• 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
TheDemSocialist said:
Early socialists called for no such thing as ownership being controlled by the state.
Socialism means the workers have direct control and management of the industries/workplace.
Click to expand...
Those poor chaps were from a different era, that didn't have the benefit that freedom has ushered in to us lucky Americans.
Specifically, I am pointing out that in the U.S., we are already free to establish industry and workplaces where workers have direct control and management (!)

Not only are you factually FREE to do this, right now in the U.S., and have been since it's formation (in most industries), it has been gaining steam lately. A lot of the new tech companies and even an older one (Apple), are demonstrating a different way. However, it's minefiled for the "intellectual" (read, ignorant fool) who tries to then exclaim "the top 5 new big companies use this method, THEREFORE it's the best method and everyone should implement it". Well, no. Tech companies may have a far different worker base, all fairly well educated, analytical, etc., and what may work for them may fail miserably for a call-center. But then, that's why markets always do it best.

Of course, "labor" is a tiny fraction of the economic success. If you knew that, you wouldn't still think of that archaic notion of 'worker labor is the bomb'. That was from a fairly strict era where you had government backed industry that paid slave wages to a large work force...those workers had ever right to rise up against that. Yes, that's what free markets are, the answer to that. Now, you're free to bust the company, sue them, legislate against them, start your own company, compete with them, make a company where you equally share ownership, public ownership, non-profit private, etc., etc. Welcome to the 21st century.

Fortunately, we're free in the U.S. by in large, and I hope we remain so. If I had to live under the rule of half the jack-asses that post on these forums, I would seriously consider an alternative line of work. Maybe time for some V for Vendetta.

Socialism does not mean government or state ownership. It does not mean a closed party run system without democratic rights. Those things are the very opposite of socialism.
Click to expand...
Ah, in theory it doesn't literally state that as a goal, maybe. However, in practice, and in a more holistic "theoretical", it appears to mean some sort of single party, authoritarian type regime.
There will be leaders, there will be key figures, they will start to consolidate power for the good of the many. They will seek to protect that power, they will then rule the country, and its people, for the greater good.
 
Last edited:
TheDemSocialist said:
This should be fun.
Click to expand...
I know that -I- laughed when I read your response...

Early socialists called for no such thing as ownership being controlled by the state.
Socialism means the workers have direct control and management of the industries/workplace.
Socialism does not mean government or state ownership
Click to expand...
It does when discussing the term in any meaningful way.
A sure sign of a weak argument is when one is forced to resort to conveninet botique definitions of the terms under discussion - such as you have.
And, as you said, you agreed with my defintion "As a basic definition", so your points, and the complaints that stem from them, are moot.

It does not mean a closed party run system without democratic rights. Those things are the very opposite of socialism.
Click to expand...
Except that, since socialsim can exist under such a system, you're wrong.
Socislism is an economic system, and therefore can exist under any sort of government.

Sure we believe in a redistribution of wealth through a progressive tax system.
Click to expand...
Thank you for confirming the obvious.
Redistribution of wealth thru anything other than a fully voluntary system of charity, in and of itself, runs contrary to human nature, as people, given the choice, will only give their wealth to others when they believe it is in their best interest to do so, arrived at by whatever meas. You advocate the removal of that choice, and as such, act in opposition to human nature.

What do you mean by "nanny state"?
Click to expand...
I didnt say anything about the nanny state. Did you read my post?

I believe that homeless people should have the right to shelter. I believe that impoverished people should have the right to some food assistance. I believe everyone has the right to a high school education. I believe everyone has the right to healthcare.
Click to expand...
Aww. That's special.
What you fail to understand is that having a right to something is not the same as being entitled to the means to exercise that someting.
You seek not the right - as those rights already exist - but the entitlement to the means.
The entitlement comes thru rediustribuion of wealth, which is, as noted, an indication that socialism runs contrary to human nature.

What do you mean?
Yes you can own producing that wealth as long with the workers.
Click to expand...
You certainly know that this is not at all what I mean; your ineffective response indicates that you cannot counter what I said.
Under socialism, I -cannot- own or control a means or producing wealth - that is, a for-profit business - and I can neither own/control the means to distribute that wealth, nor keep my wealth from being distributed to others. This absolutely negates the right to pursue happiness.

You can own property.
You can create wealth through how you do it now. Through work.
Click to expand...
Your response does not address what I said.
Under socialism, I do not have the freedom to own property AND use it to produce wealth.
Your attempt to remove the conjunction indicates that you cannot counter what I said.

How so?
Click to expand...
As previously noted and left unaddressed by you.

How does it run to the contrary?
Click to expand...
As previously noted and left unaddressed by you.
 
Last edited:
Well. I can see this thread has been going well... :doh

Wake said:
Laws are made by people whose beliefs are in the majority.
Click to expand...


Really? So you think the laws of North Korea or Syria currently are made by people whose beliefs are in the majority?
Laws are based on morality, whether religious or secular.
Click to expand...

So the law that prohibits restaurants in Wisconsin from serving margarine instead of butter is based on morals?

fredmertz said:
Simply because a right can be forbidden physically and even perhaps justifiably does not mean that it does not concretely exist. It simply means that it concretely exists in some situations and not others.
Click to expand...

A conditional right, then, is not a right.

You can stop pounding the table with this idea that rights aren't concrete because of the fact that in some situation, a right must be sacrificed to protect itself or other rights. That's just natural order.
Click to expand...

Yet I am speaking of situations in which rights are violated specifically not to protect other rights. I don't know why you can't understand that.

Pfk said:
Human nature, not capitalism, is the bane of socialism.
Click to expand...

No such thing

Wake said:
People like owning things.

They like to be free.
Click to expand...


The latter is meaningless without concrete definition.

I worked hard for it, I earned it, I deserve it, I don't want to share it with lazy people just because we're citizens of the same nation. Or how about, Mine! Mine! I want more! I want it all! This, sadly, comprises a great deal of human nature......and it generally doesn't fit well with the whole socialist mantra. :shrug:
Click to expand...

This is not inherent to humans irrespective of social situation. You are abstracting out illogically.

Zang said:
In my vision of an ideal socialist society, you can own private poperty just as you do now and you can even start a small buisness if you want. It's just the large, greedy corporations that own america that I believe should be government run.
Click to expand...

Liberal bull****. Small companies turn into corporations.

Gip said:
That's socialists for you. They manipulate definitions of words, in this case words like "own" and "earn". Your terms are subjective, and they're held to the whims of an oppressive aggregate.
Click to expand...

LOL yes and "people like to be free" isn't subjective and vague at all. :lol:

Fubar said:
i lived in the socialist republic of romania for 20 years.
Click to expand...

Romania under Ceauscesceau was not "socialist".

TheDemSocialist said:
Romania or any of the USSR satalite states were never socialist.. The people were basically slaves of the gov.
Click to expand...

That's the dumbest ****ing thing I've ever heard. Yeah, Romania and the USSR were slave societies. Seriously, go read a ****ing book Jesus Christ.

Wake said:
Can socialists agree on this meaning or no?
Click to expand...


Yes.
TheDemSocialist said:
Communism is there is no gov, there is no money, there are no classes, the workers own everything communaly.
I would say communism was a stalinist state as much of eastern europe was.
Click to expand...

Then you're a huge self-contradicting dunce as the USSR had money and government.





​
 
Gipper said:
It's not the stretch you think it is...
Click to expand...
I totally agree with the Gip here. We cannot forget that Nazis were/are the "National Socialist" Party. Tread lightly ye psuedo-Socialists, Adolf Hitler began with similar ideology, and we all know where that eventually led. :shrug:
 
Khayembii Communique said:
I worked hard for it, I earned it, I deserve it, I don't want to share it with lazy people just because we're citizens of the same nation. Or how about, Mine! Mine! I want more! I want it all! This, sadly, comprises a great deal of human nature......and it generally doesn't fit well with the whole socialist mantra.
Click to expand...

This is not inherent to humans irrespective of social situation. You are abstracting out illogically.





[/INDENT]
Click to expand...
This type of thinking is not inherent in a great deal of humanity? Really? Prove it? What kind of humans have you been hanging out with? None of them exhibit a competitive nature, greed, or strive for success, or to improve their "lot in life"? Boy, you must attend some really exciting dinner parties! :lol:
 
Last edited:
FluffyNinja said:
I totally agree with the Gip here. We cannot forget that Nazis were/are the "National Socialist" Party. Tread lightly ye psuedo-Socialists, Adolf Hitler began with similar ideology, and we all know where that eventually led. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Give me a break. Germany has had heavy socialist influence since the 19th century, it would be like someone in the US today using capitalist and American nationalist rhetoric to gain massive support. The first thing he did when he took power was burn down the Reichstag, which was blamed on the Marxists, who he associated with Judaism. Socialists and communists were then rounded up and deported or enslaved. Fascism has been the antithesis to communism throughout history.

In the years 1913 and 1914 I expressed my opinion for the first time in various circles, some of which are now members of the National Socialist Movement, that the problem of how the future of the German nation can be secured is the problem of how Marxism can be exterminated.....

...In this way the struggle against the present State was placed on a higher plane than that of petty revenge and small conspiracies. It was elevated to the level of a spiritual struggle on behalf of a WELTANSCHAUUNG, for the destruction of Marxism in all its shapes and forms....
Click to expand...

- Hitler, Mein kampf
 
Last edited:
Bardo said:
Give me a break. Germany has had heavy socialist influence since the 19th century, it would be like someone in the US today using capitalist and American nationalist rhetoric to gain massive support. The first thing he did when he took power was burn down the Reichstag, which was blamed on the Marxists, who he associated with Judaism. Socialists and communists were then rounded up and deported or enslaved. Fascism has been the antithesis to communism throughout history.



- Hitler, Mein kampf
Click to expand...
Notice....before you get yer panties in a wad....this is why I clearly said PSUEDO-SOCIALISTS.
 
FluffyNinja said:
Notice....before you get yer panties in a wad....this is why I clearly said PSUEDO-SOCIALISTS.
Click to expand...

What exactly is pseudo-socialism? Was Hitler a social-democrat before he was a fascist?
 
Bardo said:
What exactly is pseudo-socialism? Was Hitler a social-democrat before he was a fascist?
Click to expand...
Those who proclaim the socialist mantra, using it to garner support from the masses, then fashion it into support for a virtual welfare state or into something worse........a fascist/authoritarian type of state.
 
FluffyNinja said:
Those who proclaim the socialist mantra, using it to garner support from the masses, then fashion it into support for a virtual welfare state or into something worse........a fascist/authoritarian type of state.
Click to expand...

Would this be any different from someone who uses a capitalist mantra to garner support from the masses, then fashions it into a fascist/authoritarian state? You seem to be describing deception, which isn't unique to any political ideology.

I don't see how welfare states have anything to do with nazism.
 
Bardo said:
Would this be any different from someone who uses a capitalist mantra to garner support from the masses, then fashions it into a fascist/authoritarian state? You seem to be describing deception, which isn't unique to any political ideology.

I don't see how welfare states have anything to do with nazism.
Click to expand...
Yes, very different. If you can't understand that then you have a real problem understanding the whole premise of the free market or a truly capitalistic society which, inherently could/would not allow itself to be transformed into a truly authoritarian or fascist state. Private ownership and control over the means of production tends to be the stumbling block here.

And I presented the two possibilities as different, but both extreme ends. :shrug:
 
Chenoa said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think you are mixed up a little, It is not the capitalism or the republic that keeps America free, it is that America is a democratic Goverment and the majority in this kind of Goverment is the ruling power. If this country was Governed by capitalism then we would all be slaves and working for what the corparation would give us. In other words we would go back to before the Cilvil War were the rich would own you and if they wanted to feed you they would, if they didn't want to feed you they wouldn't.
 
dumbasdirt said:
I think you are mixed up a little, It is not the capitalism or the republic that keeps America free, it is that America is a democratic Goverment and the majority in this kind of Goverment is the ruling power.
Click to expand...
This is no way keeps us free, as such a govrnment is perfectly capable of eliminating freedom.
What -ultimately- keeps us free is a societal commitment to the ideals of liberty and the willingness to use force to protect it.
 
PzKfW IVe said:
This is no way keeps us free, as such a govrnment is perfectly capable of eliminating freedom.
What -ultimately- keeps us free is a societal commitment to the ideals of liberty and the willingness to use force to protect it.
Click to expand...

I think this is obviously correct given the current state of the nation (US). Despite our form of government, we have managed to go from a society who used to believe that, in order to prohibit alcohol at the national level, we needed a constitutional amendment, to a society who now believes that Congress can force us to each individually buy health insurance without a constitutional amendment. People's views of the constitution are changing.

And if the interpretation can change so wildly, it's not the form of government or piece of paper that keeps us in check; it's our own commitment to the idea (or lack thereof) of what the constitution is. As time goes on and we forget what has happened in the past or deny what could happen in the future, we lose that commitment.
 
fredmertz said:
I think this is obviously correct given the current state of the nation (US). Despite our form of government, we have managed to go from a society who used to believe that, in order to prohibit alcohol at the national level, we needed a constitutional amendment, to a society who now believes that Congress can force us to each individually buy health insurance without a constitutional amendment. People's views of the constitution are changing.
Click to expand...
This illustrates that we're losing the societal commitment and the willingness to use force.
 
FluffyNinja said:
Yes, very different. If you can't understand that then you have a real problem understanding the whole premise of the free market or a truly capitalistic society which, inherently could/would not allow itself to be transformed into a truly authoritarian or fascist state. Private ownership and control over the means of production tends to be the stumbling block here.

And I presented the two possibilities as different, but both extreme ends. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Maybe your history is a little rusty then. Did Mussolini take away private ownership?

"The [Fascist] government will accord full freedom to private enterprise and will abandon all intervention in private economy."
Click to expand...
- Mussolini

Franco and the Spanish fascists followed this Italian model.

Think about how many people initially supported the patriot act, the single most authoritarian and invasive piece of legislation ever passed in the United States. Fascism has always been a reactionary movement, which takes advantage of a fearful population.
 
Bardo said:
Maybe your history is a little rusty then. Did Mussolini take away private ownership?

- Mussolini
Click to expand...
I don't know. Did Mussolini establish a TRULY fascist state or was it simply a weak mockery of fascism?
Think about how many people initially supported the patriot act, the single most authoritarian and invasive piece of legislation ever passed in the United States. Fascism has always been a reactionary movement, which takes advantage of a fearful population.
Click to expand...
The Patriot Act is a far, far cry from establishment fascism......this is quite a stretch, even for you. :roll:

By the way, how do you judge this to be the "single most authoritarian and invasive piece of legislation ever passed in the United States"? Can you prove this, or are you just repeating talking points presented by your Liberal, Poli-Sci Profs or the Left-wing establishment media?
Perhaps it's YOUR history that is a bit rusty. Ever heard of the Dawes Act, Volstead Act, or Eminent Domain? Neither of these are all that "authoritarian" or "invasive", right?
 
Last edited:
PzKfW IVe said:
I laugh.
Demonstrate my error.
Click to expand...

In Authoritarian Communism, there is one dictator, the government is corrupt, citizens are forced to share their private property, there are no private businesses and the rights of individuals are oppressed.

In other forms of socialism such as democratic socialism, the government is run directly by the people, citizens have private property, citizens may have small businesses, and citizens have just as many freedoms if not more than there are in the current society.

Gipper said:
It's not the stretch you think it is...
Click to expand...

Actually, it's a huge stretch.

Wake said:
Can socialists agree on this meaning or no?
Click to expand...

That is an accurate description of the basics of socialism.

Mach said:
Ah, in theory it doesn't literally state that as a goal, maybe. *However, in practice, and in a more holistic "theoretical", it appears to mean some sort of single party, authoritarian type regime. *
There will be leaders, there will be key figures, they will start to consolidate power for the good of the many. *They will seek to protect that power, they will then rule the country, and its people, for the greater good.
Click to expand...

There has only been authoritarian communist states because that is all that has been established, it does not mean that it is impossible to create any other type of socialist society.

PzKfW IVe said:
It does when discussing the term in any meaningful way.
A sure sign of a weak argument is when one is forced to resort to conveninet botique definitions of the terms under discussion - such as you have.
And, as you said, you agreed with my defintion "As a basic definition", so your points, and the complaints that stem from them, are moot.
Click to expand...

When did he agree with your definition?

Except that, since socialsim can exist under such a system, you're wrong.
Socislism is an economic system, and therefore can exist under any sort of government.
Click to expand...

He assumes that it is contrary to the views of socialism, he is wrong.
You assume that it represents the views of socialism, you are also wrong

Thank you for confirming the obvious.
Redistribution of wealth thru anything other than a fully voluntary system of charity, in and of itself, runs contrary to human nature, as people, given the choice, will only give their wealth to others when they believe it is in their best interest to do so, arrived at by whatever meas. *You advocate the removal of that choice, and as such, act in opposition to human nature.
Click to expand...

What is the matter with the wealthy giving up part of their fortune in order to feed the poor?

Aww. *That's special.
What you fail to understand is that having a right to something is not the same as being entitled to the means to exercise that someting.
You seek not the right - as those rights already exist - but the entitlement to the means.
The entitlement comes thru rediustribuion of wealth, which is, as noted, an indication that socialism runs contrary to human nature.
Click to expand...

If there is no entitlement to the means to a right, then how can it be a right?

You certainly know that this is not at all what I mean; your ineffective response indicates that you cannot counter what I said.
Under socialism, I -cannot- own or control a means or producing wealth - that is, a for-profit business - *and I can neither own/control the means to distribute that wealth, nor keep my wealth from being distributed to others. *This absolutely negates the right to pursue happiness.
Click to expand...

Except you can under socialism.

Khayembii Communique said:
Liberal bull****. *Small companies turn into corporations.
Click to expand...

In a capitalist system, yes they do.

FluffyNinja said:
I totally agree with the Gip here. We cannot forget that Nazis were/are the "National Socialist" Party. * Tread lightly ye psuedo-Socialists, *Adolf Hitler began with similar ideology, and we all know where that eventually led. :shrug:
Click to expand...
*
Are you saying that the socialists here are pseudo-socialists?

FluffyNinja said:
Yes, very different. *If you can't understand that then you have a real problem understanding the whole premise of the free market or a truly capitalistic society which, inherently could/would not allow itself to be transformed into a truly authoritarian or fascist state. * Private ownership and control over the means of production tends to be the stumbling block here. **

And I presented the two possibilities as different, but both extreme ends. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Likewise,*you have a real problem understanding the whole premise of a truly socialist society which, inherently could/would not allow itself to be transformed into a truly authoritarian or fascist state.*
 
FluffyNinja said:
I don't know. Did Mussolini establish a TRULY fascist state or was it simply a weak mockery of fascism
Click to expand...

Mussolini pretty much set the standard for fascism in the 20th century.

The Patriot Act is a far, far cry from establishment fascism......this is quite a stretch, even for you. :roll:
Click to expand...

I didn't call it fascism, I called it authoritarian and invasive, which you claim isn't compatible with a capitalist society. Fascism is more than just authoritarianism, it's a system of economics, it's a social climate and it's a reactionary movement.

I'm just pointing out that this:

If you can't understand that then you have a real problem understanding the whole premise of the free market or a truly capitalistic society which, inherently could/would not allow itself to be transformed into a truly authoritarian or fascist state. Private ownership and control over the means of production tends to be the stumbling block here.
Click to expand...

Isn't true at all. Atleast the bit about private ownership being an adequate defense.

By the way, how do you judge this to be the "single most authoritarian and invasive piece of legislation ever passed in the United States"? Can you prove this, or are you just repeating talking points presented by your Liberal, Poli-Sci Profs or the Left-wing establishment media?
Perhaps it's YOUR history that is a bit rusty. Ever heard of the Dawes Act, Volstead Act, or Eminent Domain? Neither of these are all that "authoritarian" or "invasive", right?
Click to expand...

I would call the Patriot Act more invasive and authoritarian than either of those. The unprecedented privacy restrictions draw a lot of criticism from the right as well as the left, so it's not just my "left-wing media establishment" saying so.
 
The reason socialism fails is because it relies on the population to be satisfied with what is apportioned to them rather than what they can attain. Some call it greed, but I call it ambition. Most rich people are rich because they do something exceptionally well. They aren't rich because they hoarded money. They set out to do something and they were rewarded. If you take away the rewarded in the form of progressive taxes or blatant Marxism...what's left to achieve and why?
 
ksu_aviator said:
The reason socialism fails is because it relies on the population to be satisfied with what is apportioned to them rather than what they can attain. Some call it greed, but I call it ambition. Most rich people are rich because they do something exceptionally well. They aren't rich because they hoarded money. They set out to do something and they were rewarded. If you take away the rewarded in the form of progressive taxes or blatant Marxism...what's left to achieve and why?
Click to expand...

What can I do to pump my net worth up to $1bil? How do I set out to achieve that much money? I would go to work for a financial giant, produce absolutely nothing and move money around for a living. Or maybe win the lottery a few times.

Do you think if tax rates were increased by %4 that the rich would just stop trying to make money? They wouldn't just give up on pursuing dollars if it's what they really want to do with their lives. Wouldn't progressive taxation be incentive to make even more so that they can keep more?
 
Canell said:
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?

:)
Click to expand...

"Socialism, on a very small, intimate level is called sharing. It can be good on a little larger level, like within a large family or group of families (a tribe for example) who know each other very well and who can see the benefits and be held accountable for their part. Once it involves "strangers", by design it will fail terribly. Ever read Animal Farm?
 
Bardo said:
Wouldn't progressive taxation be incentive to make even more so that they can keep more?
Click to expand...

No! It will be incentive not to work. Why would anybody work harder when one knows that the harder s/he works the higher the taxes?

GreenvilleGrows said:
"Socialism, on a very small, intimate level is called sharing. It can be good on a little larger level, like within a large family or group of families (a tribe for example) who know each other very well and who can see the benefits and be held accountable for their part. Once it involves "strangers", by design it will fail terribly. Ever read Animal Farm?
Click to expand...

I have.
The system you describing is called "Anarchist communism":

Anarchist communists propose that the freest form of social organisation would be a society composed of self-governing communes with collective use of the means of production, organized by direct democracy or, and related to other communes through federation.
Click to expand...

:peace
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom