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

Lord_Asmodeus

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.

FirmSkater

Oscar Wilde wrote some shit about socialism.

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

Crashmo

Not in my America, buddy

ThreadbareSock

How long were you supposed to be working on this? A month, wasn't it?

Lord_Asmodeus

ThreadbareSock wrote: »

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.

Henroid

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?

Koshian

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 T

Well I mean the word socialism has the word social in it so I suppose it sounds friendly.

Blake T

But I mean with capitalism you have the word capital which, I just kinda like.

It's fun to say capital idea.

mensch-o-matic

Call me back when you need a paper on socialites

Henroid

Bust out the Bible and talk about how Jesus was pro-Socialism. Way ahead of his time!

Lord_Asmodeus

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.

Koshian

Lord_Asmodeus 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.

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

Henroid

Lord_Asmodeus 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.

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

Lord_Asmodeus

Henroid wrote: »

Lord_Asmodeus 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.

Koshian

that's horrifically disingenuous. beat him to death with a copy Das Kapital

Henroid

Lord_Asmodeus wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

Lord_Asmodeus 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.

Henroid

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?)

Macera

you could take a different tack and not so much argue for socialism as against capitalism

bring up the Triangle Fire and similar tragedies

Lord_Asmodeus

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.

Aneurhythmia

Henroid wrote: »

Lord_Asmodeus wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

Lord_Asmodeus 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.

The Otaku Suppository

Lord_Asmodeus wrote: »

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:

Actually, you could mention quite a bit about the social reforms of France in the 1930s and the nationalization of industries and the social reforms and wealth redistribution undertaken by the UK post WWII.

Narbus

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 Suppository

Aneurhythmia wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

Lord_Asmodeus wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

Lord_Asmodeus 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.

Qorzm

hey teefs

George Fornby Grill

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:

9/11

Spoiler:

never

Spoiler:

forget

Blake T

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.

Aneurhythmia

The Otaku Suppository wrote: »

Aneurhythmia wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

Lord_Asmodeus wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

Lord_Asmodeus 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.

The Otaku Suppository

How much did you have to pay for Viv?

Blake T

An old shoe that I was going to throw away anyway.

Koshian

The Otaku Suppository wrote: »

Aneurhythmia wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

Lord_Asmodeus wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

Lord_Asmodeus 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

Henroid

Aneurhythmia wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

Lord_Asmodeus wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

Lord_Asmodeus 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.

Narbus

The Otaku Suppository wrote: »

Aneurhythmia wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

Lord_Asmodeus wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

Lord_Asmodeus 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 Suppository

Aneurhythmia wrote: »

The Otaku Suppository wrote: »

Aneurhythmia wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

Lord_Asmodeus wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

Lord_Asmodeus 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.

Narbus

The Otaku Suppository wrote: »

Aneurhythmia wrote: »

The Otaku Suppository wrote: »

Aneurhythmia wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

Lord_Asmodeus wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

Lord_Asmodeus 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.

Hamurabi

Koshian wrote: »

these are good examples of anarchist socialism (a tautology to people In the Know...

Could you elaborate on this, please?

Henroid

Wait now I remember how I got the idea that Fascism = military. It's because of that stupid browser game Earth20-something.

The Otaku Suppository

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.

Koshian

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.

Henroid

The Otaku Suppository wrote: »

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.

Lord_Asmodeus

Narbus wrote: »

The Otaku Suppository wrote: »

Aneurhythmia wrote: »

The Otaku Suppository wrote: »

Aneurhythmia wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

Lord_Asmodeus wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

Lord_Asmodeus 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)