• 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!

Is socialism realistic?

Is socialism possible in the United States

  • Yes. Absolutely.

    Votes: 14 24.6%
  • Yes if the majority of people supported it

    Votes: 3 5.3%
  • Yes but not now

    Votes: 2 3.5%
  • No. Socialism never works.

    Votes: 24 42.1%
  • No because people would never accept it

    Votes: 8 14.0%
  • other

    Votes: 6 10.5%

  • Total voters
    57
Is socialism possible in the United States?
Is it possible? Yes. Is it as good or as "beneficial" as its proponents blithely assume? No. Does it work? Only in the commune, the kibbutz, or in relatively small communities where heterogeneity does not, or cannot practically exist. Wherever it's been attempted elsewhere, it inevitably fails (assuming it ever worked at all), to the utter misery of its people under the absolute tyranny of its overlords.
 
Last edited:
I beleive the only way socialism will work is a evolutionary process supported by the majority of people. I believe it will only work with a democratic government, and it will be a slow evolution to reach socialism. It wont be a overnight revolution.
 
"Socialism" as defined by those tenets laid down involving state-run production (sometimes conflated with "citizen ownership") stands directly opposed to private production for profit. So, no, it can never work.

We never figured out how to play nice with each other, so we have, as a species, no motivation to do so. With all of it's waste, greed, an inherent inefficiency, a capitalistic profit-driven system is the only one we've come up with that has so far managed to feed a large population. Facts are facts, no matter how unfortunate.
 
"Socialism" as defined by those tenets laid down involving state-run production (sometimes conflated with "citizen ownership") stands directly opposed to private production for profit. So, no, it can never work..
Socialism is the worker direct control of the means of production. This can be via the state but if the state owns it the workers or citizens at large must have democratic control of that industry under state control.
 
Socialism is the worker direct control of the means of production. This can be via the state but if the state owns it the workers or citizens at large must have democratic control of that industry under state control.

Which sounds great on paper...

...but there is a reason we don't let children vote on what to have for supper. Please, pardon the inference, and I mean no disrespect by referring to children, but "workers" don't have a clue how to run things unless specifically trained and/or educated to be managers. There is a reason why entire fields of academic study are devoted to this one specific branch. Letting people who don't really know why or how things work call the shots is tantamount to letting a child pick their dinner every night. You're going to get pizza and icecream, right up until that kid drops dead from diabetes.
 
What I mean is socialism.
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

Based on this definition - no. People would not accept it.
 
Which sounds great on paper...

...but there is a reason we don't let children vote on what to have for supper. Please, pardon the inference, and I mean no disrespect by referring to children, but "workers" don't have a clue how to run things unless specifically trained and/or educated to be managers. There is a reason why entire fields of academic study are devoted to this one specific branch. Letting people who don't really know why or how things work call the shots is tantamount to letting a child pick their dinner every night. You're going to get pizza and icecream, right up until that kid drops dead from diabetes.

They dont know how to run things?
Tell that to the thousand of cooperative businesses and the Mondragon Corporation.
 
They dont know how to run things?
Tell that to the thousand of cooperative businesses and the Mondragon Corporation.

I saw specifically that Mondragon employees democratically vote on pay. What I did not see was:

Do they vote on tasks?

Do they vote on the length of the work day?

Do they vote on who becomes a manager?

Do they vote on who their CEO is? Or any C-level position?

Do they vote on which companies can join the co-op?
 
Is socialism possible in the United States?

Actually, you should ask which kind of socialism would work. We have quite a bit of socialism in America today - we are what some term a "Social Democracy":

Social democracy asserts that the only acceptable constitutional form of government is representative democracy under the rule of law. It promotes extending democratic decision-making beyond political democracy to include economic democracy to guarantee employees and other economic stakeholders sufficient rights of co-determination. It supports a mixed economy that opposes the excesses of capitalism such as inequality, poverty, and oppression of various groups, while rejecting both a totally free market or a fully planned economy. Common social democratic policies include advocacy of universal social rights to attain universally accessible public services such as education, health care, workers' compensation, and other services, including child care and care for the elderly. Social democracy is connected with the trade union labour movement and supports collective bargaining rights for workers.

Yes, we have a lot of that already, and it works well just like it does in all the other first-world democracies...all of which to significant extent meet the definition of a "socialized democracy".
 
I saw specifically that Mondragon employees democratically vote on pay. What I did not see was:

Do they vote on tasks?
I do not believe so.
They vote on what, how, and where to produce.
They also vote on what to do with the profits.


Do they vote on the length of the work day?
No i dont beleive so. They work a standard work day.

Do they vote on who becomes a manager?
Yes

Do they vote on who their CEO is? Or any C-level position?
Yes.

Do they vote on which companies can join the co-op
The company focus's on the area of finance, industry, and retail.
More info can be found here: Democracy in the Workplace? Spain's Mondragon Corporation Shows Us an Alternative to Capitalism | Alternet
 
I don't really know where I was going with those question, but regardless, it needs to be recognized that these companies exist (and continue to exist) while pursuing profit.

That's kind of an important point, and one completely contrary to the basis of socialism. Profit is the only check with which we can judge success from failure, and through profit do we create efficiency. And while our current capitalist market-based system (not anywhere close to free, but that is another debate entirely) runs with a great amount of inefficiency, it is miles beyond what any socialist or communistic system has ever come close to producing. There is simply no way to motivate people to produce when they are not starving, unless you make them hungry for more stuff. Again, I recognize the inherent inefficiency behind a system that requires consumers to consume, and to produce more than they consume so as to increase consumption, but this is the very basis behind technological advancements like space travel and the internet. Well, also war, but again, another argument. So, while we dither about the evils of capitalism and how consumption is terrible, we aren't currently discussing capitalist famines where 20+ million people died. The only people capitalism has failed to feed are those who do not trade their effort for food. The same can't be said of any attempt at socialism.
 
Is socialism possible in the United States?

Possible? You do understand that a functioning society has to have some form of Socialism right?

The founders of Democracy had a partially socialist government. How do you think the Athenians funded their military, their roads and great public works?

The highway system that our economy depends on runs on Socialism. Congressional healthcare is Socialism. Tricare is Socialism. Police, firefighters and teachers are Socialism. The military is Socialism.
 
Possible? You do understand that a functioning society has to have some form of Socialism right?

The founders of Democracy had a partially socialist government. How do you think the Athenians funded their military, their roads and great public works?

The highway system that our economy depends on runs on Socialism. Congressional healthcare is Socialism. Tricare is Socialism. Police, firefighters and teachers are Socialism. The military is Socialism.

Well said!

And so they will hate you.
 
Well said!

And so they will hate you.

Yeah, when people who know what socialism is look around we realize that socialism is everywhere. In many respects I think there's too much of it. But again, most people don't even know what socialism is and so they're to ignorant to even know where to look.
 
Yeah, when people who know what socialism is look around we realize that socialism is everywhere. In many respects I think there's too much of it. But again, most people don't even know what socialism is and so they're to ignorant to even know where to look.

But the most successful nations - in terms of modernity, standards of living, and personal freedoms - are all first-world socialized democracies, each with very significant levels of socialism...

...whereas those nations with little or no socialism are all - all! - third-world nations.

You might not like socialism, and you might like to get rid of it...but it's those socialized democracies that are the most successful...and the most libertarian nations (which are libertarian by nature if not by choice) are all third-world nations.
 
But the most successful nations - in terms of modernity, standards of living, and personal freedoms - are all first-world socialized democracies, each with very significant levels of socialism...

...whereas those nations with little or no socialism are all - all! - third-world nations.

You might not like socialism, and you might like to get rid of it...but it's those socialized democracies that are the most successful...and the most libertarian nations (which are libertarian by nature if not by choice) are all third-world nations.

The definition of "Third World" means unaligned with NATO or the former Soviet bloc. Brazil is a Third World Nation, along with Sweden and Finland.

The term you are looking for is "developing nation." According to the IMF, there are three countries in Africa, several small spots in eastern Europe, and North Korea.

Third World - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
The definition of "Third World" means unaligned with NATO or the former Soviet bloc. Brazil is a Third World Nation, along with Sweden and Finland.

The term you are looking for is "developing nation." According to the IMF, there are three countries in Africa, several small spots in eastern Europe, and North Korea.

Third World - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I appreciate the criticism, but I tend to go with the following definition from the "First World" entry in Wikipedia:

In contemporary society, the First World is viewed as countries that have the most advanced economies, the greatest influence, the highest standards of living, and the greatest technology.

Using that definition, all first-world democracies are socialized democracies. The only other first-world nations are a handful of hideously oil-wealthy OPEC nations such as the UAE, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, etc.
 
our reprsentative demochracy evedently does not work for poeple and in a socialist goverment works i mean look at germany, they work less hours then us and they are the 3d most productive country right behind china and the us, plus a german worker makes about 200.00 more a week than we do.So socialism will endup enentualy working.
 
Of course it is. And it is pretty much the inevitable direction that we're going in. The last five hundred years have been a continual march away from aristocracy and towards egalitarianism. The next five hundred are likely to be no different. That's the direction humanity is going in. I don't know how far behind or ahead the United States will be, or even if there will be a United States. But the world is basically only going to get more egalitarian unless we do something insane like have a nuclear war and destroy civilization. And even then, it might still.
You beat me to it.
 
What are you going to do with the consitition and about 40 states that will fight to up hold it?????????
 
Is socialism possible in the United States?
I saw socialism, I saw capitalism - I do not like neither, and I know that both systems were controlled by the same international bankers. If you want something better, you have to look deeper into the problem than any given system or political party.
 
no. In socialism there are no legal slaves.
 
Is socialism possible in the United States?

No, social democracy yes, but pure socialism no. There is nothing wrong with capitalism as long as it is done responsibly by companies and off set by social democratic goals and principles. Private property is perfectly fine as long as it is guarded to not go over the top by good regulation in areas where the public good must be protected (banking, energy, water and healthcare for example). Most of industry and private enterprises do not need government interference (except maybe to protect the public to make sure no cartel forming takes place which costs consumers a lot of money).
 
Well, UKIP took a 1/4 of the votes in GB last election. If that's not a sign of the times, I don't know what is.
 
Back
Top Bottom