- Joined
- Nov 8, 2006
- Messages
- 13,406
- Reaction score
- 8,258
- Location
- Milwaukee, WI
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
In reality, in socialism the workers have no power. The state has power and the workers are like bees in a hive. If we were like bees and all willingly sacrificed for the good of the colony, it might work, but humans are a wee bit evolved compared to honeybees.
I dont want to be nit-picking or derail the thread, but what the USSR had was not pure Socialism. It was Communism which IS different from Socialism.
State-Capitalism, actually, but that's another debate.I don't want to be nit picking, but what the USSR had was Dictatorial Socialism.
If the workers don't have power then it can't be socialism because socialism by definition is the dictatorship of the working class.
In theory it sounds great, but in reality it can't exist.
Socialism in a human construct system would be a dictatorship over the working class.
In theory it sounds great, but in reality it can't exist. Socialism in a human construct system would be a dictatorship over the working class. The great majority of humans could not handle otherwise because they can't even maintain power over their own impulses.
Then it isn't socialism.
phattonez said:How do you figure?
So democracy can't work either?
The definition of socialism is working class power. If there is no working class power then there can be no socialism. It's a simple identity. A ≡ A. If A is not the same as A then it cannot be A and must be something else.
Either it can exist or it cannot, but it cannot be both.
God, you go right on to contradict yourself in the same post! :roll:
"Ownership" by the workers can exist. Power cannot. There's a few people who could manage themselves well enough to live in a socialist or communist society (with actual shared power). Most cannot. In a socialist country (example former USSR), there was shared ownership, but the power rested with a few.
The definition of socialism is working class power.
If you had asked a feudal lord whether the emerging merchant class could ever come to dominate the political world he would have said that it was contrary to the laws of God, human nature and common sense. In reality of course, said Feudal lord was a member of an obsolete class at the head of an obsolete mode of production. One which had long ago ceased to increase productivity, creativity and freedom but had become a detriment to it.In reality, in socialism the workers have no power. The state has power and the workers are like bees in a hive. If we were like bees and all willingly sacrificed for the good of the colony, it might work, but humans are a wee bit evolved compared to honeybees.
If the workers have no power then it cannot be socialism.
It's much deeper than who owns the property.
lizzie said:Tell that to the Russians who were adults prior to the fall of the union. Find the ones, who were not "officials" who thought or believed they had any power whatsoever. I'd love to visit with them, because my experience with all the Russians I know is quite the opposite.
The same is true of Capitalism today. It is obsolete. It hinders production, creativity and human freedom.
I don't know if you're just incredibly dense or what, but I'm arguing that the USSR wasn't socialist.
lizzie said:They certainly believe they were.
The idea is there. Socialism is needed to make it a reality.The idea that you or I have the power to succeed based on our own innovation and energy is right in line with the evolution of species.
Textbook argumentum ad populum.
Next! :2wave:
Ockham said:More like textbook avoidance of discussing the topic by constantly claiming a fallacy. It's one of the oldest bail out moves on the internet forums. Be bold, be different --- discuss the topic.
faminedynasty said:If you had asked a feudal lord whether the emerging merchant class could ever come to dominate the political world he would have said that it was contrary to the laws of God, human nature and common sense. In reality of course, said Feudal lord was a member of an obsolete class at the head of an obsolete mode of production. One which had long ago ceased to increase productivity, creativity and freedom but had become a detriment to it.
Not only would the Feudal lord have felt that the impending rise of Capitalism was impossible, unnatural, and against the laws of God and human nature, but so did most of the working class at the time and even most of the merchant class that would become modern capitalists.
The same is true of Capitalism today. It is obsolete. It hinders production, creativity and human freedom. But just as was the case with Feudalism, those born and raised within it generally assume it to be natural and permanent, and superior alternatives to it to be impossible.
Capitalism has been around sime time immemorial and has just evolved through the progression of man. Be it feudalism, mercantilism, corporatism, or pure laissez-faire free market, you're not talking about a recent invention.
Gipper said:The Soviet Union failed because it was broke, period.
If you think capitalism causes a lot of ruckus and in-fighting, I challenge you to find a significant population who think they really embrace communistic values.
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?