Socialism is the ideal way to go. Change my Mind - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

As either the transitional stage to communism or legitimate socio-economic ends in its own right.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15000776
I see a lot of hate and/or fear against socialism. I'm in favor of it.

I want to have a discussion with someone about it. Who would like to debate?

Only one person please. Once I choose that person they will get all of my focus and attention, and the others will only be spectators.
#15000784
If nobody wants to have a socialist versus non socialist discussion with you, then I suggest you have a socialist versus socialist discussion.

There could be more to debate about with a socialist versus a socialist because their politics are more similar, thus allowing to discuss more about the smaller topics that have so much potential. Because if you have a capitalist versus socialist, then you'll be talking about the same few things since your politics are so much different.
#15000922
Socialism kills economies
capitalism is better with all its faults because it allows economies to develop with minimal government interference. this is the way to create healthy economies
socialism=more bureaucracy=more government involvement in the economy and the result is unhealthy economy that is doomed to collapse

in Russia there is a massive bureaucracy even today this is the leftovers of socialism and this is holding the economy alot

just take a look at this ranking here
https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

the socialist countries are all at the bottom
#15000923
SolarCross wrote:@Agent Steel I'll have a go if you like. @Truth To Power is right that you should start with some definitions.

@Agent Steel It might help you make your choice of opponent to know that SolarCross (also ZN, though I'm not as sure about him) will engage you from the perspective of defending capitalism, while I won't, except to the extent of stipulating that socialism is even worse.
#15000925
Truth To Power wrote:@Agent Steel It might help you make your choice of opponent to know that SolarCross (also ZN, though I'm not as sure about him) will engage you from the perspective of defending capitalism, while I won't, except to the extent of stipulating that socialism is even worse.


exactly. Capitalism can destroy countries and societies too but socialism have never proven to be succesful I will give some modern examples as we all know what happened to the Warsaw block
the socialist experiment is either ending very bady(Venezuela,) being dropped (China) or a reaching a complete stagnation (Vietnam,Laos,Cuba)
#15000932
Agent Steel wrote:I have to choose just one person ok?

I will choose SolarCross.

SolarCross, why do you think that socialism is not a good form of government?


Thanks for choosing me. :) Before I answer your question do you mind if we sort out some definitions first? Just to make sure we are discussing the same thing.

Meriam-webster has this for socialism:

Definition of 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
2a : 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
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

and since we can't talk about socialism in isolation from its alternative which is capitalism we should have a definition for that too:

Definition of capitalism

: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Do you accept these definitions?
Last edited by SolarCross on 24 Apr 2019 20:51, edited 1 time in total.
#15000935
Agent Steel wrote:I see a lot of hate and/or fear against socialism. I'm in favor of it.

What flavour of socialism do you prefer, Raspberry, Chocolate or Vanilla?
#15000937
SolarCross wrote:
Thanks for choosing me. :) Before I answer your question do you mind if we sort out some definitions first? Just to make sure we are discussing the same thing.

Meriam-webster has this for socialism:

Definition of 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
2a : 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
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

and since we can't talk about socialism in isolation from its alternative which is capitalism we should have a definition for that too:

Definition of capitalism

: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Do you accept these definitions?


I hope it's ok if I don't fully agree with those terms.

I know it's in the dictionary but do I have to accept them? My own definition varies from that.
#15000938
Agent Steel wrote:I hope it's ok if I don't fully agree with those terms.

I know it's in the dictionary but do I have to accept them? My own definition varies from that.

Okay well what are your definitions then? Are they very different from the standard definitions? We may not be able to have a conversation if we don't agree on what the words we are using mean.
#15000952
Ok I mean my definitions are that far off from those but they're somewhat different.

I mean if we're starting off with different ideas about what socialism is then it will be hard to have a conversation.

Let's just start with this:

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

I mean that's pretty close to my definition but not exactly. It's close enough though.

Tell me why you don't like this theory? Let's start with that.
#15000958
Agent Steel wrote:Ok I mean my definitions are that far off from those but they're somewhat different.

I mean if we're starting off with different ideas about what socialism is then it will be hard to have a conversation.

Let's just start with this:

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

I mean that's pretty close to my definition but not exactly. It's close enough though.

Tell me why you don't like this theory? Let's start with that.

I have a lot of objections to this but for starters:

1. Single point of failure, as I am sure @Rancid appreciates networks which are designed around a client-server model are less robust to disaster and general screw ups than peer-to-peer networks. Socialism wants to be an all encompasing monopoly over everything while capitalism is by definition distributed authority. If Dear Leader has a fit and decides Ukrainians don't get food this year then millions die. Dear Leader then is a single point of failure which can bring down the whole system. On the other hand, if Joe the greengrocer, one amongst thousands of food distributors, decides he hates ukrainians so bad that he will deny them access to food, no one will notice as any one of thousands of other greengrocers will fill the void.

2. You can't get there from where we are without gargantuan thefts. Like it or not, theft is a violation of the compact of civilisation.

3. It is slavery. When a political structure has total control over what you have, what you can say, where you go and think then you are defacto the slave of that structure. Why would anyone want to be a slave?

4. There is no benefit in it that might offset its vast and appalling problems.

Will that do for starters?

------------

I just thought of another one:

5. Socialists are horrible, horrible, people. I don't meant they are horrible because they are socialists I mean they are horrible people in their characters quite separately from the odiousness of their beliefs. Given that under the jackboots of socialism the socialists will be the overclass controlling everything then they really need to be saintly people for that situation to be even remotely tolerable. As it is none of them are, just the opposite.
#15000960
Socialism wants to be an all encompasing monopoly over everything while capitalism is by definition distributed authority.


Huh :?: That's a really weird thing to say since it's actually the exact opposite way around.

Capitalism is what leads to singular powers in the hands of monopolies; socialism is about allowing fair distribution of power by restricting corrupt individuals from owning more wealth than they deserve.

In a socialist government there would not be power in the hands of a "dear leader"; if a famine takes places because a corrupt leader takes power of all the government, how is that the fault of socialism? Sounds more like capitalism in my opinion.

It's not slavery to be obligated to contribute to your community, the very community that you need in order to succeed yourself.

Specifically on "theft" I'm not sure what you're referring to but I think theft can be justified in some cases.

I believe that capitalists are much more horrible people in my experience. The reason being is that they are exceedingly selfish and greedy people. They care only about their own well-being and have no problem screwing over the entire society if it helps them to make money.

Briefly I'll say that the reason I'm a socialist is because I believe in giving people things that they deserve to have. Socialism achieves this by implementing a fair distribution of goods. By contrast capitalism leads to unfair and one-sided distribution of goods in the hands of the small few.

What we see in capitalism, though it has not amounted to violence or killing (yet), is tyranny, corruption, and dictatorship. Those are the same problems experienced by the alleged "socialist" regimes such as China and Russia.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 21

The private sector does it better. That is why […]

It wasn't Putin who pushed the Donald to run,it w[…]

“Iceworm”

@BigSteve The text you keep quoting is from th[…]

Very true, in fact. I asked you why it wasn't […]