• 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
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.
 
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.

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
 
Is socialism possible in the United States?

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
 
No.

I know the progressives will come in and say we are borderline as it is, and they are correct.

We also see how wonderful it's working for us :roll:

This country was NEVER designed for this, it goes against everything it stands for and it's very foundation. Our culture (not the indoctrinated urban areas, despite what the progressives think, there are places outside of NYC, Boston, and LA) as a whole does coincide with the mindset of it. Sweden works, England works, etc....primarily because they have been under collective rule for thousands of years, quite literally bowing to a crown or government since they could walk. America is fundamentally different on all fronts. We have never bowed to a crown or leader (except recently, the current admin and the last one seems to believe the executive branch is borderline feudal lordship), thus, a large centralized power simply won't work.
Just as anti-gun laws won't work, as this country is a gun-culture. People simply won't stand for it, again the urbanites don't count as they are essentially western Europeans, IMO have no business here.

Now, I'm no fan of Thatcher for what she did to the Irish....however, she was right about one thing....socialism works until you run out of other peoples money. Eventually, businesses close and move out, and there goes the tax revenue (see France, new tax policy moved out 70 top major businesses in France elsewhere).
 
Last edited:
Corporatism: our current model of capitalism generating profit without responsibility and will probably destroy the Planet Earth.

Complete Newspeak. Corporatism has nothing to do with capitalism, it is a Third Position theory supported by Fascists and its form is completely different to anything remotely related to the current U.S system. Try reading up on corporatism before using the word.

No.
[ . . . ]

Rhine capitalism is not socialism. The Nordic model even is not socialism. Socialism is a horizontal network of direct democracy through both economic and political democracy. Worker-owned co-operatives, nationalized utilities, and a direct ownership of the means of production by citizens is socialism.

Most people are sprouting Newspeak.
 
Of course it is. And it is pretty much the inevitable direction that we're going in. The last five hundred years have been a continual march away from aristocracy and towards egalitarianism. The next five hundred are likely to be no different. That's the direction humanity is going in. I don't know how far behind or ahead the United States will be, or even if there will be a United States. But the world is basically only going to get more egalitarian unless we do something insane like have a nuclear war and destroy civilization. And even then, it might still.
 
Socialism is a system where everyone gets free hamburgers but nobody is willing to make them. ;)
 
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.
 
Of course it is. And it is pretty much the inevitable direction that we're going in. The last five hundred years have been a continual march away from aristocracy and towards egalitarianism.

Just to add (and I'm sympathetic to socialism but ultimately nonpartisan): the development of technology and the means of production has certainly made production more social, that is, the division of labour and the assembly line has absorbed small-scale producers in such a way that they are at the whim of those who own these means of production. The contradiction of the last 500 years is that the wealth produced by the means of production have been expropriated by their owners, and a fraction has trickled down. See the pattern? The socialization of labour and the centralization of capital.

Workers will one day be able to take control of their workplace and institute democracy, at least that's what I hope - and that's ultimately what socialism is about: democracy.
 
See the pattern? The socialization of labour and the centralization of capital.

Yep, and the laborers don't seem particularly interested in supporting the capitalists any longer.
 
We already have quite a bit of socialism in the US. People never like to call it that, but it is here.
 
Workers will one day be able to take control of their workplace and institute democracy, at least that's what I hope - and that's ultimately what socialism is about: democracy.
Hope all you want.
It ain't gonna happen that way. It isn't their workplace.
It is their employer's workplace, which will only change to - it is the government's (the employer) work place.
 
Last edited:
Is socialism possible in the United States?


In the USA? It has been trying a number of times and has never worked. But there are different ways a socialist society can be constructed and they run their course differently and crash along different paths. But they all have a built in destabilizer. Socialist societies have large mechanisms for massive redistribution from the allocative optimum. This means they do not find efficiency. This does not mean that the welfare of the society cannot be higher after redistribution. I have, however, never seen a model of social redistribution with a stable sollution of welfare above the allocative optimum8.
 
It ain't gonna happen that way. It isn't their workplace.

I believe everyone should benefit from their country's resources; we have the technology to make that a reality, too.

It is their employer's workplace, which will only change to - it is the government's (the employer) work place.

So you don't think companies could be controlled democratically and share profits amongst themselves?
 
In the USA? It has been trying a number of times and has never worked. But there are different ways a socialist society can be constructed and they run their course differently and crash along different paths. But they all have a built in destabilizer. Socialist societies have large mechanisms for massive redistribution from the allocative optimum. This means they do not find efficiency. This does not mean that the welfare of the society cannot be higher after redistribution. I have, however, never seen a model of social redistribution with a stable sollution of welfare above the allocative optimum8.

It is possible to have Pareto efficiency without allocative efficiency.
 
meant to post this on the poll page. Not sure if i should start a new one or if a mod will move it.

i will move it to polls.
 
Nope. Socialism is a defeatist attitude, and America doesn't really embrace admitting to being losers.
 
In the USA? It has been trying a number of times and has never worked. But there are different ways a socialist society can be constructed and they run their course differently and crash along different paths. But they all have a built in destabilizer. Socialist societies have large mechanisms for massive redistribution from the allocative optimum. This means they do not find efficiency. This does not mean that the welfare of the society cannot be higher after redistribution. I have, however, never seen a model of social redistribution with a stable sollution of welfare above the allocative optimum8.

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?
 
I believe everyone should benefit from their country's resources; we have the technology to make that a reality, too.



So you don't think companies could be controlled democratically and share profits amongst themselves?
I believe that if a bunch of people want to start a company and make a product they should. If they want to also be the workers, that is fine.
There is nothing stopping them.
Go for it.

But a business does not belong to the workers who have traded their labor to the employer for a wage.
It belongs to the owner(s) who put the investment in to start it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom