• 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!

Socialism can work

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,312
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Capitalism isn't working, so what is the alternative? This question must have at least crossed the minds of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, around the world as they watched the credit crunch, financial meltdown and recession unfold over the past few months. The problem, of course, is that for those same millions most of their conditioning - from politicians, media, education and a good deal of their experience - will have been to answer that there is no alternative. No alternative to capitalism as such at any rate; no alternative that goes beyond a modified version of capitalism as represented by the "new" Keynesian, Gordon Brown, or perhaps Barack Obama.In fact, a definite and clearly articulated alternative - socialism - has existed for at least 160 years (Karl Marx and Frederick Engels wrote The Communist Manifesto in 1848). Socialism is very straightforward and, compared to capitalism, extremely simple. It means social (or collective) ownership and control of the main means of production (land, factories, businesses, banks, etc) and production for human need, not profit, and with this the abolition of class divisions.
The trouble for many people is not that this is very complicated, or hard to understand, but that it just sounds too good to be true. Many of us get so ground down and demoralised by living under capitalism that we become convinced that nothing as evidently sane and good as socialism could possibly ever really happen - life just isn't like that, so there must be a catch somewhere.
In this article I intend to argue that socialism is not too good to be true, that it is a perfectly reasonable and practical way of organising society, and that the various objections to it which spring into our minds, because they have been planted there by the dominant capitalist ideology, are illusory or even downright silly. I say silly because when people are deeply prejudiced they often think arguments are obvious, because they are based on their prejudices, which are in fact absurd and which disappear like a puff of smoke the moment the matter is tested in practice.
For example, in Bristol in 1963 there was a dispute about whether black workers should be allowed to drive buses and some of the racists argued that black people lacked the speedy reactions needed for bus driving (like Pele and Mohammed Ali had slow reactions!). Another example: before Angela Rippon started reading the news in 1974, it was actually maintained by some sexist dinosaurs that the public wouldn't take the news seriously if it was read by a woman. Obviously such arguments evaporate as soon as the colour or gender bar is breached.


Read more @: Socialism can work - StumbleUponI believe that socialism can work. If you believe that socialism cannot work I ask you why? Why? Just take a look at this article.

Thoughts?
comments?
Response?
 
Socialism can work?

Of course it can, just requires a touch of totalitarianism !!!!

Turn people into enslaved subjects of a political entity and you have socialism!!

Works well in n Korea!!!
 
Socialism cannot work.

The goal of socialism is utopia, which means "no place."
 
Capitalism isn't working...

Why isn't capitalism working, again?

Socialism is very straightforward and, compared to capitalism, extremely simple.

Actually, it's the other way around. Capitalism is extremely simple, while socialism is complicated and convoluted.
 
Last edited:
No system is perfect. If you gonna leave everything to market forces as in Capitalism, Europe and USA would be bustling today.
 
Yes socialisim can and does work. It works for ants, bees and the Borg.


And United States Military, the very people we are so proud of and right fully so. Best Training, best education, best equipment and best medical care....Booyah!


Diving Mullah
 
Socialism cannot work.

The goal of socialism is utopia, which means "no place."

No that is not the goal of socialism... The goal of socialism is ownership of the workplace by the workers...
 
Socialism can work?

Of course it can, just requires a touch of totalitarianism !!!!

Turn people into enslaved subjects of a political entity and you have socialism!!

Works well in n Korea!!!

:lamo

I'm glad you read the article....
Great job...
And if you can tell me one socialistic aspect about the DPRK i will gladly listen.
 
I haven't read the article you linked to but let's start here.

TheDemSocialist said:
Socialism is very straightforward and, compared to capitalism, extremely simple.

Yes, it is extremely simple because it ignores economic law and assumes super-abundance of goods.

Simple question to start off a civil dialogue: How are prices determined in a socialist economy?
 
And United States Military, the very people we are so proud of and right fully so. Best Training, best education, best equipment and best medical care....Booyah!


Diving Mullah

The military is a small (relatively) group of people who are employed by and cared for by millions of people in a capitalist system. They don't have an economic structure independently.
 
Depends on your goals. If you want to engineer a social-economic outcome then socialistic-totalitarianism is your system. If you want freedom, then capitalism is your system. Freedom and socialism can't coexist.
 
I haven't read the article you linked to but let's start here.



Yes, it is extremely simple because it ignores economic law and assumes super-abundance of goods.

Simple question to start off a civil dialogue: How are prices determined in a socialist economy?

The Market....
 
Depends on your goals. If you want to engineer a social-economic outcome then socialistic-totalitarianism is your system. If you want freedom, then capitalism is your system. Freedom and socialism can't coexist.

That is simply not true.
Can you get past this right wing talking point?
 
The linked article by John Molyneux was highly redundant and begged many questions. Here are my initial comments and critiques:

John Molyneux said:
For example, in Bristol in 1963 there was a dispute about whether black workers should be allowed to drive buses …

The examples provided as evidence of capitalist failures have absolutely nothing to do with capitalism as an economic system and have everything to do with the political system. The interesting thing about socialism is that it is impossible to separate the economic system from the political system because they are highly dependent upon each other; remove one and the other collapses. Capitalism, on the other hand, exists without regard to the political system in use and is in no way dependent upon the political system. Granted, the political system is very adept at manipulating and skewing the results and “playing field” of capitalism but this is not at contention within this article.

John Molyneux said:
Socialism would deal with this seemingly intractable problem of hunger in the easiest and most obvious way, the way any ordinary family deals with it, by not treating food as a commodity and simply distributing enough of it to people to ensure that everyone has enough for a healthy diet.

An “ordinary family” must either produce or purchase the food they consume. He mentions no method of overcoming this insurmountable obstacle. Continuing…

John Molyneux said:
If food was distributed free there would be no incentive. Wouldn't people all stop work? Actually, no. … The truth is the opposite: if you are starving you soon lose the ability to work at all and people with a decent diet work much more productively than the malnourished.

His logic is astounding. Since man cannot work without food he must work in order to get food. But the truth is, he did nothing to address the issue of incentive besides pointing out the obvious that people will do what is necessary to keep from starving.

If food is distributed free, who will produce food? He correctly states that work will not suddenly cease but he dismisses the fact that excess quantities of food will cease to be produced. If it takes manual labor in order to produce food, who in their right mind will expend labor for more than his personal intake of food? If a farmer must give up his entire crop in excess of what he personally consumes why in the world would he produce more than he could consume? This would have the effect of drastically reducing food production and would create worldwide famine.

John Molyneux said:
Dealing with the immediate problem of homelessness would just involve requisitioning the empty properties, the mansions and second and third homes of the rich.

In other words, take by force what has already been created through the “excesses” of capitalism and redistribute it according to… morals? How does providing housing for “the poor” justify theft from others? Is this one of those “two wrongs make a right” things?

John Molyneux said:
Use the census to estimate the housing needs of the population (something like this happens already) and establish a public house building programme, employing thousands of bricklayers, carpenters and other building workers to build slightly more houses than are needed.

And they will be paid how?

John Molyneux said:
In other words, stop treating houses as a commodity and distribute them on the basis of need.

Who determines need?
 
No system is perfect. If you gonna leave everything to market forces as in Capitalism, Europe and USA would be bustling today.

So can you tell me which actual countries (not city-states) leave everything to market forces? I'd like to study some examples.
 
So can you tell me which actual countries (not city-states) leave everything to market forces? I'd like to study some examples.

This is a loaded question. There are none of course because a "country" cannot exist without a government and government by definition requires intervention in the market.
 
I haven't read the article you linked to but let's start here.



Yes, it is extremely simple because it ignores economic law and assumes super-abundance of goods.

Simple question to start off a civil dialogue: How are prices determined in a socialist economy?

Could they not be determined in a manner similar to in a capitalistic economy (supply and demand with special considerations to cost)? Or as a straight multiple of cost.
 
Depends on your goals. If you want to engineer a social-economic outcome then socialistic-totalitarianism is your system. If you want freedom, then capitalism is your system. Freedom and socialism can't coexist.

I see no reason whatsoever that freedom and socialism can't coexist.

It's a matter of how much you have of each ideal. In the US we have a certain amount of each. Our road system is largely socialistic, and indeed we have a certain loss of freedom by having to obey traffic laws, yet our road system and the traffic laws that comes with it help create certain freedoms that we never had before.

There are elements of of socialism within all forms of goverment. Of course you may not choose to admit it, so you may choose to define your words really weird, but it is true. Even the most basic function of government, the military, is created with socialism. So if anything, I'd have to sugest that you can't have government without at least a minimal degree of socialism.
 
Could they not be determined in a manner similar to in a capitalistic economy (supply and demand with special considerations to cost)? Or as a straight multiple of cost.

Don't forget that costs are simply prices as well. You can't determine prices based on prices because you'd be stuck in a perpetual circular event.

I was looking for some sort of example to make it easier to understand but we'll run with your suggestion. What would supply and demand look like in a socialist economy? (I'm not sure what you mean by "special considerations to cost")

The linked article suggests that food should be distributed freely and no longer treated as a commodity. This begs the questions of how much food should each person get and what types of food should each person receive? Do we all get caviar? What if I don't like caviar? Do we all get three loaves of bread a week? What if I'm hungrier than that and I want four?

The only way to determine how much caviar and loaves of bread should be produced is through the pricing mechanism. If loaves of bread begin selling for $50 apiece it doesn't take a genius to realize that one should begin baking loaves of bread and selling them to your neighbors. But the entire pricing mechanism is based on an impossibly enormous and complex market which allows competition to determine which raw materials are most scarce (and thus forces people to limit consumption) and those which are abundant (allowing higher consumption) while simultaneously directing these scarce resources to the production of the most desirable goods.

The government could decree that every human on the face of the earth shall receive a blanket made of pure silk intertwined with gold string but the natural scarcity of these materials makes it impossible. Food (and every other economic good) is also scarce and requires human labor to be available for consumption. The labor will simply not be exerted without some form of remuneration.

So I guess I'm asking how you can base prices on supply and demand without the economic system being based on capitalism?
 
TNAR said:
Don't forget that costs are simply prices as well. You can't determine prices based on prices because you'd be stuck in a perpetual circular event.

This is a non-question. The entire phenomenon of price presupposes capitalist relations of production, namely centralized markets and the separation of producer, supplier and consumer.
 
Last edited:
Personally I think some aspects of socialism would work (healthcare and housing provided by the government), but disagree with the idea that private enterprise cannot exist. It isn't necessarily totalitarian but as long as the corporations are responsible I'm fine with them existing purely for profit. I especially disagree with National Socialism, which combines aspects of socialism and the worst parts of the far right.

By the way, for those who are wondering socialism and communism are different things.
 
This is a loaded question. There are none of course because a "country" cannot exist without a government and government by definition requires intervention in the market.

Sure. So then the statement that I was replying to is moot - as capitalism can't exist without government. So if capitalism can't exist without government, then the question is what is the economic maximumizing amount of government.

No system is perfect. If you gonna leave everything to market forces as in Capitalism, Europe and USA would be bustling today.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
This is a non-question. The entire phenomenon of price presupposes capitalist relations of production, namely centralized markets and the separation of producer, supplier and consumer.

It was a statement not a question so... I agree? Not sure where you're going here.

Centralized markets are not necessary for capitalism or the price mechanism.
 
Back
Top Bottom