" as you and others discuss them only exist abstractly and not in the real world. There is no such thing as "freedom of speech" because such a freedom is constrained by a variety of factors which make the entire idea of concrete "freedom" completely arbitrary.



I don't deal in meaningless mental masturbation, take this up with NGNM85.



In order to do so value and capital would need to exist.



What are "property rights" in reality? Please define how they exist in reality and not in some abstract entirely mental way.



All regimes are authoritarian, all oppose "freedom of the press" and "freedom of speech" to an extent.

Your ideas are dancing upon a fine line. It's fine and even fun to think about from time to time: What rights and freedom actually exist (none you may say) and what is created by man. If created by man, then why not start at the begining and do what is best for all of mankind instead of the individual.

I believe your point is that rights are what society defines them as at any point in history, not unchanging philosophical truths. Is this correct? This seems to be the core question as to what type of organizational system society should follow.

I would argue that the right to your property has always existed. When society has taken property rights away, it was theft then and theft now. Except now it is recognized as such. Not recognizing theft as theft doesn't mean it's not theft. But to your point that I believe you were trying to fish out: I cannot prove this.

Why can't I? Because society has to prioritize the rights of the individual. Limit some rights to protect others. Most obviously, you cannot yell "FIRE" in a theatre. The question is, put simply: at what cost do we protect these individual rights? When is exercising your right at the expense of another's right allowed and when isn't it allowed? The right to life vs property. Do my starving neighbors have the right to life? Isn't that a priority over my right to property? Or do they only have the right to the opportunity of life? Is my owning property directly causing their death? If not, do they have the right to my property to save their life? Or did they give up the right to life by not taking advantage of opportunity?

If I am correct and these rights do exist in reality, then society must answer these very difficult questions. If you are correct and the rights do not actually exist, then we are best served as a slave to society as a whole. But it needs to be organized. And only the emotional man can organize society. With greed and power, the men organizing will inevitably corrupt. So without knowing absolutely who is right between the two of us, where is man better served? A guaranteed slavery? Or freedom potentially at the cost of other freedoms? Look at the best case of both, admit your best case isn't truly possible given the nature of man and proceed from there.
 
Your ideas are dancing upon a fine line. It's fine and even fun to think about from time to time: What rights and freedom actually exist (none you may say) and what is created by man. If created by man, then why not start at the begining and do what is best for all of mankind instead of the individual.

The individual and "all of mankind" are not inherently in opposition to one another. Quite the contrary, the individual is by necessity tied to "all of mankind," hilariously enough, even in capitalist society.

I believe your point is that rights are what society defines them as at any point in history, not unchanging philosophical truths. Is this correct? This seems to be the core question as to what type of organizational system society should follow.

No, my point is that rights themselves are philosophical abstractions that do not exist in reality. Their concrete expression is self-refuting.

I would argue that the right to your property has always existed. When society has taken property rights away, it was theft then and theft now. Except now it is recognized as such. Not recognizing theft as theft doesn't mean it's not theft. But to your point that I believe you were trying to fish out: I cannot prove this.

You cannot prove this because you cannot explain what "the right to your property" actually means in concrete terms.

Why can't I? Because society has to prioritize the rights of the individual. Limit some rights to protect others. Most obviously, you cannot yell "FIRE" in a theatre.

Sure, there are limits to right based on security and physical limitations. There are also limits to right based on power. "Freedom of speech" is only tolerated by states insofar as it is not perceived as a threat. In this universal truism we can conclude that freedom of speech, the abstract and unlimited ideal of the right, does not exist in reality simply due to the fact that no states allows such.

Why is the US one of the "freest" nations in the world? Because its citizens, their voices, are most powerless.

And only the emotional man can organize society. With greed and power, the men organizing will inevitably corrupt.

Society isn't organized rationally, as I have already said. Nor is man "inevitably corrupt".
 
Socialism does not preclude the existence of markets, at least, not necessarily.

No, it isn't. When Anarchists' talk about 'property' they are referring exclusively to the means of production.

The means of production belong to the workers, themselves. your earnings, or whatever posessions or services you seek to purchase with those earnings are absolutely your. However; you cannot purchase the 'right' to exploit other individuals and forcibly deprive them of their earnings.

I do not regard employment as exploitation. Either way, if I cannot start up a business then you are in fact necessarily precluding the existence of various markets.
 
Nothing can preclude the existence of markets. Socialist-authoritarianism (which is redundant, since socialism can only be authoritarian)

America stands for freedom but if you think you're free try walking into a deli and urinating on the cheese!

(song quote)

So, is America authoritarian or just repressive, Guy Incognito?
Why do you think socialism could only be authoritarian? Please don't give this USSR BS.
 
Last edited:
My point is that "rights" as you and others discuss them only exist abstractly and not in the real world. There is no such thing as "freedom of speech" because such a freedom is constrained by a variety of factors which make the entire idea of concrete "freedom" completely arbitrary.

So long as you have a government who will defend your rights, and a law court to appeal to them on, they exist. The only abstract notion is that of the "inalienable right."

I don't deal in meaningless mental masturbation, take this up with NGNM85.

Translation: I don't answer for the contradictions in my logic.

In order to do so value and capital would need to exist.

So long as there is a means of exchange that both parties agree has value, then thats not a concern.

What are "property rights" in reality? Please define how they exist in reality and not in some abstract entirely mental way.

A law court and men with guns will defend them, that is no mere mental abstraction. But your utter disregard for rights (like all socialists necessarily are) is noted.

All regimes are authoritarian, all oppose "freedom of the press" and "freedom of speech" to an extent.

Source for that claim? You do realize that every regime, no matter how brief, that made no actions against the freedom of the press debunks your ridiculous absolute.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom