Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Help me SE++, you're my only hope: Historical Arguments for Socialism

Lord_AsmodeusLord_Asmodeus goeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered User regular
edited April 2011 in Social Entropy++
Alright so here's the schtick. Today, in like 10 hours, I am going to be part of a class debate on the benefits of socialism vs capitalism in history, and I am on the socialist side. I have been looking on google, in academic databases, you name it. I am finding jack and also squat that is really helpful. Does SE++ have any helpful articles, essays, etc. on the subject?

Also you can debate about Socialism and it's benefits in History, or whether it or Capitalism are better. I guess.

Lord_Asmodeus on
2u6k1v9.gifxq9ly1.gif
«134

Posts

  • FirmSkaterFirmSkater Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Oscar Wilde wrote some shit about socialism.

    http://struggle.ws/hist_texts/wilde_soul.html

    sig2.jpg
  • CrashmoCrashmo Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Not in my America, buddy

    polar-bearsig.jpg
  • ThreadbareSockThreadbareSock Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    How long were you supposed to be working on this? A month, wasn't it?

  • Lord_AsmodeusLord_Asmodeus goeticSobriquet: Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    How long were you supposed to be working on this? A month, wasn't it?

    No, we decided on the topic like a couple days ago. I got started a day ago. I have not had much luck. I dunno if I'm dumb or if people really don't like talking about the history of socialism or it's benefits or what it's done well.

    2u6k1v9.gifxq9ly1.gif
  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Depends on what qualifies as "Socialism" actually. Some people seem to think that any sort of tax money that doesn't go to 1) tax returns or 2) the military is socialism. So if that's the case, the interstate highway system would be a good argument for it?

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • KoshianKoshian __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2011
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_General_Strike

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homage_to_Catalonia

    these are good examples of anarchist socialism (a tautology to people In the Know but your prof seems to be way too vague for anything)

  • Blake TBlake T Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Well I mean the word socialism has the word social in it so I suppose it sounds friendly.

  • Blake TBlake T Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    But I mean with capitalism you have the word capital which, I just kinda like.

    It's fun to say capital idea.

  • mensch-o-maticmensch-o-matic Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Call me back when you need a paper on socialites

  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Bust out the Bible and talk about how Jesus was pro-Socialism. Way ahead of his time!

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • Lord_AsmodeusLord_Asmodeus goeticSobriquet: Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Like, social programs would probably work, like the government stepping up and taking ownership of things would probably fit into my professors admittedly quite vague parameters.

    2u6k1v9.gifxq9ly1.gif
  • KoshianKoshian __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2011
    Like, social programs would probably work, like the government stepping up and taking ownership of things would probably fit into my professors admittedly quite vague parameters.

    but that's not even

    fahgsaaaaaafffffff

    i am going to murder your professor/teacher/instructor/whatever for being so goddamned vague

    please remember Social Democracy =/ Socialism

  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Like, social programs would probably work, like the government stepping up and taking ownership of things would probably fit into my professors admittedly quite vague parameters.

    If your professor is defining socialism as "government takeover" I would gear all arguments toward showing him to be the silly goose he is.

    He'd probably flunk your ass, but hey.

    Edit - If he threatens anything against you, tell him he could step in for Libya and nobody would notice a difference.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • Lord_AsmodeusLord_Asmodeus goeticSobriquet: Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like, social programs would probably work, like the government stepping up and taking ownership of things would probably fit into my professors admittedly quite vague parameters.

    If your professor is defining socialism as "government takeover" I would gear all arguments toward showing him to be the silly goose he is.

    He'd probably flunk your ass, but hey.

    It's a debate, and I don't know if we're being graded. But he's not defining socialism as government takeover so much as governmental control of the means of production and social programs. When the government runs thing and provides for the people, where capitalism is the privatization and private ownership of those things.

    2u6k1v9.gifxq9ly1.gif
  • KoshianKoshian __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2011
    that's horrifically disingenuous. beat him to death with a copy Das Kapital

  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like, social programs would probably work, like the government stepping up and taking ownership of things would probably fit into my professors admittedly quite vague parameters.

    If your professor is defining socialism as "government takeover" I would gear all arguments toward showing him to be the silly goose he is.

    He'd probably flunk your ass, but hey.

    It's a debate, and I don't know if we're being graded. But he's not defining socialism as government takeover so much as governmental control of the means of production and social programs. When the government runs thing and provides for the people, where capitalism is the privatization and private ownership of those things.

    If the government controls the means of production, it steps closer toward Communism and isn't really Socialism.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    You could always just take polls in the class, by raising of hands, how many people have benefited or are benefiting from social programs. If you wanted to be like your professor, federal aid for college could qualify. (though now that I wrote it, I actually wonder, does it?)

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • MaceraMacera Registered User
    edited April 2011
    you could take a different tack and not so much argue for socialism as against capitalism

    bring up the Triangle Fire and similar tragedies

    xet8c.gif
  • Lord_AsmodeusLord_Asmodeus goeticSobriquet: Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Well the debate is half the room vs half the room, so there are people looking up specifically arguments against capitalism, whereas I'm trying to find arguments for socialism as beneficial. And not a lot of people apparently like to write about examples of socialism working, or at least from what I can find.

    2u6k1v9.gifxq9ly1.gif
  • AneurhythmiaAneurhythmia Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Henroid wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like, social programs would probably work, like the government stepping up and taking ownership of things would probably fit into my professors admittedly quite vague parameters.

    If your professor is defining socialism as "government takeover" I would gear all arguments toward showing him to be the silly goose he is.

    He'd probably flunk your ass, but hey.

    It's a debate, and I don't know if we're being graded. But he's not defining socialism as government takeover so much as governmental control of the means of production and social programs. When the government runs thing and provides for the people, where capitalism is the privatization and private ownership of those things.

    If the government controls the means of production, it steps closer toward Communism and isn't really Socialism.

    No, that's fascism.

    1LRdqui.png
  • The Otaku SuppositoryThe Otaku Suppository SKREEEEEOOOONKKKKKK Monster IslandRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Well the debate is half the room vs half the room, so there are people looking up specifically arguments against capitalism, whereas I'm trying to find arguments for socialism as beneficial. And not a lot of people apparently like to write about examples of socialism working, or at least from what I can find.

    You could talk about how the socialists won the Spanish Civil War...

    Or how socialists and the Popular Front helped France defeat Germany in 1940...

    dammit
    Spoiler:

    We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried. Most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita. Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty, and, to impress him, takes on his multi-armed form and says, 'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds'.
  • NarbusNarbus Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Communism is a political theory, socialism is an economic theory. They are often conflated because people are dumb. Marx actually argued that true socialism was just a stepping stone towards the glorious Communist revolution. Socialism is especially not Communism mostly because Socialism is central control of the means of production, and Communism is when the people own those means in collectives. Marx argued that socialism was a stepping stone because people, after being beaten down under the oppressive yoke of capitalism, would need a strong, wise central government to help retrain them to take up the means of production themselves, and then Communism.

  • The Otaku SuppositoryThe Otaku Suppository SKREEEEEOOOONKKKKKK Monster IslandRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Henroid wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like, social programs would probably work, like the government stepping up and taking ownership of things would probably fit into my professors admittedly quite vague parameters.

    If your professor is defining socialism as "government takeover" I would gear all arguments toward showing him to be the silly goose he is.

    He'd probably flunk your ass, but hey.

    It's a debate, and I don't know if we're being graded. But he's not defining socialism as government takeover so much as governmental control of the means of production and social programs. When the government runs thing and provides for the people, where capitalism is the privatization and private ownership of those things.

    If the government controls the means of production, it steps closer toward Communism and isn't really Socialism.

    No, that's fascism.

    Where it's been put into practice it's both.

    We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried. Most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita. Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty, and, to impress him, takes on his multi-armed form and says, 'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds'.
  • QorzmQorzm Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
  • George Fornby GrillGeorge Fornby Grill ...Like Clockwork Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    well if you look at the Obama administration it's very obvious that Socialist Fuhrer Barry Sotero has gotten us very far in life

    Spoiler:

  • Blake TBlake T Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    The other neat thing is that if you go to a communist country they will flip the if shit if you offer them a real currency in exchange for anything.

    Booze, drugs, women, you can buy it all for like eight dollars.

  • AneurhythmiaAneurhythmia Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Henroid wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like, social programs would probably work, like the government stepping up and taking ownership of things would probably fit into my professors admittedly quite vague parameters.

    If your professor is defining socialism as "government takeover" I would gear all arguments toward showing him to be the silly goose he is.

    He'd probably flunk your ass, but hey.

    It's a debate, and I don't know if we're being graded. But he's not defining socialism as government takeover so much as governmental control of the means of production and social programs. When the government runs thing and provides for the people, where capitalism is the privatization and private ownership of those things.

    If the government controls the means of production, it steps closer toward Communism and isn't really Socialism.

    No, that's fascism.

    Where it's been put into practice it's both.

    I... Hmm. Just. Okay.

    Sure. Let's do that. Yeah. I can go.

    1LRdqui.png
  • The Otaku SuppositoryThe Otaku Suppository SKREEEEEOOOONKKKKKK Monster IslandRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    How much did you have to pay for Viv?

    We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried. Most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita. Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty, and, to impress him, takes on his multi-armed form and says, 'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds'.
  • Blake TBlake T Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    An old shoe that I was going to throw away anyway.

  • KoshianKoshian __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2011
    Henroid wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like, social programs would probably work, like the government stepping up and taking ownership of things would probably fit into my professors admittedly quite vague parameters.

    If your professor is defining socialism as "government takeover" I would gear all arguments toward showing him to be the silly goose he is.

    He'd probably flunk your ass, but hey.

    It's a debate, and I don't know if we're being graded. But he's not defining socialism as government takeover so much as governmental control of the means of production and social programs. When the government runs thing and provides for the people, where capitalism is the privatization and private ownership of those things.

    If the government controls the means of production, it steps closer toward Communism and isn't really Socialism.

    No, that's fascism.

    Where it's been put into practice it's both.

    fuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Henroid wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like, social programs would probably work, like the government stepping up and taking ownership of things would probably fit into my professors admittedly quite vague parameters.

    If your professor is defining socialism as "government takeover" I would gear all arguments toward showing him to be the silly goose he is.

    He'd probably flunk your ass, but hey.

    It's a debate, and I don't know if we're being graded. But he's not defining socialism as government takeover so much as governmental control of the means of production and social programs. When the government runs thing and provides for the people, where capitalism is the privatization and private ownership of those things.

    If the government controls the means of production, it steps closer toward Communism and isn't really Socialism.

    No, that's fascism.

    I've always thought of Fascism as being very militaristic driven. I'm not saying I'm right about that, just that it somehow got into my head.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • NarbusNarbus Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Henroid wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like, social programs would probably work, like the government stepping up and taking ownership of things would probably fit into my professors admittedly quite vague parameters.

    If your professor is defining socialism as "government takeover" I would gear all arguments toward showing him to be the silly goose he is.

    He'd probably flunk your ass, but hey.

    It's a debate, and I don't know if we're being graded. But he's not defining socialism as government takeover so much as governmental control of the means of production and social programs. When the government runs thing and provides for the people, where capitalism is the privatization and private ownership of those things.

    If the government controls the means of production, it steps closer toward Communism and isn't really Socialism.

    No, that's fascism.

    Where it's been put into practice it's both.

    What? No it hasn't. They are two totally incompatible ideologies.

  • The Otaku SuppositoryThe Otaku Suppository SKREEEEEOOOONKKKKKK Monster IslandRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Henroid wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like, social programs would probably work, like the government stepping up and taking ownership of things would probably fit into my professors admittedly quite vague parameters.

    If your professor is defining socialism as "government takeover" I would gear all arguments toward showing him to be the silly goose he is.

    He'd probably flunk your ass, but hey.

    It's a debate, and I don't know if we're being graded. But he's not defining socialism as government takeover so much as governmental control of the means of production and social programs. When the government runs thing and provides for the people, where capitalism is the privatization and private ownership of those things.

    If the government controls the means of production, it steps closer toward Communism and isn't really Socialism.

    No, that's fascism.

    Where it's been put into practice it's both.

    I... Hmm. Just. Okay.

    Sure. Let's do that. Yeah. I can go.

    In theory it's supposed to be common ownership of production, but communist countries have still retained a central government which has controlled the means of production.

    We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried. Most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita. Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty, and, to impress him, takes on his multi-armed form and says, 'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds'.
  • NarbusNarbus Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Henroid wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like, social programs would probably work, like the government stepping up and taking ownership of things would probably fit into my professors admittedly quite vague parameters.

    If your professor is defining socialism as "government takeover" I would gear all arguments toward showing him to be the silly goose he is.

    He'd probably flunk your ass, but hey.

    It's a debate, and I don't know if we're being graded. But he's not defining socialism as government takeover so much as governmental control of the means of production and social programs. When the government runs thing and provides for the people, where capitalism is the privatization and private ownership of those things.

    If the government controls the means of production, it steps closer toward Communism and isn't really Socialism.

    No, that's fascism.

    Where it's been put into practice it's both.

    I... Hmm. Just. Okay.

    Sure. Let's do that. Yeah. I can go.

    In theory it's supposed to be common ownership of production, but communist countries have still retained a central government which has controlled the means of production.

    I gathered that for the assignment he had to debate what socialism actually was, not what a bunch of dumbbutts thought it was sometimes because they are dumbbutts.

  • HamurabiHamurabi Cambridge, MARegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Koshian wrote: »
    these are good examples of anarchist socialism (a tautology to people In the Know...

    Could you elaborate on this, please?

  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Wait now I remember how I got the idea that Fascism = military. It's because of that stupid browser game Earth20-something.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • The Otaku SuppositoryThe Otaku Suppository SKREEEEEOOOONKKKKKK Monster IslandRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Henroid wrote: »
    Wait now I remember how I got the idea that Fascism = military. It's because of that stupid browser game Earth20-something.

    Or y'know...historical example.

    We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried. Most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita. Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty, and, to impress him, takes on his multi-armed form and says, 'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds'.
  • KoshianKoshian __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2011
    Hamurabi wrote: »
    Koshian wrote: »
    these are good examples of anarchist socialism (a tautology to people In the Know...

    Could you elaborate on this, please?

    if you're working towards socialism, the State is absolutely one of the biggest roadblocks there could possibly be. it acts as an organ of the bourgeois in late capitalism.

  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Henroid wrote: »
    Wait now I remember how I got the idea that Fascism = military. It's because of that stupid browser game Earth20-something.

    Or y'know...historical example.

    Yes but it's funnier if I say I learn everything in life from video games.

    Now if you'll excuse me, I have to write a blog post about how offshore drilling is causing the planet to cry out in agony and how the working class on Mars is revolting.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • Lord_AsmodeusLord_Asmodeus goeticSobriquet: Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Narbus wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like, social programs would probably work, like the government stepping up and taking ownership of things would probably fit into my professors admittedly quite vague parameters.

    If your professor is defining socialism as "government takeover" I would gear all arguments toward showing him to be the silly goose he is.

    He'd probably flunk your ass, but hey.

    It's a debate, and I don't know if we're being graded. But he's not defining socialism as government takeover so much as governmental control of the means of production and social programs. When the government runs thing and provides for the people, where capitalism is the privatization and private ownership of those things.

    If the government controls the means of production, it steps closer toward Communism and isn't really Socialism.

    No, that's fascism.

    Where it's been put into practice it's both.

    I... Hmm. Just. Okay.

    Sure. Let's do that. Yeah. I can go.

    In theory it's supposed to be common ownership of production, but communist countries have still retained a central government which has controlled the means of production.

    I gathered that for the assignment he had to debate what socialism actually was, not what a bunch of dumbbutts thought it was sometimes because they are dumbbutts.

    The debate is properly about the benefits of socialism throughout history versus the benefits of capitalism throughout history, for example government run programs versus privatized programs (like professorial firefighters, when they were run by insurance companies and when they were a government run program)

    2u6k1v9.gifxq9ly1.gif
«134
Sign In or Register to comment.