Is socialism the future?

The development of human kind is gradually upward, so with the prevalence of left wing psychology, is this where mankind is going? Is the overwhelming impact of the left throughout the world aiding development, or hindering it?

In Britain, to be conservative or right wing cannot be admitted, yet most vote conservative. On that point alone, if you cannot differ for fear of it, it has to be wrong.

Is socialism undeveloped tyranny? That for it to suceed, it needs a dictatorship. Can democracy and socialism live side by side?

 

If you mean "Socialism" as a political system, you would need to be more specific. Obviously Marxist or Maoist Socialisms (for example) are not compatible with Democracy. But Democratic Socialism certainly is. And it has been in many nations all over the world. If you mean "socialism" as in "socialist policies"... it's the past, present and hopefully the future. It's an integral part of all modern democracies as set in motion by the Magna Carta and the American and French Revolutions.

 

It can only work if EVERYONE contributes. Someone collecting unemployment because they have "emotional trauma" and stuff like that is straight up BS. Too many moochers. I think it COULD work if you cracked down hard on the moochers. This system only works if everyone contributes.

 

No.

 

I don't know what you mean by socialism. Actual, ideological socialism, where the means of production are owned by society and not individuals? No, this country isn't headed towards that. Or do you mean name calling socialism where something one group doesn't agree with has that name hurled at it regardless of accuracy? That's impossible to say.

Socialism doesn't require dictatorship. In fact, few dictatorships practice any form actual socialism. The few that come close fail because dictatorships aren't about ideals as dictators only have one, power for themselves. They don't care how they get it or keep it, as long as they have it. There are plenty of capitalists and even so-called democratic leaders who think and act the same way.

 

Socialism as a collectivist ideology is a disease. The reason people refer to those things as socialist is because they are collectivist in nature which is antithesis to capitalism and far more closely aligned to socialism.

 

It's not a disease by any standard. You may not like it, but to call it a disease is hyperbole to the point of it being laughable. As for your second sentence, OK, but that wasn't the question asked nor was it what I answered. Again, socialism is defined by society owning the means of production as opposed to individuals. Yes, that's more collectivist than allowing individuals to own things, but you ignore the socialism right under your nose. What is it when a group of people pool their capital and go in on a business venture? Is that not a form of collectivism? The many joining together to accomplish more than they can on their own? Are you implying that shouldn't be allowed? So that maybe that also means we can't pave roads as a county or city? You should have to pave your road from your house to your place of work and to every place you want to go in between? Are public roads also a "disease?"

the reality is any successful nation is not a slave to so called ideological purity, but rather borrows some from everything to boost the strengths and minimize the cons of each system.

 

I'd like to think human kind is continuing to progress towards greater levels of individual freedom and sovereignty but the prevalence of Leftist ideology threatens to arrest if not reverse that progress.

Hindering.

You know better than that...

Good question. What's to say it's not developed?

It certainly does require the coercive power of the State.

They can, but only to a certain extent. Socialism/collectivism is antithetical to individual freedom and sovereignty, so the more you get of the former, the less you get of the latter.

 

Everything you named can be done more effectively and efficiently in a capital model than a socialist one.

 

LOL - A+ for concision.

 

Oh? So you want us to rip up all the roads you currently use, or rather ban them, so you can go make your own roads via capitalism? Do you even know what it costs to pave a road per mile? Go for it then. Let us know how it goes. Also, while you're at it, be sure to hire your own capitalistic army to defend yourself and your interests.

 

Toll roads cost less money, are more efficient to make and cost less per individual. Furthermore you only have to pay for it if you use it.

 

The question is how do you define socialism? Economically? Politically? Even in China, there is private enterprise despite the government being communist. Does that make their economy socialist? In North Korea, probably the only country with a pure socialistic economy is not something any country, including China or Russia, or even Venezuela wants to become. In the United States, we have socialistic programs such as public schools, social security, and Medicare, just to name a few. Does that make our economy socialist? If the Democrats control Congress and the WH, does that make our economy or political structure socialist? What you do not understand is that most economies, both developed and developing, have a mixture of both. Politically, they may be a direct democracy, authoritarian, or a weak democracy with some authoritarian aspects, but that does not make the country socialist politically, does it.

YOu are throwing buzzwords outthere to entice a specific emotion. Not a good way to start a conversation or discussion on this. First, define socialism, economically, politically, or both. Then give examples.

 

Socialism is redistribution. It doesn't work for the same reason that fences between houses do work.

Two minutes after a redistribution scheme is put in place, you will have everybody and their grandmother trying to figure out how to game the system [and rampant corruption is sure to follow].

If you must have a system, then you want one that encourages hard work, thrift, and honesty, not the laziness which is characteristic of all systems where there is a large percentage of the population that become parasites who voraciously hollow-out the productivity of the rest through all kinds of benefits these folks believe they deserve simply because they exist.

 

Actually, Socialism [globalism] is the present and the main reason the world is a total sh*tshow.

 

All economic systems redistribute wealth. How much is too much for price increases in gas? In Florida, gas supply chains are disrupted in the south where Hurricane Ian hit and cause tremendous devastation. But people want that gas NOW and are willing to pay top dollar for it. Or how about the used car market? Those who have excess cash are willing to pay 150% to 250% above the value of the car in order to get it. Isn't that redistribution and gaining the system as well?

 

Globalism is NOT socialism.

 

I expect that it depends on the context of the ask. If democrats have their way, and they can cheat their way to power, then likely yes, more socialism is in store for the US. If, as a question of taste, is socialism the way, I'd suggest no. Socialism kills. It requires the normalization (meaning that everyone except the elite become the same) of the people. It requires everyone to suffer equally, but not the elite. That is the ultimate expression of the plantation. Master wins. Everyone else suffers. No. Socialism isn't the answer.

 

You may not like it, but he's right - it can be considered a disease on many levels.

When you subscribe to utopian fantasies it can be said you suffer from a mental disease. When it has been allowed to infect a nation and its economy, as was the case with the USSR, et al, it can be considered a social and economic disease, or even a disease of the national spirit (Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote about this).

The problem with the term socialism is that the term means so many different things that two people can talk about socialism and be discussing two different things.

Actually, not all forms of socialism require direct governmental and/or societal ownership and control over property and production. This is what the German National Socialists realized aduring and after World War I and "progressives have realized today - one can achieve many of the same goals through de facto governmental and/or societal ownership and control. The current ESG (Environmental, Social and Government) initiatives that are all too popular on the Left these days are an excellent example of this.

I believe the term for that is voluntary association, not collectivism. The individual does not assume a subordinate role in such an arrangement.

Again, that doesn't fit the definition of collectivism.

col·lec·tiv·ism
[kəˈlektəˌvizəm]
NOUN

1. the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it:
   "the Church has criticized the great emphasis placed on individualism rather than collectivism"
   synonyms:
   state ownership · socialism · radical socialism · Sovietism · Bolshevism · Marxism · neo-Marxism · Leninism · Marxism–Leninism · Trotskyism · Maoism
   
   2. the theory and practice of the ownership of land and the means of production by the people or the state:
   • "the Russian Revolution decided to alter the course of modernity towards collectivism"

Collectivism
any of several types of social organization in which the individual is seen as being subordinate to a social collectivity such as a state, a nation, a race, or a social class. Collectivism may be contrasted with individualism (q.v.), in which the rights and interests of the individual are emphasized.

The earliest modern, influential expression of collectivist ideas in the West is in Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Du contrat social, of 1762 (see social contract), in which it is argued that the individual finds his true being and freedom only in submission to the “general will” of the community. In the early 19th century the German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel argued that the individual realizes his true being and freedom only in unqualified submission to the laws and institutions of the nation-state, which to Hegel was the highest embodiment of social morality. Karl Marx later provided the most succinct statement of the collectivist view of the primacy of social interaction in the preface to his Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy: “It is not men’s consciousness,” he wrote, “which determines their being, but their social being which determines their consciousness.”

Collectivism has found varying degrees of expression in the 20th century in such movements as socialism, communism, and fascism. The least collectivist of these is social democracy, which seeks to reduce the inequities of unrestrained capitalism by government regulation, redistribution of income, and varying degrees of planning and public ownership. In communist systems collectivism is carried to its furthest extreme, with a minimum of private ownership and a maximum of planned economy.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/collectivism

Successful nations borrow some from everything?

Good luck substantiating that claim.

Successful nations practice and utilize what makes them successful, and to the extent it makes and keeps them successful.

Socialism never made this country successful and it never will. Individual freedom is what made this country successful, and without it the socialism we practice in this country couldn't and wouldn't exist. Furthermore, we don't practice the socialism that exists in this country to be successful - we practice it because we're empathetic human beings who are willing to help the truly needy. But there's a point where socialism can and will destroy a nation, and I have friends from the former Soviet Union, communist Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia who can tell you all about it. They are literally amazed at how clueless and destructive the "progressives" in this country are.

 

No, socialism is NOT the answer. And yes socialism requires an authoritarian government because that system doesn't help the majority of its population beyond the basics of a minimum quality of life, work, and standard of living. It's a pretty bland existence with no room for improvement and luxury.

 

The only country that fits that description is North Korea and no one, not even China and Venezuela wants to become that.

 

I think you confuse Democratic Socialism with Social Democracies.

You can become socialist in two ways, - violent takeover, like Cuba, USSR, Cambodia and almost every socialist country that ever existed. The other path is "democratic socialism aka via democratic elections, but that almost never happens.

Social Democracies are a different story, and there are many examples of that in Western Europe. They are not socialist since they maintain free marker economics.

 

I wish I could like this twice

 

Name calling is the sport now a days!

https://www.jstor.org/stable/238014...some federal funds for toll road construction.

The feds have been putting money in it costs everyone

 

Democracy and social PROGRAMS have lived hand in hand as long as I've been alive. Roads, Schools, Space, our Social Safety Net are what made America GREAT. Bigoted Right Wing White Supremacist Fascism is what's DESTROYING our beloved United States.