About 22 years ago socialism gave up and started disintegrating.
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.
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.
Reality stands in the way of socialism.
I've heard that before, but it's funnier coming from a libertarian
You mean if capitalism wasn't so superior and kicked it's ass?
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
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, it is against human nature.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?
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.
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 did succeed. It's called Norway, France, Germany, etc etc.
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.
Food, education and medicine is socialized?
Must have a different version of socialism than the standard definition.
Well lets see, the entire reason why socialism exists is to ease the way to a communist society. So it's failed.
No, it is against human nature.
In Homage to Catalonia Orwell describes it like this:'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'
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.