The Benefits of Socialism: none?
Youâve already proven that your so-called debate would be based on a load of garbage, so anyone who would take it up with you would face a barrage of lies and propaganda in favour of a delinquent inheritor of millions who managed to bankrupt casinos but wants to run the country.
You are hopefully aware that most of the national debt was incurred during his administration, and most of that money went to his friends - or to him. America must have an idiocy virus that many have caught. There seems to be no vaccine.
1 Like
I donât know. It sounds to me like you are too insecure to defend your beliefs in formal debate, and prefer to sling feces in the safety of shadow.
A big mouth, big insults. But where are the benefits of socialism?
1 Like
Do you have the mettle, Bob?! No, I doubt it will be you.
Socialism is not a widespread doctrine. Mainly because it does not work large scale due to corruption. Or that is to say it does not work as intended large scale and generally ends up with the populace being oppressed in one way or another by the government. Most of the so called assumed socialist countries are in fact capitalistic with socialist policies in some areas.
Socialist policies are used widescale. Generally in conjunction with Capitalism. Which has itâs own issues but the oppression via capitalism is not from the government it is from corporationâs, and tends to be more economic barriers, rather then actual oppression as most define it, and even then, you have the opportunity to get ahead whereas in socialism you do not.
1 Like
Well, those are certainly questions.
But we mean wideapread in terms of conviction.
As doctrine. It is bigger today than any theist religion. It is big.
If you like: in terms of people who think it is good.
Itâs really not.
Name one Actually Socialist Country. Because the countries people assume are socialist state themselves they are in fact not such. I will be happy to tell you what the country you name actually is and even break down its government system for you if it is in fact not socialist.
You will recall that I did not say countries (whether that is true or not), but people.
You sound like you have some favourable ideas regarding socialism.
Perhaps you will take up the banner for the length of the debate?
I am neither a Capitalist or a Socialist actually, And no I am not an Anarchist either.
While I could argue the side of socialism, realistically it would be pointless as the countries that could successfully implement it as intended, would never redo the infrastructure needed to support it.
As far as people go, People are stupid. I can not tell you how many idiots tell me every day they are socialistâs and yet have no idea what it actually is.
There is a difference in âBelieving you are socialistâ, and actually being a socialist. The vast majority of people are not. Most of the ones claiming socialism are actually Fascists. And have no idea what Fascism actually is, because they refer to a republic as Fascist not understanding the 2 are literally mutually exclusive ideologically.
1 Like
That all passes muster with me.
If you would like to defend The Benefits of Socialism under those terms, I would debate you.
I happen to think it would be valuable. If nothing else, as an exercice in demystification.
If you could implement it correctly with the correct safeguards in place to stop individualâs from assuming power and thus turning it into Communism / Fascism. Sure.
Obviously there are policies which I think any society calling itself advanced should provide to itâs citizens, Such as Free Medical, and Free Education (STEMS),But even truly socialist regimes in the past failed to do it. The system would need to be reworked and redesigned to function, as the main issue is human nature itself. And the countries that try those the systems do not have enough support and fail because their government is not designed to support a large population effectively. (Canada is a good Example of such systems horribly implemented).
As long as you believe that you can frame those concepts as The Benefits of Socialism and defend them, it works for me. I donât need them to be actual things that have successfully been implemented. I just need you to believe that they correctly represent socialism.
I canât, and no one can. because there are not any benefits to that system. I would have to change the system so much that when I was finished it would not be socialism. Itâs a system that looks good on paper. It is not a system that works in practice. And in reality is not defensible.
Any defense you might use is easily undone by simple application of reality.
Hahahahahaja well I have to say that I canât help liking that.
If you decide that it might be worth the hypothetical exercice, however, you have not convinced me that you are not up to it.
Of course it would be ideal if an all-in believer would do it. But those are the cagiest and most defensive, I donât rate the odds of that too highly. Probably a more careful on the fence position is what I have to hope for.
Even if you defend them as a side of you that, though unable to see it ever working in reality, yet sees in its aims somethi g laudable.
I know this because I actually had 2 years of debates on the subject in college covering every mutation and modification, and while I eventually did design a system that would work and function and accomplish the goals, it was neither capitalism or socialism or anarchy, but you wont find it posted anywhere it gets removed every time I try and post it and amazon refuses to sell the book I wrote on it.
1 Like
Well. Think it over.
The Benefits Aimed At by True though Unattainable Socialism, to Be Possibly Reworked In a Perfected System, works.
The issue is that the debate you want (as you stated to the other poster) is on Socialism.
Unfortunately itâs an indefensible ideology and system which is why no one will take that stance. Not because of some ideological disagreement with it, but because you literally have to be an uneducated moron with an IQ of 25, to think you can defend it. So anyone who would be worth your time to have a debate with wont do it because they understand that.
If I changed it to have the debate we would not be discussing socialism.
Hahahahahahaha you are golden, friend.
You may be right. I mean there they are, cowering at bay.
A very astute point that George Orwel also pointed out.