• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

A Failed Socialist State

American

Constitutionalist
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
88,999
Reaction score
28,043
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You just did exactly what I pointed out was invalid logic: use different source for different definitions rather than the same source for both. That's called "cherry picking" and it is invalid logic. Your argument has no merit because of it.

You didn't even use a dictionary for one of the definitions, but instead used a court case as though that's not an utterly asinine way to get a definition for a word.

Seriously, your argument can only have the effect of increasing people's ignorance.
Well I invalidate your logic, whatever it is. :mrgreen:
 

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
45,596
Reaction score
22,537
Location
Everywhere and nowhere
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
lets have a try at this again.:


America boldly proclaimed at its birth that natural rights were endowed by man’s very nature – and that individuals are incapable of relinquishing them. Because these rights are endowed in people from Nature’s God, they are inherent in each individual and cannot be abandoned – in other words, such rights are unalienable.

The definition of "unalienable rights," is those rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred to someone else - the government, for example, or another person. Some people refer to these as "natural" or "God-given" rights (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness).

"Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and (unalienable rights) of man." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:48

In contrast, "inalienable rights" are those rights that can only be transferred with the .......(consent of the person) possessing those rights, such as an indentured servant.

Alienable Inalienable Unalienable
Let's try this again:

Inalienable and unalienable have identical meanings. This has been PROVEN by showing that they have identical meanings in current dictionaries and in old dictionaries as well.

In order to make the utterly absurd argument that you present, you MUST rely on fallacy by REJECTING any legitimate definitions of inalienable found in DICTIONARIES and instead rely entirely on what is clearly a misuse of the term in a court case.

Rather than using the same source you use to define unalienable, you chose instead theleast logical route instead. Why do you do this? The answer is that your argument fails miserably when valid logic and consistent, legitmate sources are used.

I understand that, for some complete irrational and utterly incomprehensible reason, you WANT inalianble to mean something other than the exact same thing as unalienable, but unfortunately, reality cares naught for your desires. The mean precicely the same thing, as one of your own links so eloquently put it.
 

Donahue

Active member
Joined
Sep 11, 2012
Messages
498
Reaction score
173
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Isn't that what you are looking for? failed socialist states?

You do understand that nowadays, there are only 4 socialist and or communist states in the world remaining.

1. Republic of Laos.
2. China.
3. Cuba
4. N. Korea.

Those that failed were everything that the USSR had influenced. Outside the eastern block you had the asian communist countries like afghanistan and in africa you had a few countries, the most important one being ethiopia.

So.. I don't understand what more evidence you need? I mean, what is the point?
I'm not looking for anything. I didn't start this thread.

My point was that the OP doesn't want to include those because it goes against the answer he's looking for.
 

Spartacus FPV

Better You = Better World
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
14,870
Reaction score
7,126
Location
Your Echochamber
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
There can never be a fully socialist state, because socialism IS failure, they'll never make it all the way.
 

Rainman05

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
10,032
Reaction score
4,964
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm not looking for anything. I didn't start this thread.

My point was that the OP doesn't want to include those because it goes against the answer he's looking for.
I agree.
 

Paschendale

Uncanny
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
12,510
Reaction score
12,604
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
I'm not looking for anything. I didn't start this thread.

My point was that the OP doesn't want to include those because it goes against the answer he's looking for.
Just because a country says it's socialist doesn't actually mean that it is. North Korea being the easiest example. North Korea, while calling itself socialist, doesn't actually do anything in line with socialist principles. It is a fascist, military dictatorship. It is the exact type of society that socialism exists to oppose. The same was true of the Stalin-era USSR. The trampling of personal rights and the extreme concentration of power are completely antithetical to socialist ideals. Just as the Democratic Republic of Congo is neither democratic nor a republic, neither is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (aka North Korea) democratic or a republic, nor is it owned or operated by or for the benefit of the people.

The reason that those nations were excluded in the OP is because, despite their nomenclature, they are not examples of states that embrace socialist ideals.
 

Donahue

Active member
Joined
Sep 11, 2012
Messages
498
Reaction score
173
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Just because a country says it's socialist doesn't actually mean that it is. North Korea being the easiest example. North Korea, while calling itself socialist, doesn't actually do anything in line with socialist principles. It is a fascist, military dictatorship. It is the exact type of society that socialism exists to oppose. The same was true of the Stalin-era USSR. The trampling of personal rights and the extreme concentration of power are completely antithetical to socialist ideals. Just as the Democratic Republic of Congo is neither democratic nor a republic, neither is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (aka North Korea) democratic or a republic, nor is it owned or operated by or for the benefit of the people.

The reason that those nations were excluded in the OP is because, despite their nomenclature, they are not examples of states that embrace socialist ideals.
Sure but the Korean Peninsula didn't spontaneously burst into existence yesterday.

It is a very fair point to say North Korea resembles more of a fascist military dictatorship today than the socialist utopia you dream of but you're basically just ignoring the several decades they spent as an undeniably socialist country. You would do well to read up on "juche" and the history of North Korea up until about the 70's or early 80's. It is the failure of socialism that led to today's dictatorship.
 

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,310
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
I don't think the OP said a Purely, socialist state...
well if your not socialist then you are something else? That something else is what we see across much of Europe, that is mixed market economies. Hell even the USSR or the current "socialist states" are not even socialist..
 

Homer.

Banned
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Messages
267
Reaction score
78
Location
England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why can't those countries be included?
Because the USSR/Eastern European states were state capitalist & N.Korea is Juche.

The nearest we have come to true socialism in my opinion, was anarchist Spain during the civil war. This collapsed due to defeat by Franco & attacks from Stalinist communists.
 

Rainman05

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
10,032
Reaction score
4,964
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Because the USSR/Eastern European states were state capitalist & N.Korea is Juche.

The nearest we have come to true socialism in my opinion, was anarchist Spain during the civil war. This collapsed due to defeat by Franco & attacks from Stalinist communists.
There you go... separating out the "bad" socialist countries from the ideal utopia that communism promised to bring.
 

Homer.

Banned
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Messages
267
Reaction score
78
Location
England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There you go... separating out the "bad" socialist countries from the ideal utopia that communism promised to bring.
It's not a case of separating "bad" socialist countries. The USSR economy was run along state capitalist principles.

Lenin wrote:
"The state capitalism, which is one of the principal aspects of the New Economic Policy, is, under Soviet power, a form of capitalism that is deliberately permitted and restricted by the working class. Our state capitalism differs essentially from the state capitalism in countries that have bourgeois governments in that the state with us is represented not by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat, who has succeeded in winning the full confidence of the peasantry."
 

Spriggs05

Anarcho Facist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 14, 2012
Messages
1,428
Reaction score
854
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I was told that the path to communism is through socialism.
"The Path to" I wanted the States that hadn't gone down the path of Communism but stopped and sat down at the socialist roadside.
 

the makeout hobo

Rockin' In The Free World
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
7,102
Reaction score
1,504
Location
Sacramento, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
america was created with 1 direct and two indirect votes, that does not make democracy.

FEDERALIST PAPER #39 – Conformity of the Plan to ..........Republican Principles

please if you will produce a document by the (founders) which states we have representative democracy.

because John Adams says we don't!
Well if it's worth anything, Jefferson named his political party the "Democratic-Republican Party"
 

Rainman05

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
10,032
Reaction score
4,964
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It's not a case of separating "bad" socialist countries. The USSR economy was run along state capitalist principles.

Lenin wrote:
"The state capitalism, which is one of the principal aspects of the New Economic Policy, is, under Soviet power, a form of capitalism that is deliberately permitted and restricted by the working class. Our state capitalism differs essentially from the state capitalism in countries that have bourgeois governments in that the state with us is represented not by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat, who has succeeded in winning the full confidence of the peasantry."
Dude.

State capitalism is socialism and communism even though it says capitalism. Why? Because what is considered "private sector" is owned by the government. That is what socialism is. That is what the means of production in the hands of the people mean. That the government owns industry. There was no real private sector in the communist countries and that makes them socialist! Or rather, everything that in a free country would be part of the private sector, it was owned by the government.

Your misinformation on the subject is amazing. It even says that it is socialism in that quote you gave!
 

DinodudeEpic

New member
Joined
Sep 28, 2012
Messages
29
Reaction score
12
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Democracy does lead to socialism....And, this is a good thing.

Or, I should say that democracy (direct democracy) leads to libertarian socialism.

Almost all of the criticisms for direct democracy that I hear from most of these people here is that it somehow entails a tyranny of the majority.

Now, you know what prevents a republic from becoming an oligarchy? A constitution.

Okay, so what prevents a direct democracy from becoming a tyranny of the majority?

Simple, a constitution to protect individual rights and provide boundaries/limitations for the government.

In fact, I would go further and say that we need an economic constitution to limit enterprises from violating workers rights. (Such as what I believe is the theft of property inherent in the capitalist wage system, specifically their labor.)

What I don't get is that there could be a 'socialist' state. Is socialism not merely an economic philosophy? What about a free-market socialist economy in style of Proudhon's mutualism? Or even non-market and non-statist forms of socialism that do not require state control. Thus, I think the question is 'A failed socialist economy'. Of course, no, in my conception of socialism, since it hasn't been tried in a large scale outside of two civil wars, both of which had the libertarian socialists lose. (I blame bad military organization and a lack of resources on their part more than anything else, rather than economic factors.)

And, why does a constitution turn a direct democracy into something else? Does having a constitution turn a representative democracy into something else? No it doesn't.

Just to note, I'm not pulling a No True Scotsman. I have an objective definition of what is and what is not socialism. And it is, "workers self-management and ownership".
 

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Well if it's worth anything, Jefferson named his political party the "Democratic-Republican Party"
yes i do know that.

the premise is simple, the founders did not put power in only the peoples hands directly, because one person, a few, or even the people themselves can become corrupt.

to prevent that corruption of power, it was put into 3 sets of hands, and that is not popular government/ democracy.
 

the makeout hobo

Rockin' In The Free World
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
7,102
Reaction score
1,504
Location
Sacramento, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
yes i do know that.

the premise is simple, the founders did not put power in only the peoples hands directly, because one person, a few, or even the people themselves can become corrupt.

to prevent that corruption of power, it was put into 3 sets of hands, and that is not popular government/ democracy.
But all power is ultimately derived from popular vote, directly or indirectly. Every major official in America was elected in a popular vote, or appointed by people who were elected. Rome was a true Republic at the beginning, because it was run exclusively by the Patrician class with no input from the plebs. Venice was a republic that was run by wealthy merchants. A republic is ANY government that isn't a monarchy or a theocracy. Athens was a republic that had direct democracy. Venice was a republic run by merchants. Nazi Germany was a Republic run by the National Socialists. We are a republic. Our form of republic just so happens to be representative democracy.

Also, why did you pick a Nazi as your user name?
 

Wake

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
18,536
Reaction score
2,437
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Has there even been a purely socialist state? No. So there cannot be a failed socialist state in that terms.
Socialism is a bit like religion, because no matter how much you believe, it's not going to be reality.
 

Homer.

Banned
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Messages
267
Reaction score
78
Location
England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Dude.

State capitalism is socialism and communism even though it says capitalism. Why? Because what is considered "private sector" is owned by the government. That is what socialism is. That is what the means of production in the hands of the people mean. That the government owns industry. There was no real private sector in the communist countries and that makes them socialist!
Sorry but you're wrong, although I can understand why you would think that.

Socialism is social ownership of the means of production where goods & services are produced directly for use instead of profit

State capitalism is run on capitalist principles, i.e. on a for profit basis, The only difference is that the state has taken the role of the factory owner.

The key is is how you calculate production quantities required.
 
Last edited:

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Let's try this again:

Inalienable and unalienable have identical meanings. This has been PROVEN by showing that they have identical meanings in current dictionaries and in old dictionaries as well.

In order to make the utterly absurd argument that you present, you MUST rely on fallacy by REJECTING any legitimate definitions of inalienable found in DICTIONARIES and instead rely entirely on what is clearly a misuse of the term in a court case.

Rather than using the same source you use to define unalienable, you chose instead theleast logical route instead. Why do you do this? The answer is that your argument fails miserably when valid logic and consistent, legitmate sources are used.

I understand that, for some complete irrational and utterly incomprehensible reason, you WANT inalianble to mean something other than the exact same thing as unalienable, but unfortunately, reality cares naught for your desires. The mean precicely the same thing, as one of your own links so eloquently put it.
well you can take to mean the same,..... but its not.

one set of rights cannot be surrendered, and the other can.
 

DDD

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
12,351
Reaction score
1,918
Location
Republic of Dardania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
"The Path to" I wanted the States that hadn't gone down the path of Communism but stopped and sat down at the socialist roadside.
But your definition of Socialism VS Communism as they relate to economy is flawed. If communist state owns all the private sector then what about China? It is a communist state as you may know but there are private sectors there starting from Hong Kong and even in mainland China.
 

Rainman05

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
10,032
Reaction score
4,964
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Sorry but you're wrong, although I can understand why you would think that.

Socialism is social ownership of the means of production where goods & services are produced directly for use instead of profit

State capitalism is run on capitalist principles, i.e. on a for profit basis, where the state has taken the role of the factory owner.
communism and far left socialism dictates that the means of production (aka the industry and the producers of goods and services) are in the hands of the people as a collective, rather than individuals (that means, government).

All the eastern block and the USSR have indeed fit this definition.
 
Top Bottom