• 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're distorting the definition of the word "own". You can't divvy up a corporation into thousands of pieces with each person having a chunk and say they "own" it. That's misleading and fallacious. Ownership means that you have definitive rights, and in a syndicalist enterprise that ownership carries essentially no rights.

That's socialists for you. They manipulate definitions of words, in this case words like "own" and "earn". Your terms are subjective, and they're held to the whims of an oppressive aggregate.
 
i lived in the socialist republic of romania for 20 years.i would not like to relive that experience.america is rapidly transforming into the same beast with different fur color.american constitutional republic is the form of gov i would have liked to experience.....but that died very shortly after it's inception.
peace.
 
i lived in the socialist republic of romania
Romania or any of the USSR satalite states were never socialist.. The people were basically slaves of the gov.

i would not like to relive that experience.america is rapidly transforming into the same beast with different fur color.
America is becoming a one party state of and authoritarian government dominated by one man?

american constitutional republic is the form of gov i would have liked to experience.....but that died very shortly after it's inception.
peace.
:shock:
 
Educate me then PzKfW IVe!
What is socialism?
Your the master!
Indeed.
Socialsim is where the state owns/controls the means on producing and distributing wealth, with wealth bening redistributed thru the welfare state.
As such, and in contrary to your statement, I -cannot- own or control a means or producing that wealth, and I can neither own/control the means to distribute that wealth, nor keep my wealth from being distributed to others.

The freedom to pursue happiness is all about the freedom to own property and use it to create wealth.
Under socialiam, the freedom to pursue happiness does not exist.
This freedom is based on human nature; as this freedom does not exist under socialism, socialism runs contrary to human nature.
 
i lived in the socialist republic of romania for 20 years.i would not like to relive that experience.america is rapidly transforming into the same beast with different fur color.american constitutional republic is the form of gov i would have liked to experience.....but that died very shortly after it's inception.
peace.

Socialism is not the same thing as communism which the socialist republic of Romania was.
 
Socialsim is where the state owns/controls the means on producing and distributing wealth, with wealth bening redistributed thru the welfare state.

Actually that's fascism, the not too distant cousin of socialism.
 
Actually, I think that you are mixing up socialism and authoritarian communism.
Nope. Not at all.
See, socialism is a economic system that can exist under virtually any form of government.
 
Indeed.
Socialsim is where the state owns/controls the means on producing and distributing wealth, with wealth bening redistributed thru the welfare state.
As such, and in contrary to your statement, I -cannot- own or control a means or producing that wealth, and I can neither own/control the means to distribute that wealth, nor keep my wealth from being distributed to others.

The freedom to pursue happiness is all about the freedom to own property and use it to create wealth.
Under socialiam, the freedom to pursue happiness does not exist.
This freedom is based on human nature; as this freedom does not exist under socialism, socialism runs contrary to human nature.

Once again, you are confusing socialism with totalitarian, authoritarian communism.
 
Socialsim is where the state owns/controls the means on producing and distributing wealth, with wealth bening redistributed thru the welfare state.

For your information only (you obviously missed it the first time) - link :fyi:
 
Nope. Not at all.
See, socialism is a economic system that can exist under virtually any form of government.

i agree but that is not what you were implying.
 
Along with my vote, I extermely belive that socialism wont survive for long.

China's experience gives us the proof of concept! nowadays china covers the economy expansion of the pure capitalism nature with a word ""Chinese way of Capitalism" If I could say it correctly!

Capaitalism if can just get rid of one of it's pillars which called Interest änd replace it with "Profitability Methods", people will more support it!

Thank you and please accept me as a member from oversees :)
 
This should be fun.....

Socialsim is where the state owns/controls the means on producing and distributing wealth,
No...
Early socialists called for no such thing as ownership being controlled by the state.
Socialism means the workers have direct control and management of the industries/workplace.
Socialism does not mean government or state ownership. It does not mean a closed party run system without democratic rights. Those things are the very opposite of socialism.
American Daniel De Leon defined it, "is that social system under which the necessaries of production are owned, controlled and administered by the people, for the people, and under which, accordingly, the cause of political and economic despotism having been abolished, class rule is at end. That is socialism, nothing short of that."


with wealth bening redistributed thru the welfare state.
Sure we believe in a redistribution of wealth through a progressive tax system.
What do you mean by "nanny state"?
I believe that homeless people should have the right to shelter. I believe that impoverished people should have the right to some food assistance. I believe everyone has the right to a high school education. I believe everyone has the right to healthcare.

As such, and in contrary to your statement, I -cannot- own or control a means or producing that wealth, and I can neither own/control the means to distribute that wealth, nor keep my wealth from being distributed to others.
What do you mean?
Yes you can own producing that wealth as long with the workers.


The freedom to pursue happiness is all about the freedom to own property
You can own property.
and use it to create wealth.
You can create wealth through how you do it now. Through work.

Under socialiam, the freedom to pursue happiness does not exist.
How so?

This freedom is based on human nature; as this freedom does not exist under socialism, socialism runs contrary to human nature.
How does it run to the contrary?
Becuase you cant own your own mega business?
Its in human nature to own a business?
Well all the workers own the workplace.
 
Can socialists agree on this meaning or no?

so·cial·ism/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/


Noun: A political and economic theory of that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
 
Socialism is not the same thing as communism which the socialist republic of Romania was.

I would beg to differ.
Communism is there is no gov, there is no money, there are no classes, the workers own everything communaly.
I would say communism was a stalinist state as much of eastern europe was.
 
Yea. As a basic definition, but it goes much deeper that that.

Would you PLEASE elaborate?

If a general, DEEP definition could be agreed upon, that'd be awesome.
 
really? look man u are debating an ideal that can never be achived as long as greed pride and lust for power are parts of the human dna.socialism,build by the communist party we were suposedly building.i have heard the concepts all my life.is no different to what the church/bussiness concept.they both sell.... utopia.hope.meanwhile the people in power get the entitlement virus,become visionaries and start building their own version.it's...human.
in the usa we have olygarchy.it's not hard to see.
 
Back
Top Bottom