I would like a socialist to take up this flag, and debate me on it.
I would prefer them to start, they would prefer me, so I propose we flip a coin.
Socialists tend to be very cagey, feeling it as an insult to have to justify their doctrine to outsiders. But maybe one will find the mettle.
Whether your flag has a swastika, a hammer and sickle, sticks tied together, or anything else, makes no difference to me. Hard line or soft.
Almost any serious debate about socialism descends into confusion unless the participants clarify their definitions at the outset. Which form of socialism are you referring to?
Classical/Marxian socialism involves collective (often state) ownership of the means of production, central or democratic planning, and the abolition of the capitalist class. Debate here often turns on whether this is feasible without authoritarianism.
Social democracy/democratic socialism: Predominantly market economies with private property, but strong welfare states, high taxation, public ownership of some key sectors (health, energy and transport) and robust labour protections. Here, âsocialismâ is more about controlling capitalism than abolishing it.
State capitalism mislabelled as socialism: One-party states that retain wage labour, hierarchical management and de facto ruling classes, but call themselves socialist or communist. Arguments that âsocialism failed in the USSRâ often actually target this model, which critics say was not socialism in any meaningful emancipatory sense.
Libertarian/market socialism: worker cooperatives, mutualist or syndicalist arrangements, and markets without capitalists (firms are owned by their workers and capital is social or cooperative). Debates here focus on whether markets themselves are compatible with socialism.
These examples show up divergent meanings. If someone uses âSwedenâ as an example, they are usually talking about social democracy within capitalism, not Marxist socialism. On the other hand, if someone cites the Soviet Union or Maoist China, they are usually referring to centrally planned, one-party âactually existing socialismâ.
And if someone points to Mondragon (worker co-ops in Spain), they are referring to cooperative or market socialism. So, before debating âthe benefits of socialismâ, it helps to agree on the following:
I am afraid you would be defending socialism in a global sense.
I think this is a benefit, though. You can appeal to some different school and still be legitimate, like socialists habitually do anyway. Say you want to quote Nazis for their pioneering work in environmentalism, even though you think of yourself as a social democrat. Fair game, goal posts have not shifted.
I want somebody with the mettle to defend socialism. Socialism.
In defending socialism âin a global senseâ, I would argue for a system in which the key parts of the world economy are socially owned and democratically run, with production focused on meeting human and ecological needs rather than maximising profit. The major problem with our current capitalist society is that it does not focus on needs, and innovation is only entertained if it is profitable, not if it improves things.
This results in mass poverty alongside extreme wealth, undemocratic corporate and financial power, and ecological breakdown driven by profit imperatives, as well as unjust global hierarchies between rich and poor countries. This system must, at some point, break down, resulting in significant human losses, because profit and competitive advantage undermine long-term planning, equality and ecological restraint. States compete to attract capital, leading to a ârace to the bottomâ in labour and environmental protections.
If socialist principles were adopted globally, social ownership and democratic planning could be extended across borders, especially for global public goods. They would facilitate redistribution and reparative policies to equalise life chances between regions, thereby broadening economic democracy, in which workers, citizens and communities participate in major economic decisions, not just shareholders and creditors.
I must admit that authoritarian state âsocialismsâ have often produced oppression and waste, but here we are speaking about socialism as democratisation and de-commodification on a global scale, not every regime that has used the label. We learn from the mistakes of the past that we need more democracy and pluralism in how we implement social ownership, rather than retreating to pure markets.
Essentially, it is returning the trade relations between people and nations back to fulfilling needs rather than having a wealth maximisation as ultimate goal. The claim that wealth âtrickles downâ has been proven to be a lie, as is much of the defence of capitalism, hence the use of power to protect capitalist structures.
Save it for the debate, bud! The Benefits of Socialism: for. You in or you out?
I got my approval of the idea of Socialism out of an account of seafaring, playing in the time before Marx. It was a nuisance for the shipping company, but the captain had some respect for it. Basically, it amounted to the workers organizing to get some leverage. Basically, the formation of unions, with the weapon of strikes. It was working. Under this method they lowered the number of work hours and raised some wages. I think thatâs fair and even necessary within capitalism. I liked this as a redemption of the idea of socialism.
But this wasnât called socialism. I regretfully learned that the word originally refers to the utopian idea of commune-ism, of shared ownership, which erupted half a century after the first unions.
I hate groups of so called equals. I hate communes, I hate the mood in them, the sanctimoniousness. At least in so far as Ive been in them. Itâs always a popularity contest, a place for virtue signaling. âWho is most equalâ or even âwho is most magnanimously willing to grant you your equalityâ. So im not your person, I canât argue for socialism. I believe groups and states like machines and vertebrate organisms are formed based around the hardest, not the softest qualities. The need and drive of the individual is the hardest stuff in humanity. Free market, small government, capitalism is my wish. BUT there is the problem of monopolies and cartels. Such as in US healthcare now. Thats where I believe the state is required to step in and where European style regulation has an advantage. Is this socialism? I donât think so as itâs not about communal ownership or group-mindedness. Itâs more in the vein of survivalists curtailing of profiteering in favor of base line viability. But im sure that can be argued against as it does require a group and recognition of a group-interest, that is to say, a shared interest.
Economically speaking I find it less viable to have astronomical medicine costs in combination with superexpensive taxburdening insurance than to have low priced medicine costs covered by cheap insurance. Is this socialist or just slightly regulation-friendly? Your call.
I donât know, but would you like to put it in a debate?
It might be good to have a lukewarm, half-in person do it. Might give you a distance to it.
Is this an attempt to create an obnoxious gotcha competition that proves nothing but who holds out logest?
Well, itâs a challenge to a debate.
Canât fathom why you would find that obnoxious.
The way I nvision it, you would put forward some benefits of socialism, or ideally the benefits of socialism, and I would dispute them, then you would defend and bring up new ones if you wish, so on until the debate has lived out its preallotted number of rounds.
This is why I would wish you to start. If I started, you would already be on the back foot, having me define for you what benefits you are defending.
I imagine socialists, at least many of them, have a burning desire to make their case, to the non socialist world.
I also understand there is a fear of encountering only dishonest desires to tear them down.
I think a formal debate alleviates this, reframing it at least ino a regulated form that, in the case the fear is justified, the danger is very limited. It also offers a structured format in which to put the case, beyond the usual squabbles of free form discussion.
Itâs not even a debate on socialist theory, or the psychology of socialism. Restricted purely to a defense of the benefits of socialism.
Sure, im interested to see it play out.
The softest ground to politics belongs to fascism, which is based on pure emotional zeal. Thats I guess why it hasnât lasted long where it took hold, just long enough to burn itself up.
But this is also how you can identify wokeness as tending toward fascism.
Excellent, maybe we can take it slow. 3 days for each response? No max words, I doubt natural inclination will lead to too many, but even if it does, I canât see any big reason to prevent it.
Max 10 rounds, or until either party declares a last statement? That would be a maximum of about 1 leisurly month.
Open to different ideas, and ideas about arbitrarion
Seems like a lot. Letâs see how it goes.
So weâre debating monopolies, not socialism, unless you understand all regulation to be socialist. In that case still, Im only in if it is nominally about regulation, rather than socialism, as I do not consider regulation to be socialist per se. If you do, youâll have to argue for this.
On top of what I already said:
Antitrust legislation developed 1890 through 1910 split up major monopolies, with that it secured the White House as executive primacy, also introduced some quality control, a base level of quality for things like beef and other foods, and reduced prices by reinvigorating competition.
This was followed by Americas primacy in the world. Despite the clear logic, Im not knowledgeable enough to be 100% certain of a direct causal connection but if it didnât help, it sure didnât hurt.
From end 1970s the antitrust policies were abandoned. This was accompanied by both an economic boom in electronic and financial sectors but also with expatriation of a lot of physical industry, massive conglomerates are free to settle wherever, arenât bound to the land like smaller companies are. I think that the breakup of the antitrust policy is a direct cause to disappearing of US manufacturing base the lowering of food quality, and the enormous rise in medicine prices as well as increasing state-driven compulsions to consume medicines.
The main sector that has remained stateside under the monopoly-based economy is computer technology. The top five companies of this sector now encompass half the US economy and is a dominant political power. Together they employ about 1.7 million people in the US. Of these Amazon takes the lions share, 1.1 million. Just some statistics to contemplate.
Alright Iâll leave it at that.
Edit no Ill continue a bit.
My favored model is free market capitalism. I argue that a monopoly driven economy is not a free market. It is dominated by things that have nothing to do with market forces, namely such things as lobbying for privileges, price fixing, elimination of competition through buying legislation rather than competition.
Also I figured, because of the deregulation and loss of manufacturing, probably the national debt began to rise about the same time, late 70s. So I looked it up.
So basically I see a bit of economic regulation, quality control, securing of the possibility of competition, and especially market based pricing, as a task of the government just as vital as other types of legislation keeping a basic social order. For the aforementioned reasons but also very basically if the government doesnât regulate, the government gets bought. I know itâs always bought to a certain level, thats the nature of power, but since Im in favor of a free market, I am in favor of containing the degree to which government is owned by private interests.
So at the root of a free market economy that stays free is a secure nation under secure governmental branches.
Iâm afraid I have no interest in that. You either defend the benefits of socialism, or you have no interest in taking part in this debate.
It would be great if somebody did. I mean socialism is a pretty widepsread doctrine, adhered to by billions. It cannot be possible that a single one of those doesnât see fit to defend the thing.
Are we also going to set up a thread about the benefits of nazism?
Why are we discussing the benefits of a system that has murdered more people than the actual people known for murdering people?
If we are going to take these subjects out of the murky swamps of petty grievance and left-handed propaganda, we must have it out. Let words be used.
Nazis are certainly invited, along with any other socialist, to take part in this debate.
You may have been as horrified as me when there was a succesful coup against president Trump, and when they took a booming world economy and turned it into ash. You may have been disgusted at them having done it in left-handed, completely insiduous and shadowy ways, imposingly totalitarian methods executed in shadow.
Perhaps the reason all of that happened is that socialists feel, and have always felt, that they will be hunted down if they approach the light. And perhaps they have good reason. I donât blame the Tsars for wanting to crush it before it took root. But all it did was drive the roots deeper, and it may be the reason they were the first to go.
Socialists think of those like me as either evil or foolish. People like me are somewhat disgusted by their beliefs. Is shadow the cure for this? Will sunlight not be far better?
They will not be disappearing any time soon. And, news flash, thereâs quite a lot of them.
I want to hear a defense. I am tired of insinuations, half-suggestions, and offended sermons. Tell me why itâs good. Politely. I will politely reply.
This is the new way, or there is no way.
Insofar as MP goes, seems the âobnoxiousâ ship has already sailed. As has the âgotcha competitionâ ship.
That said, how can the assurance of politeness be taken seriously? Classic example of a wolf in sheepâs clothing.
My intent here is to offer a hedge as some sort of partial guarantee.
With a set format and limited number of rounds, and straightforward point-counterpoint system, there is only so much distance downhill things can go.
This forum has a mainly socialist concurrence. As you sit there thinking of me as obnoxious, consider that you are as obnoxious to the other side of the hill, so to speak.
Perhaps we can hold our noses long enough to reason with each other like adults.