• 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
You mean if capitalism wasn't so superior and kicked it's ass?
 
About 22 years ago socialism gave up and started disintegrating.

Bad start there. 22 years ago Soviet "communism" gave up and started disintegrating. The idea that Soviet socialism is the only model of socialism is a major fallacy.
 
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.

Well done!

IMO socialism IS succeeding, even here in the US

We have socialized roads, railroads, airports, bridges, tunnels, fire dept, water, electricity, nuclear power, pension system (SS), health care, post office, libraries, agriculture (supported with generous govt subsidies), financial system (Wall St bailouts and the Fed banking system), and on and on

The funniest thing about this is the people who are so blind they think socialism has failed in the US when everyday they are using resources provided by our socialistic govt
 
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.

Not really, any country that you could possibly list as "socialist" is predominantly capitalist, with a teasing of socialism.

The biggest failure of socialism is that, many of it's proponents think, it should be operated by an authority rather than be organic in nature.
 
Socialism is a political system. Capitalism is an economic system. Most people don't realize comparing those two is illogical.
On the issue, I disagree. Socialism is a political system in which the government wields immense power over the country politically. In that sense, many capitalistic countries were socialist such as South Korea during the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s. Socialism and capitalism coexisting together leads to what looks like fascism, which was what South Korea looked like during the 50s-80s. Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany were also socialist, and capitalistic (more like corporatism, but that's another story)
The reason why socialism didn't succeed was because the ideology was born later than that of democracy, and was born in a time when democracy was the growing political fad. Granted, many countries became socialist, yet it was only in a short historical period of a century. In addition, socialism was also associated with brutality, communism, and persecution of freedom, which caused an avid aversion by the majority of the population in the democratic countries. All these factors ultimately lead to its demise
 
You mean if capitalism wasn't so superior and kicked it's ass?

Presumably said 'ass-kicking' would include overthrowing the democratically elected governments of Iran, Chile, Guatemala, Zaire, and supporting the brutal police states that followed, at the cost of thousands of lives, as well as the terrorist war in Nicaragua, for which the United States was, quite rightly, convicted of international terrorism, by the International Criminal Court, etc., etc.
 
Socialism is a political system. Capitalism is an economic system. Most people don't realize comparing those two is illogical.
On the issue, I disagree. Socialism is a political system in which the government wields immense power over the country politically. In that sense, many capitalistic countries were socialist such as South Korea during the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s. Socialism and capitalism coexisting together leads to what looks like fascism, which was what South Korea looked like during the 50s-80s. Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany were also socialist, and capitalistic (more like corporatism, but that's another story)
The reason why socialism didn't succeed was because the ideology was born later than that of democracy, and was born in a time when democracy was the growing political fad. Granted, many countries became socialist, yet it was only in a short historical period of a century. In addition, socialism was also associated with brutality, communism, and persecution of freedom, which caused an avid aversion by the majority of the population in the democratic countries. All these factors ultimately lead to its demise

Socialism is also an economic system, it's just entirely illogical.

Comparing Nazism to corporatism is wrong.
Nazi's clamped down heavily on corporations and there was only a visage of private ownership in a great many cases.
 
Last edited:
The reason why socialism didn't succeed was because the ideology was born later than that of democracy, and was born in a time when democracy was the growing political fad. Granted, many countries became socialist, yet it was only in a short historical period of a century. In addition, socialism was also associated with brutality, communism, and persecution of freedom, which caused an avid aversion by the majority of the population in the democratic countries. All these factors ultimately lead to its demise

Libertarian Socialism is the apotheosis of democracy.
 
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, it is against human nature.
 
In order to avoid confusion: I am using the terms not regarding the theory, but the reality, when I say --

When facing the alternative between the capitalist model of society in Europe in the 19th century, and "really existing" socialism, I'd probably chose socialism. 19th century laissez faire-capitalism with mostly authoritarian political systems and highly discriminatory societies (very low social mobility, exclusion of minorities such as women, Jews, African-Americans and so on), I believe very much can be said in favor of socialism, even the "really existing socialism" in the East Bloc. I'd say even communist Russia was better for the masses, than authoritarian capitalism in many European countries was these days.

If socialism (as it existed in some countries, USSR and the East Bloc after 1945) was good for anything, it put pressure on capitalist societies to improve, to tame its flaws, to encourage the capitalist Western World to come up with better alternatives. Western capitalism wasn't really the clearly better alternative to socialism, until it opened the society by eliminating legal discrimination, increased social mobility, allowed the creation of a really dominant middle class ("wealth for everybody") by opening the economy for mass participation and so on.

Capitalism in the West showed its real strength after 1945: Using its exreme efficiency to improve itself and to reform society. By the end of the 1980s, the capitalist West was the obviously much superior model of society, compared to the East Bloc, which is why the latter failed.

The problem is, without the competition by the East and without the according pressure to find solution beneficial for the masses, a neoliberal ideology of deregulation and privatization took over and many of the problems that burdened the ugly, authoritarian forms of capitalism came back. The financial sector went crazy, the middle class is shrinking and mass participation in general welfare decreases in favor of the incomes of very few hyper-rich again. We can see the wreckage of this development today, in the financial crisis. It's the result of untamed, unleashed capitalism.

If the political forces don't find a way to tame capitalism again, and to castrate the rabid financial actors, when those who have few already will have to pay the bill for these failed policies of deregulation and the top few will not contribute at all, as it currently looks like, socialism as an alternative will be back again, regain a dangerous new popularity again with the masses -- quicker than you can say "class warfare". I would really regret such a development, because I feel any form of socialism would be a potentially very dangerous illusion.
 
Last edited:
Not really, any country that you could possibly list as "socialist" is predominantly capitalist, with a teasing of socialism.

Yeah, all the really fundamental and important stuff that keeps the society functioning is socialized, and the optional things are left up to capitalism. There's no need to socialize salad dressing or Chuck E Cheese's. There is no express social benefit in keeping private corruption and profit margins out of those areas. The same cannot be said for education or medicine.
 
Yeah, all the really fundamental and important stuff that keeps the society functioning is socialized, and the optional things are left up to capitalism. There's no need to socialize salad dressing or Chuck E Cheese's. There is no express social benefit in keeping private corruption and profit margins out of those areas. The same cannot be said for education or medicine.

Food, education and medicine is socialized?
Must have a different version of socialism than the standard definition.
 
Socialism did succeed. It's called Norway, France, Germany, etc etc.
 
Socialism is a political system. Capitalism is an economic system. Most people don't realize comparing those two is illogical.
On the issue, I disagree. Socialism is a political system in which the government wields immense power over the country politically. In that sense, many capitalistic countries were socialist such as South Korea during the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s. Socialism and capitalism coexisting together leads to what looks like fascism, which was what South Korea looked like during the 50s-80s. Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany were also socialist, and capitalistic (more like corporatism, but that's another story)
The reason why socialism didn't succeed was because the ideology was born later than that of democracy, and was born in a time when democracy was the growing political fad. Granted, many countries became socialist, yet it was only in a short historical period of a century. In addition, socialism was also associated with brutality, communism, and persecution of freedom, which caused an avid aversion by the majority of the population in the democratic countries. All these factors ultimately lead to its demise

No. Communism is a political system. Totalitarianism is also a political system. Socialism is a purely economic system.
 
Well lets see, the entire reason why socialism exists is to ease the way to a communist society. So it's failed.
 
Not really, any country that you could possibly list as "socialist" is predominantly capitalist, with a teasing of socialism.

Norway's public sector is just as large as it's private sector. This isn't what makes it socialist, but it shows that it's not predominantly capitalist. Like I said, it doesn't have a totally planned economy but it is a social-democracy.

Food, education and medicine is socialized?
Must have a different version of socialism than the standard definition.

What exactly is the standard definition? When can a country be described as "socialist" and when can it be described as "capitalist"?


Well lets see, the entire reason why socialism exists is to ease the way to a communist society. So it's failed.

Marx isn't the god of socialism, it existed before Marx.

No, it is against human nature.

Is that why there were collectivists before there were individualists?
 
It worked very well in Catalonia and it didn't fail there due to any flaws in socialism it fell because it was crushed by Franco's Fascists. Trotsky himself even said that
'its political and cultural level, the Spanish proletariat stood on the first day of the revolution, not below, but above the Russian proletariat at the beginning of 1917'
In Homage to Catalonia Orwell describes it like this:

The Anarchists were still in virtual control of Catalonia and the revolution was still in full swing. To anyone who had been there since the beginning it probably seemed even in December or January that the revolutionary period was ending; but when one came straight from England the aspect of Barcelona was something startling and overwhelming. It was the first time that I had ever been in a town where the working class was in the saddle. Practically every building of any size had been seized by the workers and was draped with red flags or with the red and black flag of the Anarchists; every wall was scrawled with the hammer and sickle and with the initials of the revolutionary parties; almost every church had been gutted and its images burnt. Churches here and there were being systematically demolished by gangs of workman. Every shop and cafe had an inscription saying that it had been collectivised;
even the bootblacks had been collectivized and their boxes painted red and black. Waiters and shop-walkers looked you in the
face and treated you as an equal. Servile and even ceremonial forms of speech had temporarily disappeared. Nobody said
'Sen~or' or 'Don' ort even 'Usted'; everyone called everyone else 'Comrade' or 'Thou', and said 'Salud!' instead of 'Buenos
dias'. Tipping had been forbidden by law since the time of Primo de Rivera; almost my first experience was receiving a lecture
from a hotel manager for trying to tip a lift-boy. There were no private motor-cars, they had all been commandeered, and the
trams and taxis and much of the other transport were painted red and black. The revolutionary posters were everywhere,
flaming from the walls in clean reds and blues that made the few remaining advertisements look like daubs of mud. Down the
Ramblas, the wide central artery of the town where crowds of people streamed constantly to and fro, the loud-speakers were
bellowing revolutionary songs all day and far into the night. And it was the aspect of the crowds that was the queerest thing of
all. In outward appearance it was a town in which the wealthy classes had practically ceased to exist. Except for a small
number of women and foreigners there were no 'well-dressed' people at all. Practically everyone wore rough working-class
clothes, or blue overalls or some variant of militia uniform. All this was queer and moving. There was much in this that I did not
understand, in some ways I did not not even like it, but I recognized it immediately as a state of affairs worth fighting for. Also, I
believed that things were as they appeared, that this was really a workers' State and that the entire bourgeoisie had either fled,
been killed or voluntarily come over to the workers' side; I did not realise that great numbers of well-to-do bourgeois were
simply lying low and disguising themselves as proletarians for the time being.
 
Capitalism doesn't stand in the way of Socialism... Capitalism supports Socialism and keeps it alive.

if it weren't for Capitalism, Socialism would be long dead and buried.
 
In theory socialism can work. However, due to human flaws I see it being abused and not working efficiently.
 
Back
Top Bottom