• 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

Canell

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
3,851
Reaction score
1,170
Location
EUSSR
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
About 22 years ago socialism gave up and started disintegrating. Do you think it could have succeeded if capitalism wasn't standing on the way? You know, if capitalism didn't oppose and let it be?

:)
 
No I don't. Capitalism was an inevitability. Humans have base emotions, specifically those of greed and ambition. Socialism and communism tend to quell and ostracize those values, but it's too hard because of inherent desires of man.

With capitalism, you're able to have people of all walks of life establish modes and methods that serve them, whether it's the queen bee down to the worker bee. There is high class distinction and mobility, so in essence there is a lot of choice involved on what you want.

I think socialism and communism was in existence, in close to pure forms, long ago because of geographical and technological limitations. At that point in time, having shared communities like that were vital to success. In these days, it's not.
 
So long as there are people who want to be free, and be compensated for working harder than another then no.
 
And, I will make a comment on my vote that I think it couldn't in the United States. And it goes without saying that the U.S. is a federal constitutional republic that utilizes a capitalistic economy. The will of the people (voters), by majority, voted in capitalism instead of socialism. Therefore, capitalism stood in the way of socialism.
 
About 22 years ago socialism gave up and started disintegrating. Do you think it could have succeeded if capitalism wasn't standing on the way? You know, if capitalism didn't oppose and let it be?

:)

Capitalism was standing in the way?

Capitalism systems were devised first.
Socialism was devised as a rebuttal - an anti-capitalism rebuttal.

I think it's silly to think that capitalism was standing in socialism's way seeing as how socialism was suppose to 'kill it' inherently within it's workings.
 
I'd say otherwise, spikey. Several hundred years ago, capitalism was the chicken and socialism was the egg that became the offshoot.

However, if you're talking waaaay old times - feudal China, natives in the Western Hemisphere, Biblical times in the Middle East - they seemed pretty socialist. There really was no "money", per se, in Macchu Picchu or Mesopotamian settlements.
 
The theory is a good one. I even like the theory. What stands in the way of it working by itself in a large way for a long time is not capitalism. It's human nature.

Some will refuse to hold up their end and even more will refuse to share with those who refuse to hold up their end. Even with those who agree to do their fair share of work, there is going to be a problem with the guy digging a ditch all day being willing to share what he feels that is worth with the person who runs the cash register at McD's.

Now you may argue that is how capitalism works and in a way that is true but what capitalism does is reward or not based upon human nature.

So, can we change human nature. My answer is no. Not in the degree necessary anyway.
 
I'd say otherwise, spikey. Several hundred years ago, capitalism was the chicken and socialism was the egg that became the offshoot.

However, if you're talking waaaay old times - feudal China, natives in the Western Hemisphere, Biblical times in the Middle East - they seemed pretty socialist. There really was no "money", per se, in Macchu Picchu or Mesopotamian settlements.

Those older communal, tribal and such societal forms have their own classification, though - sure, they could be seen as the same thing. But socialism incorporates certain ideals that didn't exist back then - and it rails against capitalism which, also, didn't exist by then.
 
Socialism is succeeding just fine. It's the direction that civilization has been heading towards for centuries. Or rather, we've been heading away from inequality and mass ownership and control by the powerful few. Capitalism, with protections for the property rights of many, was a hugely important step in this process. The trend is continuing past that towards socialist ideals, and will continue even past them. Socialism is working just fine, and will continue to do so, up until the next step comes along.

Gipper's above statement about inevitability was half right, in that progressing past capitalism is just as inevitable as progressing to it in the first place.
 
Socialism is succeeding just fine. It's the direction that civilization has been heading towards for centuries. Or rather, we've been heading away from inequality and mass ownership and control by the powerful few. Capitalism, with protections for the property rights of many, was a hugely important step in this process. The trend is continuing past that towards socialist ideals, and will continue even past them. Socialism is working just fine, and will continue to do so, up until the next step comes along.

Gipper's above statement about inevitability was half right, in that progressing past capitalism is just as inevitable as progressing to it in the first place.

This always gets me per socialism. It's always described as " heading away from inequality and mass ownership and control by the powerful few. "

Well - in a socialist society - who DOES claim ownership and control?

The powerful - VERY few.

It's like a Monarchy on steroids . . . and it's suppose to be ok for such a small group to be so dominant and oppressive as long as everyone has food to eat. :shrug:

And individuals still have to work their asses off to provide for everyone and fill their piece of the puzzle in. . . I'd much rather work my ass off and benefit exponentially - and my children - and my great grandkids. . . and so on.
 
Last edited:
However, if you're talking waaaay old times - feudal China, natives in the Western Hemisphere, Biblical times in the Middle East - they seemed pretty socialist. There really was no "money", per se, in Macchu Picchu or Mesopotamian settlements.

Not to mention that Christianity seems pretty socialist too - love your fellow man, be humble, the love of money is the root of all evil, it's easier for the camel... etc.
 
Not to mention that Christianity seems pretty socialist too - love your fellow man, be humble, the love of money is the root of all evil, it's easier for the camel... etc.

LOL - and lame

"No sex before marriage"

"No sex on your period"

*yawn*
 
LOL - and lame

"No sex before marriage"

"No sex on your period"

*yawn*

Well, capitalist countries were Christian countries, weren't they? ;)

Well - in a socialist society - who DOES claim ownership and control?

The powerful - VERY few.

No, that's "banksters socialism". :lol:
 
Last edited:
I don't favor complete socialism but every country requires social systems to function for the health of populations to increase. It just depends on what those are.
 
Canell said:
Not to mention that Christianity seems pretty socialist too - love your fellow man, be humble, the love of money is the root of all evil, it's easier for the camel... etc.

Yeah I always chuckle at how America still fancies itself a "Christian nation" and does what it does.

Jesus turned some scraps into a plentitude to feed thousands. Wal-mart would send you a bill.

Jesus healed the sick and the lame. Blue Cross would send you a bill.

Jesus set up inspirational sermons for the masses. Tony Robbins would send you a bill.

But hey - you gotta let people think what they think. Why rock the boat?
 
This always gets me per socialism. It's always described as " heading away from inequality and mass ownership and control by the powerful few. "

Well - in a socialist society - who DOES claim ownership and control?

The powerful - VERY few.

It's like a Monarchy on steroids . . . and it's suppose to be ok for such a small group to be so dominant and oppressive as long as everyone has food to eat. :shrug:

And individuals still have to work their asses off to provide for everyone and fill their piece of the puzzle in. . . I'd much rather work my ass off and benefit exponentially - and my children - and my great grandkids. . . and so on.

Or this is exactly the opposite of actual socialist ideals, where the public owns everything, and it's run for the benefit of society as a whole, and not just the few powerful people. Honestly, I think you're confusing "socialism" with "military dictatorship", like the USSR did.
 
That's the progression though. Eventually you must elect leaders who will do anything to get and retain power, at which point you have an overblown junta like Stalin.

The Soviet Union essentially started out as a socialist "worker's paradise" during the October Revolution and the ousting of the Czar. Eventually, power centralized though. It always does. No matter what the intention, it always does. There are number of nations that have similar beginnings, only to federalize into a totalitarian or dictatorial body. I don't say "all socialism is authoritarian" because it sounds catchy. Once you centralize power, it's too difficult to decentralize. The people begin to obey out of fear.

Asian nations such as China and India only began to prosper when they started to allow laissez-faire market forces permeate through the borders. Before then, they were a system of stagnation that could have long been able to be a superpower, but never able to capitalize.
 
That's the progression though. Eventually you must elect leaders who will do anything to get and retain power, at which point you have an overblown junta like Stalin.

The Soviet Union essentially started out as a socialist "worker's paradise" during the October Revolution and the ousting of the Czar. Eventually, power centralized though. It always does. No matter what the intention, it always does. There are number of nations that have similar beginnings, only to federalize into a totalitarian or dictatorial body. I don't say "all socialism is authoritarian" because it sounds catchy. Once you centralize power, it's too difficult to decentralize. The people begin to obey out of fear.

Asian nations such as China and India only began to prosper when they started to allow laissez-faire market forces permeate through the borders. Before then, they were a system of stagnation that could have long been able to be a superpower, but never able to capitalize.

So then your problem is with elections, then. There's nothing inherent about capitalism to escape the elections of power hungry madmen (see also 2000-2008). The problem you see is one that stems from political stagnation, like having a country dominated by a single political party, as Russia and China were. You make a lot of assumptions about inevitable dystopia stemming from centralized power, but you also seem to ignore the very simple solution of a constitutional authority. The same thing that prevents those abuses in the United States can prevent them anywhere else. There is nothing about a constitution-based government that is hostile or antithetical to socialism. Again, the confusion here is that military dictatorship, like the ones employed by China and Russia, have nothing to do with socialism.
 
That's the progression though. Eventually you must elect leaders who will do anything to get and retain power, at which point you have an overblown junta like Stalin.

There's no law of physics, etc., that necessitates this.

The Soviet Union essentially started out as a socialist "worker's paradise" during the October Revolution and the ousting of the Czar. Eventually, power centralized though. It always does. No matter what the intention, it always does. There are number of nations that have similar beginnings, only to federalize into a totalitarian or dictatorial body. I don't say "all socialism is authoritarian" because it sounds catchy.

No, it was bad from the very start. Lenin was never a Libertarian. There was absolutely no intention of establishing workers’ democracy. He made some concessions and used some of the rhetoric, as in State & Revolution or the April Thesis, but that was just political pandering. As soon as power was consolidated; all of that went out the window, but it was never genuine.

Once you centralize power, it's too difficult to decentralize. The people begin to obey out of fear.

Libertarian Socialism, real Socialism, is antithetical to the Nation-State. It ceases to exist.
 
About 22 years ago socialism gave up and started disintegrating.

:)

Did it? Or are you confusing socialism with communism/marxist-leninism?

Socialism is alive and well in many parts of the world, including the most prosperous ones.
 
Most of the examples being discussed; the USSR, the PRC, etc., have nothing to do with Socialism. That we associate them with it is a result of a confluence between two of the worlds' greatest propaganda machines; the United States and the Soviet Union. The Soviet police state sought to claim the very real moral authority of socialism while annihilating it at every turn. The United States government sought to tarnish Socialism by reinforcing this association. So, it's no doubt that this piece of 'common wisdom' is so resilient, even though it's erroneous. If we wanted to discuss real Socialism, we'd be talking about the Ukranian Makhnovschina, we'd be talking about Catalonia, we'd be talking about the Kibbutzim, etc., etc.
 
If you're invoking Scandanavia, I'm going to punch you.

That includes Scandinavia. It's not a planned, socialist economy but the important industries that benefit these countries the most are state owned. Socialism doesn't have to be a dogmatic, inflexible system where 0% of the economy is privatized.
 
Back
Top Bottom