• 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
The pros of capitalism have far outweighed the cons at this point. I attribute 99% of the conveniences of my modern lifestyle to capitalism, including my computer

I'll give you this one. Although I'll point out that the early days of personal computer development were very cooperative in nature, up until the pc market really took off.

fresh tap water (which is delivered efficiently and safely to my faucet)

You're attributing the public treatment and distribution of water to capitalism? Isn't a government agency usually responsible for this? Bottled water may be a product of capitalism, but in many cases bottled water is tap water with a fancy label. :p

I wouldn't quickly dismiss Capitalism and say it's on its way out just because of a few crooks in the financial realm. Imagine if we dismissed capitalism after the 1929 crash?

A theory that predates the great depression states that as capitalism matures, these crises will become deeper and deeper, relying on more and more state intervention with less and less effect. It's still too early to fully grasp the seriousness of the current crisis, but it will most likely last much longer than the great depression and will require much more state intervention to correct it. I suppose we could always nuke Japan again and reclaim the auto industry.
 
Sure it's the same thing. Why else would you mention the construction companies that build schools if not to make the argument that the school system wasn't a form of socialism?

Actually, you need not explain. Your dishonesty of your argument has already been revealed

The construction company that built the school is privately owned, it is not owned in commons or by the workers.
The materials that are supplied to the school, is not owned in commons or by the workers.

Private industry has it's hands all over the "education" system.
It defies any argument that it is socialism, unless your one of those fundie republicans.
 
The construction company that built the school is privately owned, it is not owned in commons or by the workers.
The materials that is supplied to the school, is not owned in commons or by the workers.

Private industry has it's hands all over the "education" system.
It defies any argument that it is socialism, unless your one of those fundie republicans.

The school system is publicly owned. The construction company is not a part of the school system. Even if the school system buys products from private sources, the school system is publicly owned and controlled.

The school system, which is publicly owned and controlled, is a socialist institution.
 
The school system is publicly owned. The construction company is not a part of the school system. Even if the school system buys products from private sources, the school system is publicly owned and controlled.

The school system, which is publicly owned and controlled, is a socialist institution.

Then why are teachers unionized?
If they "owned" it, they wouldn't have a reason to unionize.
 
Then why are teachers unionized?
If they "owned" it, they wouldn't have a reason to unionize.

Another inane argument. Teachers don't own the school system, and no one said they did.

Your arguments are so desperate, you've been reduced to fantasizing that teachers own the school system
 
I think the majority of us realized that having a socialist country requires suppression of the people and no rights. You just won't get the freedoms anywhere else in the world other than the United States. I don't support socialism in any sense. The majority have the same opportunities to succeed and do well in life and the only one's complaining are the one's who are lazy and won't get off their ass and work for something. So in turn they expect everyone else to pay and support their lives. The first thing I ask anyone when meeting a foreigner is how well their gun laws are. What do they feel about not being able to defend themselves and rely on an under-trained government or military to deal with their crime problems. People argue that Canada is much more less crime than the United States. They still have violent criminals and still have robberies and murders and rapists. It's not different other than they have a different way of thinking than we do. I'm fighting for this country and I'll be damned if I'm going to let it become a socialist one at that.
 
Another inane argument. Teachers don't own the school system, and no one said they did.

Your arguments are so desperate, you've been reduced to fantasizing that teachers own the school system

Then it is not socialism, as they would own it in commons.
Do you even know what socialism is?
 
Wrong. Socialism doesn't mean "teachers own the schools".

Try again

Uhh, that is the definition.
It's were workers own and control the means of production.

You don't know what socialism is.
Your arguments have thus far been like those conservatives, who call Obama a socialist at every turn.
 
Uhh, that is the definition.
It's were workers own and control the means of production.

You don't know what socialism is.
Your arguments have thus far been like those conservatives, who call Obama a socialist at every turn.

No it's not. The definition of socialism is not "teachers own the school system".

Try again
 
Uhh, that is the definition.
It's were workers own and control the means of production.

You don't know what socialism is.
Your arguments have thus far been like those conservatives, who call Obama a socialist at every turn.

We're all "the workers". That's the point. No one gets left in the cold. Also, Marx is not the be-all end-all of socialism. Theories can evolve over a century, you know? We don't do democracy anything like they did two centuries ago.
 
Well Adolf Hitler was a socialist and obama is in the same vein dude. He's more of a modern age Hitler. I thought it was hilarious that people called me racist for not voting for him yet voting for him because he is black isn't racist? Just a thought.
 
As long as people want to be treated as adults then no it won't work.
 
Well Adolf Hitler was a socialist and obama is in the same vein dude. He's more of a modern age Hitler. I thought it was hilarious that people called me racist for not voting for him yet voting for him because he is black isn't racist? Just a thought.

If that was a thought, our standards are slipping
 
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?

:)

I think socialism could have easily succeeded if it had only incorporated the more positive aspects of capitalism.

For example: Competition

The USSR and other socialist nations should have bifurcated their bureaucratic agencies and had them compete against each other for quality control, efficiency, etc. Wages and bonuses could have been distributed accordingly.
 
We're all "the workers". That's the point. No one gets left in the cold. Also, Marx is not the be-all end-all of socialism. Theories can evolve over a century, you know? We don't do democracy anything like they did two centuries ago.

Yea I know they evolve.
What sangha erroneously refers to as socialism, is actually economic fascism.
That's the evolution.
 
Then why are teachers unionized?
If they "owned" it, they wouldn't have a reason to unionize.

To be fair, the public school system is publicly owned. So the teachers do technically own the public institutions as they are a part of the community too. It's not a self managed, democratically operated system, but it is publicly owned.

They're unionized to protect themselves from the authority of the state and the management of the institution. The management doesn't own the school. Granted that it isn't a charter school, the state owns the school.
 
To be fair, the public school system is publicly owned. So the teachers do technically own the public institutions as they are a part of the community too. It's not a self managed, democratically operated system, but it is publicly owned.

They're unionized to protect themselves from the authority of the state and the management of the institution. The management doesn't own the school. Granted that it isn't a charter school, the state owns the school.

So then it defies the definition of socialism, as the teachers would not need a union to protect themselves, if it were actually owned and controlled by the public.
The closest it could possibly be is state socialism, not democratic socialism.
 
So then it defies the definition of socialism, as the teachers would not need a union to protect themselves, if it were actually owned and controlled by the public.
The closest it could possibly be is state socialism, not democratic socialism.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

It's not an example of socialism, it's an example of public ownership.

Either way, unions are an important aspect to libertarian socialism. "Syndicalism" is a French word for "trade unionism". They would be used to negotiate and plan the larger economy.

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

What?
 
It's not an example of socialism, it's an example of public ownership.

Either way, unions are an important aspect to libertarian socialism. "Syndicalism" is a French word for "trade unionism". They would be used to negotiate and plan the larger economy.

If something is publicly owned, it shouldn't require a union, especially if the democratic process is actually superior at managing things.



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.
 
Yea I know they evolve.
What sangha erroneously refers to as socialism, is actually economic fascism.
That's the evolution.

No, your mistake is thinking that because an org buys stuff from a private company, it's not socialism

The military is a socialist organization even though it buys stuff from private companies.
 
To be fair, the public school system is publicly owned. So the teachers do technically own the public institutions as they are a part of the community too. It's not a self managed, democratically operated system, but it is publicly owned.

They're unionized to protect themselves from the authority of the state and the management of the institution. The management doesn't own the school. Granted that it isn't a charter school, the state owns the school.

Even charter schools are owned by the govt. They are sometimes run by a private entity, but they are owned by the state
 
Back
Top Bottom