• 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
They tried this in Soviet Union with a state centered economy that focused on the workers, it failed. They tried it in China and quickly realized that the only way to grow their economy and make lives better for hundred of millions of Chinese, was a capatalist system. (This is by the way their still around, while the Soviets aren't.) And now Europe is having to deal with the problem as they can no longer sustain such lavish redistribution policies. The only way for socialism to work, is to have it setup in an isolated community, where better people freely only take what they need and give to others. As long as humans are the greedy, selfish people they are, and governments are as bloated and inept as they are, socialism will never work.
 
Is socialism possible in the United States?

Where have you been the last 100 years? Socialism is working just fine in the United States. Otherwise I don't know what Socialism is. :confused: :confused: :confused:
 
Is socialism possible in the United States?
Considering we've had social security since 1935, the question you ought to be asking is: "Is the modern form of the United States possible WITHOUT socialism?"
 
Actually it was never tried in ussr or china, not in any real sense. But it worked just fine in spain, france, vietnam...etc until it was crushed by the US, UK et al. Read some history.
 
What I mean is socialism.
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
Then no.
 
It's possible in the area called the United States, but not under the current government.
 
Do you know other examples of socialism?

Of course, there's plenty of alternative models to the Soviet model. Decentralized planning, inclusive democracy, market socialism, planning using cybernetics, participatory economics, etc.
 
It's possible in the area called the United States, but not under the current government.

With a socialist government elected and put into power here do you think the American people as a whole would accept it? If not, can it succeed without the support of the majority of people?
 
Considering we've had social security since 1935, the question you ought to be asking is: "Is the modern form of the United States possible WITHOUT socialism?"

I think there is a difference between having a program that can be considered socialist in nature and having a country that is.
 
Where have you been the last 100 years? Socialism is working just fine in the United States. Otherwise I don't know what Socialism is. :confused: :confused: :confused:

We don't have socialism here now. Sharing an aspect of government with a socialist philosophy, like SS or some of certain welfare programs as examples, does not make the United States a socialist nation.
 
Of course, there's plenty of alternative models to the Soviet model. Decentralized planning, inclusive democracy, market socialism, planning using cybernetics, participatory economics, etc.

I ask you, do you have examples of real socialism where the person may exist comfortably. Because I know only egregious examples of socialism. The Soviet Union and the entire Warsaw bloc. China, Vietnam and North Korea. Albania, Cuba and Mongolia. Kampuchea. Everywhere the same. Prison, hunger, repression.
 
I think there is a difference between having a program that can be considered socialist in nature and having a country that is.
He confuses "socialism" as a system and "social" program under capitalism.
 
There is lots of socialism in the USA. I think the Mainstream Media is trying to give it a bad name like Republicans call themselves conservatives. Privatizing profit and socializing liabilities is not conservative. If you're old enough to remember the McCarthy "Communist" scare of the 50s and the lives ruined by false accusations, you can also grasp that the gov't can do the same thing anytime, with the MSM backing. I think there are great upsides to small scale capitalism and socialism, but Corporatism generates a large scale monster detrimental to society as a whole. The "isms" are what you make them. They are not cut and dried, molded finished products. Good governorship and citizenship build good "isms." Compromise in every area to make a fit. The closest you can come to a perfect fit.
 
With any system, public administration begins to grow "meat." Each secretary wants to have his secretary. After a short time each department head hаs 10 deputies. But when you change the administration (in Western democracies), you may cut off the few heads of hydra . Under socialism, and unchanged for many years, administrations, this is impossible.
 
There are so many different branches of thought, schools, interpretations, and theories of socialism that it's nearly impossible to practically use the world "socialism".
 
It can happen, but it can't work. If we aren't careful, it will happen.
 
With a socialist government elected and put into power here do you think the American people as a whole would accept it? If not, can it succeed without the support of the majority of people?

I don't think that's the way it would happen.
 
I should say that I do not know...but Pollyanna's voice must be heard.
Egalitarianism is the key and time is the factor...we cannot continue to be so backward
 
What do you mean by socialism? Do you mean a communist system? Then no. If you mean more like a Scandinavian system, its possible but not very likely. However, the system we have is a mixed economy. Medicare is the largest socialized medicine program on earth. Social Security is huge. As is Medicaid. So socialism is indeed possible in the USA just like it is in every developed economy on earth.

Yeah? How are those programs doing? Everything hunky-dory and not headed towards inevitable fiscal collapse or anything?
 
The US interstate system, the Polio Vaccine, Public parks, Hoover dam and State and National Monuments are all products of Socialism. Socialism is taxpayer money that is used to benefit society as a whole.
"Benefit society" , a term that is anathema to todays conservatives ( my concept, this includes the tea baggers, the RINOs, the libertarians, the extremists)..
 
Socialism works if everyone's a socialist. The moment someone doesn't feel like sharing, socialism begins it's collapse.

To implement socialism, it would take generations of re-education away from the capitalist, greed-first view of human nature to the socialistic, altruism-first view. Now, this could be implemented by a benevolent dictatorship, however, the likelihood of it happening is impossible.
 
Yeah? How are those programs doing? Everything hunky-dory and not headed towards inevitable fiscal collapse or anything?

Just because those programs need to be reformed does not mean that we will replace them with nothing. Even if they are reformed they will be replaced with some sort of modernized program that meets the same needs. We will still be a mixed economy.

To quote President Eisenhower:

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

President Dwight D. Eisenhower, l952-----
 
Just because those programs need to be reformed does not mean that we will replace them with nothing. Even if they are reformed they will be replaced with some sort of modernized program that meets the same needs.

Socialism is structure, more than needs met. If we were to replace (for example) the single-payer model as described for Medicare with a private-sector-driven alternative, then we would be reducing socialism due to it's unfeasability; which would rather have impact on this discussion.

To quote President Eisenhower:

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

That's great that he said that. Unfortunately for him, "Math" does not care about political parties - it was no respecter of them in Greece, in Ancient Rome, or anywhere else that state entitlements to politically powerful pressure groups have proven mathematically unsustainable.
 
NO "like" , as this is silly and totally untrue , directly from Fox and Rush.

Idealistic socialists, or young people or just not smart. Practical Socialists are adults, clever and despicable people, who want absolute power with a beautiful name.
Which category of the socialists, you represent?
 
Back
Top Bottom