• 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
Bardo said:
The public isn't limited to just the teachers, if it were, the teacher unions would be obsolete. If only the teachers owned the institution and not the entire community, there would be no need for the unions. However, as the state owns the institutions, the unions act as a collective defense on behalf of the workers. If there were no unions, it wouldn't be democratic, the state would simply call the shots regardless of the will of the teachers.
Click to expand...

GI doesn't seem to understand the difference between "teachers" and "the public"
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The state still calls the shots, regardless of the teachers union.
They have the power to void the contract with the union, if they wish.

It's not really an example of socialism, otherwise the need to unionize wouldn't exist.
The unions and their membership are pitted against the public quite often.

That doesn't even get into the fact that the schools are compulsory, which would defy the notion of free will in socialism.
Click to expand...

Socialism allows unions. You can't seem to distinguish between "the public, at large" and "employees".
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
If something is publicly owned, it shouldn't require a union, especially if the democratic process is actually superior at managing things.
Click to expand...

We're getting away from the current situation and into hypothetical waters.

If we lived in a libertarian-socialist society, the faculty of a single institution would make up a mini-union within that institution. A democratic collective responsible for appointing management and making decisions. That single institution would represent the larger union which would represent that industry on a larger scale. The union within a capitalist economy is a means of defense, a union within a libertarian-socialist economy would be a means of cooperation and economic democracy.

Libertarian socialism is supposed to emphasize mutual aid and voluntary cooperation.
If you are required by law, to attend a school, it is no longer voluntary.
Click to expand...

You're also not an adult in the years that you are required to attend school. Would schooling not be compulsory in a libertarian-capitalist society? I don't see how it could be, seeing that education would be privatized, therefore you would be required by law to purchase a product. I don't see the merit in making education non-compulsory for children.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
If something is publicly owned, it shouldn't require a union, especially if the democratic process is actually superior at managing things.
Click to expand...

Once again, you are failing to distinguish between the public and the employees. Unions represent the workers, not the public
 
sangha said:
Even charter schools are owned by the govt. They are sometimes run by a private entity, but they are owned by the state
Click to expand...

AFAIK charter schools are publicly funded but usually privately owned and operated. The actual deed to the school is usually in private hands I believe. I could be way off base.
 
Bardo said:
AFAIK charter schools are publicly funded but usually privately owned and operated. The actual deed to the school is usually in private hands I believe. I could be way off base.
Click to expand...

Nope. The charter school itself is publicly owned. The company that runs the charter school might be privately owned, but the school itself is part of the public school system and is publicaly owned

Charter school - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Charter schools are primary or secondary schools that receive public money (and like other schools, may also receive private donations) but are not subject to some of the rules, regulations, and statutes that apply to other public schools in exchange for some type of accountability for producing certain results, which are set forth in each school's charter.[1] Charter schools are opened and attended by choice.[2] While charter schools provide an alternative to other public schools, they are part of the public education system and are not allowed to charge tuition.
Click to expand...

If the charter school were privately owned, it would be called a private school
 
Bardo said:
We're getting away from the current situation and into hypothetical waters.

If we lived in a libertarian-socialist society, the faculty of a single institution would make up a mini-union within that institution. A democratic collective responsible for appointing management and making decisions. That single institution would represent the larger union which would represent that industry on a larger scale. The union within a capitalist economy is a means of defense, a union within a libertarian-socialist economy would be a means of cooperation and economic democracy.
Click to expand...

If the union is meant as a governing board and in a capitalist economy it is a defense mechanism, than we can definitely say that the school system is not actually socialism.
Arguably state socialism, but likely, our standard of schooling is representative of the monarchist, pre fascist school systems of Prussia

Bardo said:
You're also not an adult in the years that you are required to attend school. Would schooling not be compulsory in a libertarian-capitalist society? I don't see how it could be, seeing that education would be privatized, therefore you would be required by law to purchase a product. I don't see the merit in making education non-compulsory for children.
Click to expand...

I don't think the vast majority of people would need to be compelled to educate their children, it doesn't make any sense.
Those that wouldn't are already going to have children, who don't see the value in education, anyway.
 
sangha said:
Once again, you are failing to distinguish between the public and the employees. Unions represent the workers, not the public
Click to expand...

I understand that unions represent the workers.
The thing here though, is that socialist enterprises have been popularly described as being democratically run institutions, where the workers own the means of production.
In this case, it would be the teachers.

That would disqualify it as socialist, going by that definition.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
If the union is meant as a governing board and in a capitalist economy it is a defense mechanism, than we can definitely say that the school system is not actually socialism.
Click to expand...

Unions are not meant to be governing boards. They are meant to represent the workers.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I understand that unions represent the workers.
The thing here though, is that socialist enterprises have been popularly described as being democratically run institutions, where the workers own the means of production.
In this case, it would be the teachers.

That would disqualify it as socialist, going by that definition.
Click to expand...

No, socialism doesn't mean "workers own the means of production". It means "the means of production are publically owned"

Again, you are failing to distinguish between "the employees" and "the public"
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Bardo makes the distinction between what unions are meant to be, in different economies.
That is what I am addressing.
Click to expand...

You are being dishonest again and failing to distinguish between the public and the employees, again. Bardo did not say or imply that unions are governing boards.
 
sangha said:
You are being dishonest again and failing to distinguish between the public and the employees, again. Bardo did not say or imply that unions are governing boards.
Click to expand...

No I'm trying to understand what he is saying.

See Bardo isn't a combative, demeaning person.
I can have a good conversation with him.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
No I'm trying to understand what he is saying.

See Bardo isn't a combative, demeaning person.
I can have a good conversation with him.
Click to expand...

If you're trying to understand, you shouldn't be claiming that he meant that.

Socialism means, as you yourself posted, owned by the govt or owned and controlled by the public.

The school system is owned by the govt. The govt is controlled by the public (at least, nominally controlled)

And you have been just as combative. Go back and read your responses to me
 
sangha said:
If you're trying to understand, you shouldn't be claiming that he meant that.

Socialism means, as you yourself posted, owned by the govt or owned and controlled by the public.

The school system is owned by the govt. The govt is controlled by the public (at least, nominally controlled)

And you have been just as combative. Go back and read your responses to me
Click to expand...

I disagree that it is controlled by the public, because much of the public does not participate in the process on deciding control.

I am aware of how I am towards you.
It stems from the fact that you start and end with thinly veiled personal attacks.
This has been an ongoing problem.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
If the union is meant as a governing board and in a capitalist economy it is a defense mechanism, than we can definitely say that the school system is not actually socialism.
Arguably state socialism, but likely, our standard of schooling is representative of the monarchist, pre fascist school systems of Prussia
Click to expand...

Socialism is used to describe economies. It uses public property, but public property isn't necessarily socialism. I was making the point that teachers are a part of the public, so the teachers technically own the schools along with the rest of the community.


I don't think the vast majority of people would need to be compelled to educate their children, it doesn't make any sense. Those that wouldn't are already going to have children, who don't see the value in education, anyway.
Click to expand...

Those that wouldn't need compulsory education would have kids who don't see the value in education? Maybe your wording is throwing me off a little, but it seems like those who would educate their children regardless of the law would be educated themselves, allowing them to understand the value of education.

Any way you look at it, little kids generally arent mature enough to fully understand the importance of getting an education. A parent who doesn't make sure their kids are in school aren't cheating themselves, they're cheating the kids who aren't capable of making their own decisions. So until they're old enough to make their own decisions, I don't see how compulsory education is hurting anything.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I disagree that it is controlled by the public, because much of the public does not participate in the process on deciding control.

I am aware of how I am towards you.
It stems from the fact that you start and end with thinly veiled personal attacks.
This has been an ongoing problem.
Click to expand...

If people choose not to participate, that is their choice. In a socialist system, people are allowed to participate, or not. WRT the public school system, the public has the right to participate in controlling the schools by electing politicians, and running for positions on the school board and PTA, and going to school board meetings and PTA meetings.

And it was you who started with the baiting. I suggest you go back and read the post you made that started this. The one where you claim that reality interferes with socialism, or something like that.
 
Bardo said:
Socialism is used to describe economies. It uses public property, but public property isn't necessarily socialism. I was making the point that teachers are a part of the public, so the teachers technically own the schools along with the rest of the community.
Click to expand...

I would agree that they technically own it but that they realistically don't.
I believe the heads of state largely believe they own and control these institutions.


Bardo said:
Those that wouldn't need compulsory education would have kids who don't see the value in education? Maybe your wording is throwing me off a little, but it seems like those who would educate their children regardless of the law would be educated themselves, allowing them to understand the value of education.

Any way you look at it, little kids generally arent mature enough to fully understand the importance of getting an education. A parent who doesn't make sure their kids are in school aren't cheating themselves, they're cheating the kids who aren't capable of making their own decisions. So until they're old enough to make their own decisions, I don't see how compulsory education is hurting anything.
Click to expand...

I'm saying that the vast majority of parents would have their kids educated, regardless of laws on compulsion.

The parents that wouldn't have their kids educated, are likely to produce kids that don't value education anyway.
 
sangha said:
If people choose not to participate, that is their choice. In a socialist system, people are allowed to participate, or not. WRT the public school system, the public has the right to participate in controlling the schools by electing politicians, and running for positions on the school board and PTA, and going to school board meetings and PTA meetings.
Click to expand...

I really don't feel like going into how minorities are still sidelined by majorities and how participation is fruitless for those who are under/un represented.


sangha said:
And it was you who started with the baiting. I suggest you go back and read the post you made that started this. The one where you claim that reality interferes with socialism, or something like that.
Click to expand...

I really do not believe that socialism is viable with our current reality.
Resources are finite and can not be manage efficiently under a socialist system.

That is not baiting and it was not directed at you.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I would agree that they technically own it but that they realistically don't.
I believe the heads of state largely believe they own and control these institutions.
Click to expand...

School systems are owned by local and state govts, not the feds. No heads of state are involved.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I really don't feel like going into how minorities are still sidelined by majorities and how participation is fruitless for those who are under/un represented.
Click to expand...

School boards and local politicians and legislatures tend to do a fairly decent job of representing minorities, and no political system provides representation that is 100% representative, nor should they. In fact, the way the school system is set up, minorities often get an undue amount of influence on the system.




I really do not believe that socialism is viable with our current reality.
Resources are finite and can not be manage efficiently under a socialist system.
That is not baiting and it was not directed at you.
Click to expand...

It wasn't directed specifically at me, but it was baiting. Especially since it was posted without explanation. I wasn't the only one who took issue with it.

And your claim about finite resources and their efficient management is irrelevant because efficiency is not the goal. The goal is whats best for the public and society as a whole. I think most socialists would agree that capitalism is more efficient. I think that most libertarians would agree that efficiency is not the ultimate goal of an economic system, though you might not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom