• 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!

A Failed Socialist State

Spriggs05

Anarcho Facist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 14, 2012
Messages
1,428
Reaction score
854
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Has there ever been a failed socialist state (i.e A socialist state that has either collapsed into anarchy and/or a capitalist state OR A state that has economically failed)?
Moreover out of curiosity to be honest, These countries CANNOT be included: USSR, North Korea, Cuba, Eastern Bloc States (i.e 1980s eastern europe)
 
Has there even been a purely socialist state? No. So there cannot be a failed socialist state in that terms.
 
By definition, Socialism IS a state that has failed.
 
Has there even been a purely socialist state? No. So there cannot be a failed socialist state in that terms.

Socialism applies to: Syndicalism, State Socialism or a Majority of Nationalised Industries (in comparison to private sector) In this context.
 
Last edited:
Socialism applies to: Syndicalism, State Socialism or a Majority of Nationalised Industries (in comparison to private sector) In this context.

Well there has never been a nation like this that is purely in these contexts.
 
Has there ever been a failed socialist state (i.e A socialist state that has either collapsed into anarchy and/or a capitalist state OR A state that has economically failed)?
Moreover out of curiosity to be honest, These countries CANNOT be included: USSR, North Korea, Cuba, Eastern Bloc States (i.e 1980s eastern europe)

Why can't those countries be included?
 
Has there ever been a failed socialist state (i.e A socialist state that has either collapsed into anarchy and/or a capitalist state OR A state that has economically failed)?
Moreover out of curiosity to be honest, These countries CANNOT be included: USSR, North Korea, Cuba, Eastern Bloc States (i.e 1980s eastern europe)

A purely socialist state can't exist, not in modern times.
All those countries you excluded are failed attempts at creating "pure" socialist states.
 
A purely socialist state can't exist, not in modern times.
All those countries you excluded are failed attempts at creating "pure" socialist states.

they failed because power is in one set of hands, and those hands are always tyrannical.

that is why democracy is another failed form of government, because in time the majority becomes tyrannical.......be it direct or representative.
 
Not really.
Greece is still largely a market orientated economy.

Well, if we're gonna define socialism according to its ideals, then I guess we're done - it's never existed. /thread
 
that is why democracy is another failed form of government, because in time the majority becomes tyrannical.......be it direct or representative.

And that's why we invented things like rights and stuff. You know, a constitutional republic. I think they teach about this advancement upon raw direct democracy in about 5th grade social studies. Let us know when you've grasped it.
 
Well, if we're gonna define socialism according to its ideals, then I guess we're done - it's never existed. /thread

Well yea, but then we get caught in the circular logic of socialists who decry "a real socialist state has never existed."
Which I would keep answering, it can't because, currently, it won't work.
 
Well yea, but then we get caught in the circular logic of socialists who decry "a real socialist state has never existed."
Which I would keep answering, it can't because, currently, it won't work.

socialist live a world of make-believe.

they act as though everyone is going to be good and kind, and be concerned and caring for his follow man, and we all share what we have.

man is not like that, he is self-serving and works in his own interest.

this what is know as constrained and unconstrained

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=_dwz_Z62e0s
 
Well yea, but then we get caught in the circular logic of socialists who decry "a real socialist state has never existed."
Which I would keep answering, it can't because, currently, it won't work.

Nothing pure has ever existed. And if the OP is to be discussed, then I suppose we need to loosen up the definitioning a little.

You realize that free marketeers can do the same thing, right? No free market has ever existed! So, that's it. We don't got anything. No socialism, no free market, nothing to discuss. I mean, if you're gonna be a nihilist about it then just come right out and say "nothing means anything and classification is impossible, rendering the question mute" - there, done, without all the BS.
 
Last edited:
And that's why we invented things like rights and stuff. You know, a constitutional republic. I think they teach about this advancement upon raw direct democracy in about 5th grade social studies. Let us know when you've grasped it.

the only small bit of democracy in our government created by the founders, was the "house"

nothing else in American government is democracy, as you say and i agree its a constitutional republic, it was not democracy.

read john Adams works #6 where is speaks of dis-stain of representative democracy.
 
as you say and i agree its a constitutional republic, it was not democracy.

This is not the Greenville Elementary School library chatroom. I think everyone knows this.
 
This is not the Greenville Elementary School library chatroom. I think everyone knows this.

well no everyone does not know this.

i face this all the time, where people believe america was created as a democracy, and power us placed only in the hands of the people, which it was not.

i had stated this before and will again, democracy is the vehicle, which takes you down the road of socialism.
 
Greece may continue to be a capitalist market place and not a socialist utopia but
the fact is the socialist are disowning it due to the failure there; and while it has not
"fully collapsed" I would suggest reading some of the stories about living there right
now - not all that desirable by any means.

Argentina had a currency collapse in 2000 or 2001 and initially shut down banks
and then restricted the public's access to them. I think they limited withdraws to
about $300 per week or something like that - there is quite a blog about life there.
The middle class in Argentina was 55% of the country before the collapse and
after it was 15%.
 
read john Adams works #6 where is speaks of dis-stain of representative democracy.

To be honest, the constitution (for me) is about philosophy. I'm not really interested in the sociological musing of people who never saw the modern world.
 
well no everyone does not know this.

i face this all the time, where people believe america was created as a democracy, and power us placed only in the hands of the people, which it was not.

You're just being intentionally obtuse in order to appear erudite. A constitutional republic is a form of democracy.
 
To be honest, the constitution (for me) is about philosophy. I'm not really interested in the sociological musing of people who never saw the modern world.

all am saying is democracy is false, it does not promote freedom, it promotes universal equity, in every aspect.

there is no individual liberty under democracy, so what you end up with in time, ......is socialism.

which where we began .
 
all am saying is democracy is false, it does not promote freedom, it promotes universal equity, in every aspect.

there is no individual liberty under democracy, so what you end up with in time, ......is socialism.

which where we began .

I think you mean "direct democracy". If one's going to play games with semantics, one ought get their own in order. Throwing absolutes around via vague/misleading terminology is lame.
 
You're just being intentionally obtuse in order to appear erudite. A constitutional republic is a form of democracy.

the founders did not give us democracy,......... read your history.

in democracies the people endow---> themselves with rights, and those rights can change, depending on the people.

our constitutional republic rights are endowed by nature's god, and the people or government cannot change them because they are unalienable.

the founders hated all democracy, because it does not last it burns itself out, and we are seeing that today.
 
the founders did not give us democracy,......... read your history.

in democracies the people endow---> themselves with rights, and those rights can change, depending on the people.

our constitutional republic rights are endowed by nature's god, and the people or government cannot change them because they are unalienable.

the founders hated all democracy, because it does not last it burns itself out, and we are seeing that today.

Even though I've seen through all the BS and called you out on absolutes, wrongful terminology and misleading presentation... You're still gonna throw the next bucket of crap at me? That doesn't seem fair.
 
Back
Top Bottom