• Socialism isn't Communism

    While I'll agree it takes a lot of effort to make it work, and that there are pluses and minuses to both Socialism and Capitalism, there are plenty of examples of successful Socialism.....So long as people allow it to work. The problem lies in the fact that so many times people have (successfully) corrupted it and turned it into something that Socialism isn't and given it a bad name (USSR, East Germany, Vietnam, etc.) But if you look at the following modern day countries, these are all perfect examples of differing extents of success: China
    New Zealand

  • I live in Denmark and its freaking AWESOME

    I'm pretty well off and pretty much nobody is poor, yes taxes may be high, but we get free healthcare and school, which in countries like the U.S. these things could bankrupt you, and the government encourages you to get an education, no matter how old you are, and it's pretty great.

  • China Prospers Under Socialism

    Although not perfect, China's socialism has worked for 60 years. The country is prosperous and growing. There are the human rights violations, rampant pollution, abject corruption and tons of problems with the Chinese system. However, for the time being, socialism has worked in China for decades. Socialism works in Europe as well--even though countries are parliamentary, many institutions are owned by the government.

  • Yes, but only in theory.

    Socialism and communism are the perfect societies. Everyone shares, no one is greedy, and human nature is basically ignored with other people's interests taking precedence over one person's needs. However, this will never be the case as human nature is one heck of a hurdle to get over, and perfect harmony is impossible to achieve.

  • Socialism Can Work

    I think that socialism can indeed work. Its basic concept has been working around the world for years now. China is one of the most progressive and successful countries in the world and they are socialists. Socialism can definitely work, its just a matter of the people within the country believing and buying into the concept of socialism.

  • Yes, it did

    You can clearly see it in:
    Maoist China;
    under Mao, after the great chinese famine (which Mao himself said that his POLICIES helped the famine, but, there were also droughts and bad weather conditions) there were no famines again
    the life expectancy doubled from 41 to 65 when Mao died
    even India's life expectancy was smaller, yet they never had a famine (when they were independent, obviously)
    while China today may be more capitalist, it still uses a socialist-style planned economy.
    Russia under the Tsar was a semi-feudal, close to be considered 3rd world country, their industrialization was very low, and their battle front with the CP caused famines and thousand of deaths,
    the mensheviks first revolted, removing the tsar, but, unfortunatelly, continued the war, this caused an outrage in the bolshevik front of the SDPoR (social democratic party of russia), and when Lenin returned, they started a revolution, the civil war, caused millions of deaths, and the 1921 famine was caused by all the factions, seizing grains from the farmers for the military
    with Lenin in power, he adopted the NEP and a industrialization program, because he thought that Russia was too backward for socialism to be put into practice, after his death, this resulted in a grain procrument crisis, which, made Stalin remove the NEP, and making Russia a socialist country,
    he implemented Industrialization programs, known as ''the five year plans'' and collectivized the farms in Ukraine, why? Because he needed it to export grain for industrializing, i.E he traded with the west, infact, the west wanted the grain, not any other material,
    this, started a famine in Ukraine and South Russia, thus, Stalin, shocked, had to reduce the grain exports
    famine apart, Stalin's rule resulted in a rise in life expectancy, a MASSIVE rise in literacy, 0% unemployment, 0% poverty
    and a growth in GDP.
    Cuba was a US puppet, under Dictator Batista, who recently tried a coup d'etat for power, his regime allowed massive benefits for the rich, he, also allowed Prostitution,
    this all ended in the 1953 Cuba Revolution, guided by Fidel Castro and Che Guevara.
    When Batista's government finally fell, Castro banned prostitution and removed the benefits of the Rich, thus making them immigrate to Miami,
    since 1969 Cuba sended Doctors all around the world, these missions where and still are called ''Humanitarian missions''
    for example when Cuba sended doctors in west africa to fight Ebola, infact, Cuba is the only country which has done that,
    also, after major disasters happened, such has Hurricanes, Cuba sent Medical Missions in affected countries to help the poor,
    when, has a capitalist country ever done that?
    There also was a massive rise in Literacy rate from 60% to 99%
    Cuba was also a success in medicine, being the one who made the vaccine for Meningitis-B, and also removed mother-to-child HIV transmission,
    Cuba in 2015 had a lower child mortality rate than the US
    when has famine happened in Cuba? When the USSR fell

  • It must because Capitalism does not work and there is no other viable option.

    When an economy is based on the idea of incentive or profit, eventually that economy's middle class will become ruined due to employers lowering wages or, as we see here in this country today, the production, formally conducted by that same middle class, being sought from by outside sources. After a period of time, those middle class consumers that at one time purchased those products, can no longer afford to purchase them. There are a million fish in the ocean, true, but only a million. The end result will always be unequallity and thus stagnation

  • A lot of people don't know the difference.

    All you have to do is look at a lot of European countries.A lot of people are against this kind of gov,t because a lot of those same people think communism is the same as socialism, many people do not know the difference and that is why this question is mis-leading

  • Yay! It will work!

    In fact, it is working right now. I am aware a person before me said what I am about to say, but it is so important that I will say it again. Socialism does not mean sacrificing the free market, or taking away the wealth of the rich. Socialism just means that people can put in more taxes, such that the government can provide important things to the people at more affordable costs, or no costs at all (ie. Roads, Fire Stations, Day Care, etc.).

    It is important to not confuse Socialism with Marxism. Marxism is pure communism, in which everybody works and only gets what they need. That goal is very much to eliminate the need of a government. Socialism, however, tries to make the government purer. Take the American government, for example. We are not a pure government, but we do provide roads and police using the people's tax dollars. And, as a citizen, you have an obligation to your country, and by paying those tax dollars you are benefiting everybody who would drive on the road in front of your house. Socialism is just that for more things, such that basic needs can be provided.

    Some forms of Socialism are more like Marxism, and it is important to recognize how much Socialist ideals can change. The Socialism I am debating is different from that of a Socialism quite a few know. And although one human cannot be trusted to rule a country, a democratic socialism eliminates that problem. Socialism is the middle ground between a utopia and freedom. Who wouldn't want that?

  • Human nature is socialist

    Darwin said much more about how life forms are interdependent and cooperative in their drive to progress other than the survival of the the fittest. Let us not judge ourselves by simplified instincts given to us by the prevailing capitalist ideology. We can be more than what we are. Or else we just fight for resources. The greatest achievements come from a series of failures. So much work is pointless. We could work less and have more. Together we are stronger than we are alone.

  • All successful examples of socialism are supported by capitalism.

    The successful socialist examples all have elements of capitalism working in their economies. Many of the European countries that practice some socialism in their economies negate the inefficiencies socialism introduces by not spending enough to adequately defend themselves. They divert defense money to social programs. These countries rely on the U.S. to supplement their defense, and in return, give the U.S. access to their markets, a great economic advantage to the U.S. The partnership works, but it gives the illusion that European socialism works, which it really doesn't.

  • Socialism and Communism are dream worlds

    I know purists will say that no true form of socialism or communism has ever been tried, so how do we know they don't work. Socialism and Communism fail to understand human nature. Human beings are selfish, self-centered beings. When put in positions of great power, they will very likely abuse that power. This is where socialism and communism fail, someone always wants the power and they end up run by a dictator or totalitarian government.

    One could also say that America doesn't have a true free-market capitalism system either. If you go to a local farmer's market that is in a small degree what a true free-market would look like. The free-market would look like a calm lake. Then comes a stone thrown in, which represents government intervention. The ripples don't go in just one direction, they go in multiple directions. Intervention just causes more and more problems. Economics is more or less just theories thought up by human beings. They all center around the attempt to predict what human beings will do. But they can't because what one person does, and why, isn't what or why someone else does.

    The Founders of America studied history, they understood that every empire before America was formed, fell apart because the government got to powerful. Thus, they put as many road blocks as possible in the way to prevent that from happening here too. The Federal gov't is split into three branches, each with specific powers. The power is spread out even more between the state governments and the federal government. Ultimately the most power stays with the people, to self-govern their own lives. The whole point is to spread out the power, to decentralize it.

    Private property is a vital part of freedom. Private property is your body and mind and everything you create or do with it. A small business, a corporation, your paycheck all add up to a type of private property. Without private property, no freedom exists.

    Our Declaration of Independence declares that the nation is free and independent and so is each individual American. It declares that human beings don't have rulers. We don't have a direct democracy either. The U.S. Constitution seeks to protect the individual from the government and majority rule.

    A civil society was always the goal of the founders too. But no civil society will ever be formed through force. A civil society has individuals cooperating and looking out for each other, but it still expects each individual to be largely responsible for themselves. Because successful individuals are in a position to help other. The institutions that worked were family, churches, charities, and communities, not government.

    Socialism and Communism all look and sound nice, but add up to a totalitarian, tyrannical government, not the utopia they promise.

  • Human Nature's effect

    Socialism will always fail because of human nature. There are two types of people in the "real" not the "ideal" world..Producers and non producers, this is the reason that Socialism has never worked and will never work...Not difficult to understand...Simple, really. Give me freeedom, liberty and boot a hypocrite by the name of Marx!

  • Not Yet - We must first overcome our selfish human nature

    Those suggesting that China has implemented a successful socialist system don't understand China. The Soviet and Chinese model was corrupted by authoritarians. China succeeded by introducing a pure form capitalism unrestrained by ethics within its authoritarian society.

    The most successful implementation of socialism has been in European countries that are largely homogeneous in terms of demographics and work ethic. Japan and S. Korea are also examples of countries where extended social welfare works. In a homogeneous society where there is a sense of common work ethic, socialism can work a bit. In a diverse society where there is a dramatic difference in culture and work ethic, social welfare programs are abused.

    Socialism is our destiny, but only when humans conquer their animal nature and adopt a "we" point of view instead of a "me" point of view . We may be thousands of years away from that.

  • No, because we are humans

    In a utopia there's a good chance Socialism would work,unfortunately humans have a tendency to allow their emotions to get in the way of ideology. Greed, envy, narcissism, discrimination, untrustworthiness etc etc all get in the way of socialist principles. In a dog eat dog world Socialism loses every time.

  • Socialism only works for the political elite.

    Those holding high office benefit greatly from socialism while the populous live way below standards. This is how "equality" works. You cannot raise everyone up, but you can drag everyone down. It also works very well until other people's money runs out. There is no room for growth, parameters are set and the top will always absorbs more from the bottom until it runs dry.

  • Great on paper...

    ...But a failure in reality. Limited degrees of socialistic programs might be successful in certain countries (especially in the Third World, but socialism has never worked as an outright system because it presumes human beings will adopt a colony mentality like ants or bees. In other words, completely discarding the individualism we're all born with.

    I was once a small "s" socialist because it SOUNDS so reasonable, but it ultimately neutralizes the motivation people have to create newer and better things.

  • Uniform High Taxation Rate Bad

    Socialism has to enforce a high percentage tax rate in order to fund things like universal health care. People in countries like England and Sweden pay 90% of their income in taxes. It doesn't leave much left in the paycheck for savings and investment or for any discretionary spending or charitable giving. Also, businesses, especially small businesses, cannot operate successfully with high tax rates.

  • Absolute Socialism, no. Partial Socialism, yes.

    The problem with absolute socialism is that it requires most all involved to hold most the same beliefs in order for it to be a satisfactory way of life. This, in my opinion is impossible given the vast differences from one individual to another.
    A religious organization could be likened to a socialist group, with the church representing the state. Now, can we put all the religions together and agree on where the resources are distributed?
    It is a great concept in theory, but is highly susceptible to totalitarianism. Capitalism, in contrast, is no better for the masses.

  • Where has socialism worked?

    Socialism in its most basic form has all people sharing in the goods that all produce. This does not work and will never work. People who are looking at this as a free ride will work less and those who want to be productive will limit their production when they clearly see that there work gives more to aid others than to aid their own families.
    Anyone who has ever worked in a community volunteer sports program {i.E. Coaching little league baseball or football, etc.) will tell you that there are few who are willing to "share the burden" but all are willing to share the rewards of seeing their children play a team sport. "I am too busy to help out with anything" is what one hears. But these same people will show for the games, banquets, etc. They have tie to reap the rewards but no time to do ANY work.
    I also feel sorry for the people with the bumper sticker that says "tax the rich" . Obviously they have no ambition to succeed.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.