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.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
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.
Lord_Asmodeus on
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
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?
Henroid on
0
Options
Blake TDo you have enemies then?Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.Registered Userregular
edited April 2011
Well I mean the word socialism has the word social in it so I suppose it sounds friendly.
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited April 2011
Bust out the Bible and talk about how Jesus was pro-Socialism. Way ahead of his time!
Henroid on
0
Options
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
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.
Lord_Asmodeus on
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
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.
Henroid on
0
Options
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
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.
Lord_Asmodeus on
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
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 on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
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?)
you could take a different tack and not so much argue for socialism as against capitalism
bring up the Triangle Fire and similar tragedies
Macera on
0
Options
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
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.
Lord_Asmodeus on
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Henroid on
0
Options
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
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)
Lord_Asmodeus on
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
these are good examples of anarchist socialism (a tautology to people In the Know...
Could you elaborate on this, please?
In socialism (some strains, anyway) the community owns everything directly, so there is no need for a government to protect property rights, since there is no property. The people all decide together what to do, instead of relying on a government.
This only applies to some strains and notably does not apply to socialism as Marx defined it, which is the big guy everyone always thinks of.
Narbus on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited April 2011
I like how Marx is supposed to be some big evil dude but everyone listens to him anyway.
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)
Oh, then focus on the Triangle building fire, the Jungle by Upton Sinclair (really), and some of the ways that capitalism fails. A good one is how under capitalism, if you have no capital you have no say in the economy. So we have drugs to make old guys get boners, but there's no widespread malaria vaccines for use in Africa. There's no market for those vaccines, so they don't get made.
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.
these are good examples of anarchist socialism (a tautology to people In the Know...
Could you elaborate on this, please?
In socialism (some strains, anyway) the community owns everything directly, so there is no need for a government to protect property rights, since there is no property. The people all decide together what to do, instead of relying on a government.
This only applies to some strains and notably does not apply to socialism as Marx defined it, which is the big guy everyone always thinks of.
This is... completely contrary to what I understand "socialism" to mean. But then, I also haven't read Das Kapital, so I don't purport to be The Resident Socialist™ or anything.
And no one thinks Karl Marx is "some evil dude" except for people who are uneducated, or deliberately trying to scare people. Marx was actually a noted sociologist, and made a lot of substantive contributions to several social science disciplines.
Posts
http://struggle.ws/hist_texts/wilde_soul.html
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.
Satans..... hints.....
It's fun to say capital idea.
Satans..... hints.....
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.
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.
bring up the Triangle Fire and similar tragedies
No, that's fascism.
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
Where it's been put into practice it's both.
@Bryceforvice on Twitter Facebook
Booze, drugs, women, you can buy it all for like eight dollars.
Satans..... hints.....
I... Hmm. Just. Okay.
Sure. Let's do that. Yeah. I can go.
Satans..... hints.....
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.
What? No it hasn't. They are two totally incompatible ideologies.
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.
Could you elaborate on this, please?
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.
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)
In socialism (some strains, anyway) the community owns everything directly, so there is no need for a government to protect property rights, since there is no property. The people all decide together what to do, instead of relying on a government.
This only applies to some strains and notably does not apply to socialism as Marx defined it, which is the big guy everyone always thinks of.
Oh, then focus on the Triangle building fire, the Jungle by Upton Sinclair (really), and some of the ways that capitalism fails. A good one is how under capitalism, if you have no capital you have no say in the economy. So we have drugs to make old guys get boners, but there's no widespread malaria vaccines for use in Africa. There's no market for those vaccines, so they don't get made.
Wrooooooooooooooong wrooooong wroooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong.
This is... completely contrary to what I understand "socialism" to mean. But then, I also haven't read Das Kapital, so I don't purport to be The Resident Socialist™ or anything.
And no one thinks Karl Marx is "some evil dude" except for people who are uneducated, or deliberately trying to scare people. Marx was actually a noted sociologist, and made a lot of substantive contributions to several social science disciplines.