• 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
I do not regard employment as exploitation. Either way, if I cannot start up a business then you are in fact necessarily precluding the existence of various markets.

Work is not inherently exploitative. Wage-slavery is inherently exploitative. Most workers are wage-slaves.

You can create an enterprise with other individuals, but you can't take the proceeds of their labor, or deny them democratic participation over their productive lives.
 
Work is not inherently exploitative. Wage-slavery is inherently exploitative. Most workers are wage-slaves.

Please share with me your distinction. I get paid a wage for my time that I considered fair when the job was offered to me, how am I being exploited?

You can create an enterprise with other individuals, but you can't take the proceeds of their labor, or deny them democratic participation over their productive lives.

What do you mean "take the proceeds of their labor"? Do you mean everyone working for a company must engage in profit sharing? An equal share? Despite the relationship of their position to revenue? The guy who cleans the gutters of all the local buildings too?

What sense does this make to you? I'll tell you what I understand, paying someone for their time at a rate they both agree to. No exploitation there, just voluntary labor. I have no idea how one even compute's "the proceeds of their labor."

For example, I'm an Accountant and handle payroll. We pay our sales reps a salary + a commission, which is a % of the payments of their clients. Under your "system" would all revenue, not just a percentage, go to sales reps? How would their salaries and operating expenses be paid?
 
Last edited:
Canell said:
Why do you think socialism could only be authoritarian? Please don't give this USSR BS.

Strawman. I doubt many people will tell you, with a purely straight face, that America is not at least semi-authoritarian. We're called a police state by so many people, we've had threads about the TSA on other fora and countless on DHS. We're more free than many who adopt a more mixed/command economy, but we still have distinct hierarchies and parts of our structure meant to scare the bejeezus out of normal folk. The only difference is that wealth disparity, to a certain extent, does not lead to an authoritarian structure in the means of government force, because that government has to keep financial freedom in place for commerce to continue. Need proof? Look at the "Big Corp vs Obama" standstill right now. They don't approve of Obama and his wishy-washy domestic policies, so they're holding the American economy hostage through retained earnings and treasury liquidity. Truth be told, I'm somewhat happy for this because, if it were to flow free, there would be no real "checks and balances" set for him. Major American businesses right now are keeping Obama in check.

In socialist and communist regimes, those who display traits of avarice, ambition, and lust will seek to excel above the crowd through excessive means, at which point the collective will have to use an iron fist grip to placate what they would perceive as a "threat". To think that mankind would live robotically like Smurfs is just ludicrous. By sheer human nature, these systems would have to be incredibly authoritarian to pull the tallest weeds down to the ground.
 
The individual and "all of mankind" are not inherently in opposition to one another. Quite the contrary, the individual is by necessity tied to "all of mankind," hilariously enough, even in capitalist society.



No, my point is that rights themselves are philosophical abstractions that do not exist in reality. Their concrete expression is self-refuting.



You cannot prove this because you cannot explain what "the right to your property" actually means in concrete terms.



Sure, there are limits to right based on security and physical limitations. There are also limits to right based on power. "Freedom of speech" is only tolerated by states insofar as it is not perceived as a threat. In this universal truism we can conclude that freedom of speech, the abstract and unlimited ideal of the right, does not exist in reality simply due to the fact that no states allows such.

Why is the US one of the "freest" nations in the world? Because its citizens, their voices, are most powerless.



Society isn't organized rationally, as I have already said. Nor is man "inevitably corrupt".


Simply because a right cannot be adhered to completely does not mean that it does not have a concrete foundation. It does. There is a line somewhere though where that freedom starts to work against itself and other supposed inalienable rights.

So I accept the challenge of finding that line and proving to you that it is not arbitrary, but is based on reason.

My first attempt at defining, concretely, what a right is:

I have the freedom of speech so long as my speech does not directly prevent another from practicing his/her own rights.

Replace "freedom of speech" with any number of things: "right to safety", "right to life", "right to property", etc. These are the additional 'rights' that the above statement refers to.

This is my first attempt. Poke holes. If you are right, I will concede. But I believe we can describe individual liberty to a 'T'. And then base the government's job around our individual liberties.
 
Strawman.

Look who's talkinng:

In socialist and communist regimes, those who display traits of avarice, ambition, and lust will seek to excel above the crowd through excessive means, at which point the collective will have to use an iron fist grip to placate what they would perceive as a "threat". To think that mankind would live robotically like Smurfs is just ludicrous. By sheer human nature, these systems would have to be incredibly authoritarian to pull the tallest weeds down to the ground.

Now, that's (the above that is) a straw man. You can sign this for a semi-ad hominem attack. lol
 
Last edited:
So you think that, in a socialist/communist society and economic structure, nobody will seek to be the leader of the pack with regard to both money and power?

Capitalism exists (and thrives) because it caters to basic human instinctual impulses and desires. To think you can quell it would make you massively Orwellian (thus proving my point), or painstakingly ignorant to basic human psychology.
 
So you think that, in a socialist/communist society and economic structure, nobody will seek to be the leader of the pack with regard to both money and power?

Why do you think that in a socialist society there will be no hierarchy?
 
Because society is classless in socialism. The mere existence of a hierarchy dispels it.
 
In socialist and communist regimes, those who display traits of avarice, ambition, and lust will seek to excel above the crowd through excessive means, at which point the collective will have to use an iron fist grip to placate what they would perceive as a "threat". To think that mankind would live robotically like Smurfs is just ludicrous. By sheer human nature, these systems would have to be incredibly authoritarian to pull the tallest weeds down to the ground.

The same thing could be said of capitalist regimes. Many of the worlds most repressive regimes have had capitalist economies
 
Because society is classless in socialism. The mere existence of a hierarchy dispels it.

I see claims like this a lot, large generalizations about socialism... that run contrary to what actual socialists say. A hierarchy has nothing to do with class, so long as the higher members of that hierarchy have controls on them, so that they cannot abuse that position. You know, checks and balances. Just because the Soviets didn't do that doesn't mean that lack of checks is an inherent part of socialism.
 
sangha said:
The same thing could be said of capitalist regimes. Many of the worlds most repressive regimes have had capitalist economies

Not arguing that, except the last half of the first statement. I'm saying that capitalism gives an acceptable outlet to people who display those humanistic traits, and that they don't get squashed just for succeeding.

Paschendale said:
I see claims like this a lot, large generalizations about socialism... that run contrary to what actual socialists say. A hierarchy has nothing to do with class, so long as the higher members of that hierarchy have controls on them, so that they cannot abuse that position. You know, checks and balances. Just because the Soviets didn't do that doesn't mean that lack of checks is an inherent part of socialism.

It has nothing to do with the old Soviet style. Hierarchial castes tend to resist "checks and balances" because that ultimately rests at a level where people are not above nor below one other. To be hierarchial is to be allowed position above others, and not subject to their powers.

Canell said:
Not in my socialism.

Right. It's just not feasible in libertarian socialism or anarcho-syndicalism. Authoritarian socialism is more than possible.
 
Not arguing that, except the last half of the first statement. I'm saying that capitalism gives an acceptable outlet to people who display those humanistic traits, and that they don't get squashed just for succeeding.

The last half was true and some people deserve to have their motives squashed. There's nothing wrong with that which is why even libertarians agree with the premise, if not all the applications

The desire for power is a part of human nature. No political or economic system will eliminate it. Systems should be (IMO) judged by how they deal with it.. Capitalism deals with it by empowering those with authoritarian tendencies; not the best way of dealing with authoritarianism
 
A completely anti-authoritarian system will never exist (anarchy). If it does, it's worse than capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism...every -ism out there. Nobody wins in anarchy.

Increased money will create some authoritarian tendencies, but it doesn't mean that it is permanent. In a governmental authoritarian structure, a position, cabinet, or council retain all power unwavering. In a meritocratic corpocracy, power is not only achieve or earned, but it's defended. Because you're in power today doesn't mean you're in power tomorrow. It's that competition that is the ultimate check and balance system.

You'll never hear me on here saying that capitalism is libertarian. I will say, however, that it is more libertarian than many other systems.
 
A completely anti-authoritarian system will never exist (anarchy). If it does, it's worse than capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism...every -ism out there. Nobody wins in anarchy.

Increased money will create some authoritarian tendencies, but it doesn't mean that it is permanent. In a governmental authoritarian structure, a position, cabinet, or council retain all power unwavering. In a meritocratic corpocracy, power is not only achieve or earned, but it's defended. Because you're in power today doesn't mean you're in power tomorrow. It's that competition that is the ultimate check and balance system.

You'll never hear me on here saying that capitalism is libertarian. I will say, however, that it is more libertarian than many other systems.

I was with you for the first paragraph, but you totally blew it in the 2nd and what follows.

Money doesn't create authoritarian tendencies, but it does give people the power to act on their own authoritarian tendencies. IMO, this is the main flaw with capitalism.

And as far as permanence goes, nothing is permanent; Everything changes. Eventually, we're all dead.
 
Money doesn't create authoritarian tendencies, but it does give people the power to act on their own authoritarian tendencies. IMO, this is the main flaw with capitalism.

Still ipso facto. I was just stating the starting point and the ending point. Didn't feel the need to connect dots, especially since it's rather self-explanatory.

And as far as permanence goes, nothing is permanent; Everything changes. Eventually, we're all dead.

But if a president has dictatorial powers or a politburo governs in a totalitarian fashion, when that person(s) is not in power, another comes along and inherits that power.

In America, I remember (not firsthand) when the Carnegies and the Rockefellers were the shotcallers. Nowadays it's the Gates and the Buffets. In fifty years, it could easily be other mega-rich entities.
 
No. There was always a need to address the limitations of socialism. If not capitalism, something else would have got in it's way.
 
Still ipso facto. I was just stating the starting point and the ending point. Didn't feel the need to connect dots, especially since it's rather self-explanatory.



But if a president has dictatorial powers or a politburo governs in a totalitarian fashion, when that person(s) is not in power, another comes along and inherits that power.

In America, I remember (not firsthand) when the Carnegies and the Rockefellers were the shotcallers. Nowadays it's the Gates and the Buffets. In fifty years, it could easily be other mega-rich entities.

IMO, it's concentrations of power that allow authoritarian systems to persist, and like the Founding Fathers, I believe concentrations of wealth make that easier. Just note how all of the "shotcallers" you mention are wealthy
 
Please share with me your distinction. I get paid a wage for my time that I considered fair when the job was offered to me, how am I being exploited?

The fact that you don’t feel exploited doesn’t mean that you aren’t exploited, or that it doesn’t matter if you are exploited.

Wage-slaves are workers who are forced by poverty to perform repetitive, monotonous jobs for very low wages, with no negotiating power or democratic participation. That describes the circumstances of the vast majority of Americans, myself included.

What do you mean "take the proceeds of their labor"? Do you mean everyone working for a company must engage in profit sharing? An equal share? Despite the relationship of their position to revenue? The guy who cleans the gutters of all the local buildings too?

Everyone should have a balanced job complex, and democratic participation in their productive lives, which would mean participation in a workers’ council.

What sense does this make to you? I'll tell you what I understand, paying someone for their time at a rate they both agree to. No exploitation there, just voluntary labor. I have no idea how one even compute's "the proceeds of their labor."

Who has experienced this? This is completely alien to nine-tenths of the American people. Such negotiations are rare. Most Americans, like myself, are wage-slaves who never had any negotiating power. We accept the terms of whichever private dictatorship will hire us, or we starve to death.

For example, I'm an Accountant and handle payroll. We pay our sales reps a salary + a commission, which is a % of the payments of their clients. Under your "system" would all revenue, not just a percentage, go to sales reps? How would their salaries and operating expenses be paid?

I’d need to know more to give you a meaningful answer. Also; there is no universal consensus on how a Libertarian Socialist society would function. There are several models, with varying degrees of complexity. I tend to lean towards Parecon, and Parpolity, developed, respectively, by Professors Michael Albert and Stephen Shalom. However, again, these are just models, it isn’t doctrinal law.
 
Lachean said:
So long as you have a government who will defend your rights

The government isn't interested in defending the rights of its citizens. How'd that work out for Troy Davis?

Translation: I don't answer for the contradictions in my logic.

There is no contradiction.

So long as there is a means of exchange that both parties agree has value, then thats not a concern.

These are determined by social relations, not individuals.

You do realize that every regime, no matter how brief, that made no actions against the freedom of the press debunks your ridiculous absolute.

There is no regime that would not infringe upon the freedom of speech of its citizens if they perceive such speech to be a threat to the existing order. That is the entire point of the state.

I have the freedom of speech so long as my speech does not directly prevent another from practicing his/her own rights.

Replace "freedom of speech" with any number of things: "right to safety", "right to life", "right to property", etc. These are the additional 'rights' that the above statement refers to.

This is my first attempt. Poke holes. If you are right, I will concede. But I believe we can describe individual liberty to a 'T'. And then base the government's job around our individual liberties.

You're going at this problem backwards. Government and state are not based around rights, rights are privileges granted by government/state and exist within existing social relations.
 
You're going at this problem backwards. Government and state are not based around rights, rights are privileges granted by government/state and exist within existing social relations.
So, I take it you would disagree with Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Voltaire, Montesquieu, Thomas Jefferson, and billions of other humans both past and present who seem to believe in the concept of "natural rights".......... that some rights are simply inherent in being part of humanity (i.e. life, liberty, property, or the pursuit of happiness)? Even the State must inherently believe in these, otherwise it would simply be working toward its own demise, which is quite illogical. We musn't forget that it is indeed humans who come together and form the state (the reasons for which they agree to form it and the form in which it takes is of no significance). How could this even occur without concurrence among the founders that these most basic rights exist?
 
Last edited:
So, I take it you would disagree with Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Voltaire, Montesquieu, Thomas Jefferson, and billions of other humans both past and present who seem to believe in the concept of "natural rights".......... that some rights are simply inherent in being part of humanity (i.e. life, liberty, property, or the pursuit of happiness)? Even the State must inherently believe in these, otherwise it would simply be working toward its own demise, which is quite illogical. We musn't forget that it is indeed humans who come together and form the state (the reasons for which they agree to form it and the form in which it takes is of no significance). How could this even occur without concurrence among the founders that these most basic rights exist?

I could disagree with a bunch of white european dudes who owned slaves and were largely silent on the massacre of natives in the americas and colonialism. Also a billion dont believe in nautural rights... a quadrillion trillion do :roll:. The degree of liberty in a country is a function of the nature of it's security.
 
In his post above, KC did not distinguish between legal and natural rights. He simply said that "rights are priveleges granted by government/state....." and I responded in kind. I've noticed that many who claim to be hard-line communists or socialists here, prefer to "skate around" these convenient little concepts such as "natural rights" which tend to separate us humans from other, less "self-aware" animals. Some, like myself, may even go as far as to say that these are not only inherent in human nature, but God-given........perhaps this association is what makes some in this arena a bit uneasy about including these rights in their discussions? Regardless there is "something" that makes these natural rights inherent in most humans - if not the state, then what? I'm sure the blathering Wiki-hounds on this site can provide ample possibilities :)
What is it in us that causes us to seek out freedom, life, and to pursue what makes us happy at almost any costs (And not simply strive to propagate and fulfill a given function, like other animal species - which seems to me what is essentially behind the basic premise of communism)? Perhaps my comments would have been better received in the "Philosophy Forum"? Oh well.:shrug:
 
Last edited:
Regardless there is "something" that makes these natural rights inherent in most humans - if not the state, then what?

Natural rights do not exist, the state is not founded upon natural right. I don't know why you have so much trouble understanding this.
 
Back
Top Bottom