• 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
Bardo said:
Ok, here's the part where you tell us why it can never be achieved.
Click to expand...

Mankind. It's as simple as that. You cannot have fully libertarian/democratic anything on large-scale because it will be manipulated, and force will (and must) be used to quell potential usurpers. At least with a laissez-faire system you can have significant portions of libertarianism because any occurrences or outcomes are not necessarily met with oppression. Socialist tendency to trim the tallest weed cannot boast the same.

I don't know why you're questioning the why. It's probably been explained to you ad nauseum. It gets really annoying when you pull an ostrich and duck into the sand when explained, only to regurgitate the same meaningless question to annoy the next logical explanation.
 
Gipper said:
Mankind. It's as simple as that. You cannot have fully libertarian/democratic anything on large-scale because it will be manipulated, and force will (and must) be used to quell potential usurpers. At least with a laissez-faire system you can have significant portions of libertarianism because any occurrences or outcomes are not necessarily met with oppression. Socialist tendency to trim the tallest weed cannot boast the same.

I don't know why you're questioning the why. It's probably been explained to you ad nauseum. It gets really annoying when you pull an ostrich and duck into the sand when explained, only to regurgitate the same meaningless question to annoy the next logical explanation.
Click to expand...

He said democratic socialism, not libertarianism. That's a whole different conversation that I'm pretty sure we've already had.

Now, why is democracy incompatible with a socialist economics?

Specifics. Don't say "Earth." or "Human civilization."
 
Well, if you want to get technical about it, democracy cannot be determined to be incompatible with any structure or philosophy. You could have democratic fascism if you wanted to.

It's a losing proposition. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
 
Bardo said:
Now, why is democracy incompatible with a socialist economics?
Click to expand...

The irony is that socialism is one true democracy. "Democracy" means "rule of the people". So does socialism. :lol:
 
Gipper said:
It's a losing proposition. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
Click to expand...

This sounds like a much better alternative than one wolf telling 100 sheep what's for dinner.
 
Canell said:
The irony is that socialism is one true democracy. "Democracy" means "rule of the people". So does socialism. :lol:
Click to expand...
Except when, as some have noted, you're discussing "Authoritative Socialism".
 
Bardo said:
This sounds like a much better alternative than one wolf telling 100 sheep what's for dinner.
Click to expand...
Which is socialism. I agree.
 
Gipper said:
Your best shot would be a small anarchistic commune somewhere. Outside of that, no.
Click to expand...

Duh! I got news for you: socialism was never meant to strive for world domination, i.e. trying to take over the world. That's "bankers socialism" and was described very accurately by Gary Allen:

You might find it strange to learn that the Russian Revolution was also fuelled with British money. Capitalist businessmen financing Communism?

Author Gary Allen gives his explanation:

"If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth programme, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of super-rich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead, it becomes logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs.

Communism or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite."
Click to expand...

So, there's socialism and there's socialism. :)
 
Mach said:
Which is socialism. I agree.
Click to expand...

You've got it backwards.

Socialism would be 100 sheep telling one wolf that sheep isn't on the menu.
 
Canell said:
Duh! I got news for you: socialism was never meant to strive for world domination, i.e. trying to take over the world. That's "bankers socialism" and was described very accurately by Gary Allen:
Click to expand...

Well, then go seek your worker's paradise. There are some smaller nations which espouse beliefs that, while not totally socialist, are probably close enough.

Barring that, go off to the wilderness with 20 of your buddies and live off the fat of the land.
 
Gipper said:
Barring that, go off to the wilderness with 20 of your buddies and live off the fat of the land.
Click to expand...

Land, dude, land. :doh
Where I live virtually all land is private and broken into small pieces which in fact makes it impossible to acquire. Europe, what do you know... :roll:
 
Canell said:
Land, dude, land. :doh
Where I live virtually all land is private and broken into small pieces which in fact makes it impossible to acquire. Europe, what do you know... :roll:
Click to expand...
I heard there are lot of free land in Siberia.

It's kind of funny how there are so many socialists around the world who think living in communes is the ultimate dream. But pretty much no one is actually trying to live in a commune. They are all too used to live in a modern life.

For instance, how do you wash your clothes in a commune. Who will be the one producing electricity and washing machines? Who are the one creating your stove, or your refrigirator. I don't know how to make one, do you? Also, it would probably take me forever to make a washing machine with knowledge, because I lack the tools.

Socialists love to complain about capitalism, but are not able to live without it.
 
Camlon said:
It's kind of funny how there are so many socialists around the world who think living in communes is the ultimate dream. But pretty much no one is actually trying to live in a commune.
Click to expand...

That is because most socialists aren't Utopian Socialists.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
That is because most socialists aren't Utopian Socialists.
Click to expand...

Most socialists are lazy whiners with a chip on their shoulder and holding a grudge against everyone who did succeed with the attitude of "If I don't have it neither can you"

. . . spoiled rotten brat montage.
 
Gipper said:
ALL socialists are utopian socialists.
Click to expand...

No - I really think most socialists are bitter and seeking bringing everyone down to their level rather than uplifting others.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Most socialists are lazy whiners with a chip on their shoulder and holding a grudge against everyone who did succeed with the attitude of "If I don't have it neither can you"

. . . spoiled rotten brat montage.
Click to expand...

Cool story bro

Gipper said:
ALL socialists are utopian socialists.
Click to expand...

Saying all socialists are utopian is different than saying all socialists are Utopian Socialists (i.e. Owenites, for example). Wiki the term if you're confused.

Aunt Spiker said:
No - I really think most socialists are bitter and seeking bringing everyone down to their level rather than uplifting others.
Click to expand...

Capitalism is a hindrance on the productive forces of society. Abolishing artificial scarcity and fully employing everyone would uplift everybody's life.
 
Camlon said:
I heard there are lot of free land in Siberia.
Click to expand...

Yeah, in Sahara and Alaska too. So what? :roll:

Camlon said:
It's kind of funny how there are so many socialists around the world who think living in communes is the ultimate dream. But pretty much no one is actually trying to live in a commune. They are all too used to live in a modern life.
Click to expand...

A commune is about social structure not technology.
Why so few people live in a community? Because with so much legislation and regulation the commune is practically forbidden.
 
KC said:
Saying all socialists are utopian is different than saying all socialists are Utopian Socialists (i.e. Owenites, for example). Wiki the term if you're confused.
Click to expand...

I was being tongue-in-cheek. Smile, comrade.

Capitalism is a hindrance on the productive forces of society. Abolishing artificial scarcity and fully employing everyone would uplift everybody's life.
Click to expand...

The scarcity is surely not artificial, and full employment would be an overall drag on society and economy because of diminishing returns on marginal labor after peak efficiency. You can't just give someone a job for the sake of giving someone a job. Well, I mean you can, but it would create that stagnation I always say socialism embraces on their paper theories.

I honestly think you would have trouble finding any significant population of automatons who would all share work and capital equally without some attempt at a power-grab. Every country in the past who has tried to establish themselves as a "worker's paradise" has become an oppressive, totalitarian hellhole where inefficient allocation has resulted in widespread poverty...and I mean real poverty, not American "I still own 3 cars and a plasma TV" poverty.
 
Gipper said:
I was being tongue-in-cheek. Smile, comrade.



The scarcity is surely not artificial, and full employment would be an overall drag on society and economy because of diminishing returns on marginal labor after peak efficiency. You can't just give someone a job for the sake of giving someone a job. Well, I mean you can, but it would create that stagnation I always say socialism embraces on their paper theories.

I honestly think you would have trouble finding any significant population of automatons who would all share work and capital equally without some attempt at a power-grab. Every country in the past who has tried to establish themselves as a "worker's paradise" has become an oppressive, totalitarian hellhole where inefficient allocation has resulted in widespread poverty...and I mean real poverty, not American "I still own 3 cars and a plasma TV" poverty.
Click to expand...

Last I checked most of those places were already oppressive totalitarian hellholes.
 
Only by proxy. They were in the sphere of influence by Lord Oppressive Totalitarian Hellhole.

It is evident the world over how free markets lead to a better life, not socialism. The fact that China owns so much of American debt is a glaring bit of proof.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Cool story bro



Saying all socialists are utopian is different than saying all socialists are Utopian Socialists (i.e. Owenites, for example). Wiki the term if you're confused.



Capitalism is a hindrance on the productive forces of society. Abolishing artificial scarcity and fully employing everyone would uplift everybody's life.
Click to expand...

You can do that without upending capitalism completely and taking on an all new system which just punishes people at present who did do well in life.

Didn't think of that, did you?

But the tone of your post points to my previous assertion: bitter-socialist.

The basics of socialism themselves are not bitter - but a lot of people who claim to espouse the beliefs and values are nothing but bitter.

In a capitalism system - when we help others - what we try to do is give them the means to make something of their selves: educational support, temporary assistance, assistance finding jobs, quitting bad habits and other things that will hold them back.

Right now - if anyone fails to succeed at something it's because they didn't care enough about theirselves to seek out options and try something and push forward and improve their selves.
 
Gipper said:
It is evident the world over how free markets lead to a better life, not socialism.
Click to expand...

Oh, it's all so simple, I never saw it before, thanks.

:coffeepap

In a capitalism system - when we help others - what we try to do is give them the means to make something of their selves: educational support, temporary assistance, assistance finding jobs, quitting bad habits and other things that will hold them back.
Click to expand...

I too am comforted that we give them socialist things....
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom