About 22 years ago socialism gave up and started disintegrating. Do you think it could have succeeded if capitalism wasn't standing on the way? You know, if capitalism didn't oppose and let it be?
I'd say otherwise, spikey. Several hundred years ago, capitalism was the chicken and socialism was the egg that became the offshoot.
However, if you're talking waaaay old times - feudal China, natives in the Western Hemisphere, Biblical times in the Middle East - they seemed pretty socialist. There really was no "money", per se, in Macchu Picchu or Mesopotamian settlements.
Socialism is succeeding just fine. It's the direction that civilization has been heading towards for centuries. Or rather, we've been heading away from inequality and mass ownership and control by the powerful few. Capitalism, with protections for the property rights of many, was a hugely important step in this process. The trend is continuing past that towards socialist ideals, and will continue even past them. Socialism is working just fine, and will continue to do so, up until the next step comes along.
Gipper's above statement about inevitability was half right, in that progressing past capitalism is just as inevitable as progressing to it in the first place.
However, if you're talking waaaay old times - feudal China, natives in the Western Hemisphere, Biblical times in the Middle East - they seemed pretty socialist. There really was no "money", per se, in Macchu Picchu or Mesopotamian settlements.
Not to mention that Christianity seems pretty socialist too - love your fellow man, be humble, the love of money is the root of all evil, it's easier for the camel... etc.
LOL - and lame
"No sex before marriage"
"No sex on your period"
*yawn*
Well - in a socialist society - who DOES claim ownership and control?
The powerful - VERY few.
Canell said:Not to mention that Christianity seems pretty socialist too - love your fellow man, be humble, the love of money is the root of all evil, it's easier for the camel... etc.
This always gets me per socialism. It's always described as " heading away from inequality and mass ownership and control by the powerful few. "
Well - in a socialist society - who DOES claim ownership and control?
The powerful - VERY few.
It's like a Monarchy on steroids . . . and it's suppose to be ok for such a small group to be so dominant and oppressive as long as everyone has food to eat. :shrug:
And individuals still have to work their asses off to provide for everyone and fill their piece of the puzzle in. . . I'd much rather work my ass off and benefit exponentially - and my children - and my great grandkids. . . and so on.
That's the progression though. Eventually you must elect leaders who will do anything to get and retain power, at which point you have an overblown junta like Stalin.
The Soviet Union essentially started out as a socialist "worker's paradise" during the October Revolution and the ousting of the Czar. Eventually, power centralized though. It always does. No matter what the intention, it always does. There are number of nations that have similar beginnings, only to federalize into a totalitarian or dictatorial body. I don't say "all socialism is authoritarian" because it sounds catchy. Once you centralize power, it's too difficult to decentralize. The people begin to obey out of fear.
Asian nations such as China and India only began to prosper when they started to allow laissez-faire market forces permeate through the borders. Before then, they were a system of stagnation that could have long been able to be a superpower, but never able to capitalize.
That's the progression though. Eventually you must elect leaders who will do anything to get and retain power, at which point you have an overblown junta like Stalin.
The Soviet Union essentially started out as a socialist "worker's paradise" during the October Revolution and the ousting of the Czar. Eventually, power centralized though. It always does. No matter what the intention, it always does. There are number of nations that have similar beginnings, only to federalize into a totalitarian or dictatorial body. I don't say "all socialism is authoritarian" because it sounds catchy.
Once you centralize power, it's too difficult to decentralize. The people begin to obey out of fear.
About 22 years ago socialism gave up and started disintegrating.
If you're invoking Scandanavia, I'm going to punch you.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?