Sweden may not be socialist but for decades socialists ran the place, And ran it very well for the most part, China has embraced market policies to out of necessity but is still run by the communist party, My point is all it really takes for a society to be socialist is to have people with honest socialist values in control, Socialism is a very new idea and attempts to make it work have often failed badly, So new things are tried, But the goals are the same a good life for the average person opportunities do do better, Access to education housing and health care and food for all member of a society, And attempts to make society more equitable remain
Alright so to start off, All because a Government is ran mostly by socialists members would not make it a socialist nation, One basic reason is because most countries such as the USA already has a system set up to keep it the way it is. For example lets say for what ever reason most of the members in the USA government became socialists, The country would still be democratic. There are admendments and different ways the country runs that would keep it the way it is. Yes some changes of course will come but overall the country would remain the same if it already has a strong government and way of living. Another factor to add in is the people, You can't just change up everything for people in the country it takes time, And if your try too people wouldn't allow it them selves and cause tons of riots, Protesting ect. In conclusion so far all because most of the members change does not mean it will be change the whole country to being a socialist country
Socialist parties advocate for socialist policies so even if they supervise a capitalist system they have socialist goals that they make that economy work for
I am paying attention that's why I addressed a separate point than the debate topic and used the comment section. You're not gunna learn anything from being edgy and pushy online other than that no one cares, But you'll keep looking stupid.
There's not tonnes of evidence for it. People know capitalism is too rigid in america in some areas like health and agriculture for example. Yes more """social""" approaches should be looked at. But not "socialist" approaches. Look for progress. Stop using the term "socialist" for your movement or philosophy or whatever if it doesn't follow any Marxist/Leninist philosophy. What you're talking about just sounds like capitalism with healthier regulations. If those regulations involve a lot of redistribution similar to socialist policies then it's probably a load of crap.
Though not all redistribution is bad for the health of society or the economy it must be a very careful tool used sparingly. There are plenty of ethical issues with large scale redistribution and plethora of examples of "social" policies being abrasive to people as individuals.
The actions of a country, Speaking louder than words, Louder than their label.
If a man calls himself a vegetarian, Yet eats meat, Most would not consider him a vegetarian. Though arguments could be made that he is 'attempting to follow a vegetarian way of life, And considers himself a vegetarian for that reason.
Many paths in life are not followed with completeness, Yet people are still considered what they call themselves, If they appear to be trying, Or have other factors involved.
I don't know if I would consider the Nazi's socialist or not, I would have to do more research on the subject.
I suppose if a nation was run by a socialist party, 'and followed a socialist agenda to a 'certain extent, I might consider the nation to be socialist.
Although, I could argue a socialist party ran a government, But did not 'implement any socialist policies, The country would not be socialist.
But I do not care for that argument. As I 'mostly agree with the title of this debate, I am not especially motivated to debate you.
I could play devils advocate, But no argument occurs to me yet.
@billsands
I think it could be argued that there are forms of society that more or less encourages the freedom or enslavement of the individual.
Individuals being sovereign over themselves is a large motivation to anarchists and libertarions, I imagine. As well as what frightens a number of people 'away from socialism, I think. People. . . Are more willing to accept government when it is 'necessary I think. Many socialist party ideas don't seem necessary to people I assume.
I considered it, But was too lazy to consider the question.
I might accept it, But first I'm going to have to think about why the statement
"if a nation is run by a socialist party it is socialist"
Would be considered true or false.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.
Without good there can not be evil.
No yin, No yang, Type of thought.
There's not tonnes of evidence for it. People know capitalism is too rigid in america in some areas like health and agriculture for example. Yes more """social""" approaches should be looked at. But not "socialist" approaches. Look for progress. Stop using the term "socialist" for your movement or philosophy or whatever if it doesn't follow any Marxist/Leninist philosophy. What you're talking about just sounds like capitalism with healthier regulations. If those regulations involve a lot of redistribution similar to socialist policies then it's probably a load of crap.
Though not all redistribution is bad for the health of society or the economy it must be a very careful tool used sparingly. There are plenty of ethical issues with large scale redistribution and plethora of examples of "social" policies being abrasive to people as individuals.
The actions of a country, Speaking louder than words, Louder than their label.
If a man calls himself a vegetarian, Yet eats meat, Most would not consider him a vegetarian. Though arguments could be made that he is 'attempting to follow a vegetarian way of life, And considers himself a vegetarian for that reason.
Many paths in life are not followed with completeness, Yet people are still considered what they call themselves, If they appear to be trying, Or have other factors involved.
I don't know if I would consider the Nazi's socialist or not, I would have to do more research on the subject.
I suppose if a nation was run by a socialist party, 'and followed a socialist agenda to a 'certain extent, I might consider the nation to be socialist.
Although, I could argue a socialist party ran a government, But did not 'implement any socialist policies, The country would not be socialist.
But I do not care for that argument. As I 'mostly agree with the title of this debate, I am not especially motivated to debate you.
I could play devils advocate, But no argument occurs to me yet.
I think it could be argued that there are forms of society that more or less encourages the freedom or enslavement of the individual.
Individuals being sovereign over themselves is a large motivation to anarchists and libertarions, I imagine. As well as what frightens a number of people 'away from socialism, I think. People. . . Are more willing to accept government when it is 'necessary I think. Many socialist party ideas don't seem necessary to people I assume.
Eh, If there was a God, He'd still be listening I imagine. But still not much reason to expect him to act maybe.
I might accept it, But first I'm going to have to think about why the statement
"if a nation is run by a socialist party it is socialist"
Would be considered true or false.