The debate "Socialism can work" was started by
March 12, 2016, 1:10 am.
17 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 10 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
PoliticsAsUsual posted 9 arguments, RyanWakefield posted 1 argument, PsychDave posted 8 arguments, Cato posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Alex posted 12 arguments, agent posted 11 arguments to the disagreers part.
Cato, PoliticsAsUsual, RyanWakefield, PsychDave, sickboyblonde, project_mayhem, Tbh and 10 visitors agree.
Alex, agent, wmd, ProudAmerican888 and 6 visitors disagree.
I understand. I got confused for a second.
You made a valid point about no socialist nation ever being as successful as America, and agent asked about USSR. We had just finished discussing the fact that USSR wasn't really socialist, so asking about it would just have been restarting the same line of discussion, so I tried to prevent cyclical debating.
am I missing something here?
Yes, but you replied with something that has already been addressed. Alex could easily copy and paste those answers.
oh no man i have my sa2 exams
What exactly is the delay?
on march 19 i will say my own type of government . its not dictatorship nor monarchy nor democracy. i myself worked it out.i assure every man and woman will be rich there. until then wait please...
oh no i replied to alex
That was covered already in response to your previous comments.
what about USSR?
cato explain what do you mean by socialism
People are gonna look at this debate and think: Oh they talk about communism! Communism - baad. Socialism must be something like that.
at the basic level communism is about common ownership of the means of production, without social classes, money or the state. this kind of country had never existed, if likely won't ever exist. the countries that are commonly described as communist are thinly veiled dictatorships or oligarchies.
oh no. i mean zi zingping. and what do you mean by communism? explain it to me CLEARLY..
you think mao Zedong came to power peacefully? no he fought a long bloody civil war. he also purged anyone he thought was disloyal. he too was a crazy dictator. he wasn't actually communist. there has never been an actual Communist government.
I will have to look that us, but both the establishment of the ussr, and it's most infamous actions were based entirely on dictatorship with communism just being a propaganda tool.
oh no. what after them? were not they elected?
stain and Lenin were elected? they murdered their way into power, and ruled absolutely until they died...
how can you not call that dictatorship?
north korea has destroyed the meaning of it
uff . man ussr was ruled by different elected presidents of communist party. thats what communism is.
ussr was a dictatorship. it had 1 person with absolute power. that wasn't communism.
to this day I am amazed how people can be so stupid as to think that an absolute dictator can be considered COMMUNist.
the root word in communism is community. a dictator has nothing to do with a community.
then as a debater give me reasons how socialism could work in a society like US or India or Britain
That was a corrupted version of communism, not socialism.
take example of USSR
socialism can never work.
So basically everything you said is either flawed or simply not true.
College would be free, but that doesn't mean everyone gets to go. Those who don't have the grades don't just get everything handed to them. The same way there is competition for admission now.
He fails out and so is only qualified for unskilled jobs with no education required. These jobs for exist, but under Sanders they would pay enough to love on meaning he would be better working than on welfare, motivating him to work rather than not.
Health care is a basic right that would better serve the nation if it was provided since there would be less cost for emergency care and chronic conditions if people could get treated before it became serious.
This is why I criticized your understanding of Sanders policies. Even when you are defending how well you understand them you demonstrate that wither you don't or you lie about them.
no... if he fails college he goes to minimum wage job. one that can support a very minimum lifestyle.
an unskilled, not smart guy wants to go to collage. under bernie he depends on the goverment to get him though collage. if he fails collage, and can get no job, he relies on the goverment for welfare, and healthcare.
You say that, but you don't actually understand his policies so your opinion has absolutely no value. You have repeatedly failed to differentiate between communism and socialism and have repeatedly misrepresented his plans and policies. Unless you have some quote or evidence to back this claim, it can safely be disregarded.
but "on our own" is opposite of what bernie wants. he wants people dependant on the goverment.
why do you believe the rich are so essential? it is actually the working class the drivers every working of society. the top .1% would be able to get little done without the rest of us. the 99 would be more than fine on their own.
so what if they leave? are you saying Americans can't do anything alone?
mom and pop shops will rise up to the demand and profit potential and a whole new generation of Americans will prosper. Im sure well be all to tax the hell out of any money they take out of our economy.
They will run of to Mexico then, and move their factories to china. maybe the rich people can get together and by "trump island" and live there. LOL.
Alex, from what you have said previously you seem to think people will run off to China, in spite of this not being possible. Since there is no legal way to immigrate to China, and even if they could they wouldn't get the same kind of preferential treatment they are used to, where exactly do you think all the wealthy people are going to go? As has been stated, Europe is less permissive of greed and corruption than the US, as is Canada, Australia and pretty much any other nation it is possible to move to.
the only place they can go that will offer equivalent opportunities for money is Europe that is already way more socialist than the us, and was a perfectly fine option even back in fdr times.
ok you said FDR was not a socialist who used socialist policies. you were a bit unclear. FDR took advantage of the rich having nowhere to go, so he could take their money.
times are different now. back then there was nowhere for the rich to move to. today they can go basically anywhere.
I never said he was socialist, but he used a lot of socialist policies, including an over 90% effective tax rate on the wealthy that drove none of the rich away
am I saying "no socialism" I want the goverment to monitor insurance companies.
black is capitalism, white is socialism.
if I have 5 % white and 95% black. only an idiot would say "socialism" even if it's 20% white, it would still be way closer to black.
I'm not whining. im pointing out to you that you don't know what you are talking about. you go on and on about the evils if socialism when your country, and every other country, already has socialist policies. it isnt whether socialism works, it's how much socialism we should have. no one but an idiot would advocate for no socialism.
historybuff stop wining "every country needs socialist policies" having 1 or 2 socialist things does not make a country socialist. america isn't considered socialist, yet it has a couple socialist policies.
FDR was not socialist. you crazy?
socialism is a part of all modern countries. any country than didn't have it would function very poorly, including the US.
America has serious social inequalities
America reached its height during fdr's socialist policies
what makes you say that? because no socialist country has ever came close to being as successful as america.
and true socialism is impossible, true equality is impossible.