• 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!

Is socialism realistic?

Is socialism possible in the United States

  • Yes. Absolutely.

    Votes: 14 24.6%

  • Yes if the majority of people supported it

    Votes: 3 5.3%

  • Yes but not now

    Votes: 2 3.5%

  • No. Socialism never works.

    Votes: 24 42.1%

  • No because people would never accept it

    Votes: 8 14.0%

  • other

    Votes: 6 10.5%
  • Total voters
    57
A lot of people like socialism when you don't use the word socialism.

This is especially evident in banking, professional sports, and our military.
 
Pure socialism.... no. All the data shows that capitalism is the best system in the history of the world when it comes to creating wealth. The problem is, it tends to leave some people behind. For that reason, I do believe in managed capitalism.

I like the form of capitalism that exists in Western Europe and think we should seek to emulate it over here.
 
reinoe said:
A lot of people like socialism when you don't use the word socialism.

This is especially evident in banking, professional sports, and our military.
Click to expand...

A great quote related:

"On the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and on the 'End Poverty in California' platform I got 879,000. We simply have to recognize the fact that our enemies have succeeded in spreading the Big Lie" - U. Sinclair
 
Vodon said:
It is possible to have Pareto efficiency without allocative efficiency.
Click to expand...

As normally defined that would not be possible in my memory. But it possible, if depending on how the redistribution it treated. If it is defined as a production process it might be able to say it was Pareto optimal. I am not sure and must give it some more thought. The more difficult question seems to me more to be the stability of an economy that systematically produces at an allocative sur optimum. I would suspect that the model would require more planning and intervention than would be consistent with government restrictions. This is what appears to have queered every real world attempt.
 
joG, see Kaldor–Hicks efficiency.

To sum it up, by shifting resources in the economy, a gain in benefit to one individual could be greater than the loss in benefit to another individual. Therefore, before such a shift, the market is not allocatively efficient, but might be Pareto efficient.
 
Kreton said:
I know it has never really worked out but is the problem that the system cant work, has never been implemented properly, or just never had enough support?
Click to expand...

It has been tried in free societies (Sweden) und in autocracies with great dedication and the total support of state finances and power. Though, this does not disprove every possibility, it shows that it is very difficult, indeed.

The explanation is probably a combination of overconsumption, information capture and processing, political taking precedence over economic decision making and so forth.
 
Socialism already works in the USA.

Firemen
Police
Raods
Library
CDC
FDA
Parks
the list is endless
 
Socialism would not work.
 
Socialism never does work, it also would not happen without a war. The Constitution protects the United States government from being able to become socialist unless there was amendments. Which would never happen because three fourths of the states that is required for a new amendment would not happen. If it some how did get passed then the people of the United States's would figure out that socialism is a bad thing! they would then demand for it to be repealed. If the government still did not repeal the amendment then they would start taking away the people's rights. When the people's right were gone the American people would have a revolution and refuse to let the socialism system work.
 
Poiuy said:
Socialism never does work, it also would not happen without a war. The Constitution protects the United States government from being able to become socialist unless there was amendments. Which would never happen because three fourths of the states that is required for a new amendment would not happen. If it some how did get passed then the people of the United States's would figure out that socialism is a bad thing! they would then demand for it to be repealed. If the government still did not repeal the amendment then they would start taking away the people's rights. When the people's right were gone the American people would have a revolution and refuse to let the socialism system work.
Click to expand...

Really? You must have missed the point of PPACA then. PPACA says what a "private" medical care insurance policy must and may not cover and sets minimum and maximum overhead percentages; go over the maximum (15% for big companies to 20% for small companies) and you must refund the difference to all policy holders but go under that percentage and the gov't guarantees against any loss. How is that not socialism?
 
Kreton said:
Is socialism possible in the United States?
Click to expand...

Watching what you call socialism.
Socialism is the alienation of people from the instruments of production. It is a system where businesses and firms owned not by professionals but bureaucrats of government agencies. Socialism is a system where success is punished and clerks operate not the real products but empty plans. Socialism is a system, when the food disappear from official stores and appears only on the black market. Of course, socialism is possible in the United States. But I would not like it...
 
Absolutely...provided you have enough capitalists funding it.
 
loader said:
Watching what you call socialism.
Click to expand...

Newspeak, Newspeak, Newspeak

Socialism is the alienation of people from the instruments of production.
Click to expand...

Capitalism is the alienation of people from the instruments of production. Workers are alienated from the product of their labour.

It is a system where businesses and firms owned not by professionals but bureaucrats of government agencies.
Click to expand...

That would be big-C, Marxist-Leninist Communism based on the soviet model. Socialism doesn't need to involve much government bureaucracy; rather a direct network of democracy established through syndicalism and participatory economics.

Socialism is a system where success is punished and clerks operate the real products but empty plans. Socialism is a system, when the food disappear from official stores and appears only on the black market. Of course, socialism is possible in the United States. But I would not like it...
Click to expand...

If socialism=soviet model, then yes you're right.

But it doesn't.
 
Vodon said:
joG, see Kaldor–Hicks efficiency.

To sum it up, by shifting resources in the economy, a gain in benefit to one individual could be greater than the loss in benefit to another individual. Therefore, before such a shift, the market is not allocatively efficient, but might be Pareto efficient.
Click to expand...

The reason I hesitate is that we are not looking at conventional external effects, but with pure redistribution. Forgetting all else, the consequences of the shift in income will change allocation in later periods. The loss in efficiency of production can lead to reduced capacity to sustain the welfare level.
 
Vodon said:
Newspeak, Newspeak, Newspeak



Capitalism is the alienation of people from the instruments of production. Workers are alienated from the product of their labour.



That would be big-C, Marxist-Leninist Communism based on the soviet model. Socialism doesn't need to involve much government bureaucracy; rather a direct network of democracy established through syndicalism and participatory economics.



If socialism=soviet model, then yes you're right.

But it doesn't.
Click to expand...


Do you know other examples of socialism?
 
DaveFagan said:
Adjust your point of view for reality.
Corporatism: our current model of capitalism generating profit without responsibility and will probably destroy the Planet Earth.
Socialism: anything else
Click to expand...

And that's exactly how I see it also! I'm looking for some kind of socialist system to provide a more equitable, fairer method of divying up what's left of this world's resources, rather than continuing on our present course which, right now is building up to a world war against Russia and China for control and access to the necessary raw materials to maintain economic growth.

The fact that today's globalized economy can't function unless it's growing, is the main reason why an alternative to capitalism is necessary.
 
Socialism never works, but neither does true capitalism.
 
Sherman123 said:
Grab a rifle and join the revolutionary vanguard. We will be the fist of the proletariat. The time has come, the time is now.
Click to expand...

Again, what?
 
Sherman123 said:
What are you not understanding comrade? We will never know if we do not dare. Pick up the rifle and spark the revolution. We have nothing to lose but our chains.
Click to expand...

Except for our lives, our freedom, and of course our souls.
 
Paleocon said:
Except for our lives, our freedom, and of course our souls.
Click to expand...

What is life as a slave? There is no God above or Hell below, only open sky. Pick up the rifle and join the fight comrade.
 
Sherman123 said:
What is life as a slave? There is no God above or Hell below, only open sky. Pick up the rifle and join the fight comrade.
Click to expand...

I'm not a slave. There most certainly is, as reason tells us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom