• 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 vs. Capitalism

Which do you Prefer


  • Total voters
    57
In reality, in socialism the workers have no power. The state has power and the workers are like bees in a hive. If we were like bees and all willingly sacrificed for the good of the colony, it might work, but humans are a wee bit evolved compared to honeybees.

If the workers don't have power then it can't be socialism because socialism by definition is the dictatorship of the working class.
 
I dont want to be nit-picking or derail the thread, but what the USSR had was not pure Socialism. It was Communism which IS different from Socialism.

I don't want to be nit picking, but what the USSR had was Dictatorial Socialism.
Communism has only ever been practised in one Nation and then not as the National Government.

The Kibbutz system in Israel was as close as one can get to pure Communism.

The Leaders were elected by the members, they (including leaders) all worked doing a variety of tasks.
 
If the workers don't have power then it can't be socialism because socialism by definition is the dictatorship of the working class.

In theory it sounds great, but in reality it can't exist. Socialism in a human construct system would be a dictatorship over the working class. The great majority of humans could not handle otherwise because they can't even maintain power over their own impulses.
 
In theory it sounds great, but in reality it can't exist.

Earlier (and later in your post, see below) you claimed that "n reality, in socialism the workers have no power." Here you claim that it cannot exist in reality. Your statements are contradictory. Either it can exist or it cannot, but it cannot be both.

You can argue this latter one if you want, but please don't be dishonest and distort definitions for your own ends.

Socialism in a human construct system would be a dictatorship over the working class.

Then it isn't socialism.

God, you go right on to contradict yourself in the same post! :roll:
 
In theory it sounds great, but in reality it can't exist. Socialism in a human construct system would be a dictatorship over the working class. The great majority of humans could not handle otherwise because they can't even maintain power over their own impulses.

So democracy can't work either? ;)
 
Then it isn't socialism.

How do you figure? How else do you get workers all under the same company running things and prevent some from starting their own company? It has to be a dictatorship of the workers.
 
phattonez said:
How do you figure?

The definition of socialism is working class power. If there is no working class power then there can be no socialism. It's a simple identity. A ≡ A. If A is not the same as A then it cannot be A and must be something else.
 
The definition of socialism is working class power. If there is no working class power then there can be no socialism. It's a simple identity. A ≡ A. If A is not the same as A then it cannot be A and must be something else.

Socialism is dictatorship of the working class by the working class. There was nothing wrong with what Lizzie said in that specific quote.
 
Either it can exist or it cannot, but it cannot be both.
God, you go right on to contradict yourself in the same post! :roll:

"Ownership" by the workers can exist. Power cannot. There's a few people who could manage themselves well enough to live in a socialist or communist society (with actual shared power). Most cannot. In a socialist country (example former USSR), there was shared ownership, but the power rested with a few.
 
"Ownership" by the workers can exist. Power cannot. There's a few people who could manage themselves well enough to live in a socialist or communist society (with actual shared power). Most cannot. In a socialist country (example former USSR), there was shared ownership, but the power rested with a few.

And that's what any socialist society would necessarily have to devolve into.
 
The definition of socialism is working class power.

But in the real world of experience, the people have no power. They work for the state, they have shared ownership in theory, but they are ruled by a central power figure(s). If socialism was such a great concept, the USSR would not have folded. It doesn't work.
If all people were equal in attitude, willingness, ability, and agreed to work as a unit for the good of society, it could succeed. Because people aren't equal, it cannot succeed. No matter what one wants to believe, we are not all equal, primarily because we cannot be. There will always be those who willingly sacrifice, and there will always be those who are unwilling to pull their share of the load. This will always produce ill will, and where there is ill will, there is no common goal. Human nature (and nature in general) does not allow for a beehive mentality to work in the world of humans.
 
If the workers have no power then it cannot be socialism. Stop trying to split hairs on an already wrong argument. It's much deeper than who owns the property.
 
In reality, in socialism the workers have no power. The state has power and the workers are like bees in a hive. If we were like bees and all willingly sacrificed for the good of the colony, it might work, but humans are a wee bit evolved compared to honeybees.
If you had asked a feudal lord whether the emerging merchant class could ever come to dominate the political world he would have said that it was contrary to the laws of God, human nature and common sense. In reality of course, said Feudal lord was a member of an obsolete class at the head of an obsolete mode of production. One which had long ago ceased to increase productivity, creativity and freedom but had become a detriment to it.
Not only would the Feudal lord have felt that the impending rise of Capitalism was impossible, unnatural, and against the laws of God and human nature, but so did most of the working class at the time and even most of the merchant class that would become modern capitalists.
The same is true of Capitalism today. It is obsolete. It hinders production, creativity and human freedom. But just as was the case with Feudalism, those born and raised within it generally assume it to be natural and permanent, and superior alternatives to it to be impossible.
 
If the workers have no power then it cannot be socialism.

Tell that to the Russians who were adults prior to the fall of the union. Find the ones, who were not "officials" who thought or believed they had any power whatsoever. I'd love to visit with them, because my experience with all the Russians I know is quite the opposite.

It's much deeper than who owns the property.

Yes, it is.
 
lizzie said:
Tell that to the Russians who were adults prior to the fall of the union. Find the ones, who were not "officials" who thought or believed they had any power whatsoever. I'd love to visit with them, because my experience with all the Russians I know is quite the opposite.

I don't know if you're just incredibly dense or what, but I'm arguing that the USSR wasn't socialist. And so I don't see at all how this statement is a response to what you quoted in any way whatsoever.

You, on the other hand, seem to be arguing that it was, so you're basically arguing against yourself here.
 
The same is true of Capitalism today. It is obsolete. It hinders production, creativity and human freedom.

Not at all. Capitalism promotes innovation and creativity. The idea that you or I have the power to succeed based on our own innovation and energy is right in line with the evolution of species.
 
Textbook argumentum ad populum.

Next! :2wave:

More like textbook avoidance of discussing the topic by constantly claiming a fallacy. It's one of the oldest bail out moves on the internet forums. Be bold, be different --- discuss the topic. :cool:
 
Ockham said:
More like textbook avoidance of discussing the topic by constantly claiming a fallacy. It's one of the oldest bail out moves on the internet forums. Be bold, be different --- discuss the topic.

There's nothing further to discuss. Her definition of socialism is based on what people believe, not what it actually is. My entire argument was that her definition was invalid, and she proved it very blatantly by appealing to popular belief. So she actually proved me right, which means that the discussion is over.
 
faminedynasty said:
If you had asked a feudal lord whether the emerging merchant class could ever come to dominate the political world he would have said that it was contrary to the laws of God, human nature and common sense. In reality of course, said Feudal lord was a member of an obsolete class at the head of an obsolete mode of production. One which had long ago ceased to increase productivity, creativity and freedom but had become a detriment to it.
Not only would the Feudal lord have felt that the impending rise of Capitalism was impossible, unnatural, and against the laws of God and human nature, but so did most of the working class at the time and even most of the merchant class that would become modern capitalists.
The same is true of Capitalism today. It is obsolete. It hinders production, creativity and human freedom. But just as was the case with Feudalism, those born and raised within it generally assume it to be natural and permanent, and superior alternatives to it to be impossible.

You act as if capitalism is a 20th century invention. Capitalism has been around sime time immemorial and has just evolved through the progression of man. Be it feudalism, mercantilism, corporatism, or pure laissez-faire free market, you're not talking about a recent invention. The concept that someone can be king of the mountain is indeed a driving force not just in economics but in almost any aspect of society and mankind-driven philosophy. Nobody strives to be "equal"; nobody wants to be just adequate - at least not on a large-scale level. Capitalism drives itself because of the simple and perpetual Darwinian theories it exudes. To be the man, you have to beat the man - and if you ever fall from grace, someone will be there that's bigger and better. Communism and socialism both strive to stifle the collective masses and not reward any sort of ambition or independent thought, which is the innate reason why it fails universally. The Soviet Union failed because it was broke, period. Its economy was absolutely stagnate, and could not compete against a free-market juggernaut.

If you think capitalism causes a lot of ruckus and in-fighting, I challenge you to find a significant population who think they really embrace communistic values. You'll find them revert mentally and physically to almost a carnal level, and when it's time to back the talk up with action, it's nowhere to be seen.
 
Capitalism has been around sime time immemorial and has just evolved through the progression of man. Be it feudalism, mercantilism, corporatism, or pure laissez-faire free market, you're not talking about a recent invention.

The labour-process, resolved as above into its simple elementary factors, is human action with a view to the production of use-values, appropriation of natural substances to human requirements; it is the necessary condition for effecting exchange of matter between man and Nature; it is the everlasting Nature-imposed condition of human existence, and therefore is independent of every social phase of that existence, or rather, is common to every such phase. It was, therefore, not necessary to represent our labourer in connexion with other labourers; man and his labour on one side, Nature and its materials on the other, sufficed. As the taste of the porridge does not tell you who grew the oats, no more does this simple process tell you of itself what are the social conditions under which it is taking place, whether under the slave-owner’s brutal lash, or the anxious eye of the capitalist, whether Cincinnatus carries it on in tilling his modest farm or a savage in killing wild animals with stones. [9]

...

[9] By a wonderful feat of logical acumen, Colonel Torrens has discovered, in this stone of the savage the origin of capital. “In the first stone which he [the savage] flings at the wild animal he pursues, in the first stick that he seizes to strike down the fruit which hangs above his reach, we see the appropriation of one article for the purpose of aiding in the acquisition of another, and thus discover the origin of capital.” (R. Torrens: “An Essay on the Production of Wealth,” &c., pp. 70-71.)

Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I - Chapter Seven

Emphasis obviously mine.

EDIT: Your definition of capitalism is laughably absurd; it's so vague that it's completely meaningless.

Gipper said:
The Soviet Union failed because it was broke, period.

Uh, nah. It's a little more complicated than that.

If you think capitalism causes a lot of ruckus and in-fighting, I challenge you to find a significant population who think they really embrace communistic values.

Not an argument.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom