The problem with advocating Socialism is that the term has been viciously abused by many malign people who would have found a better home in the far right that claiming to be on the left. Robert Mugabe claims to be both Socialist and Marxist, and is quite clearly neither.

That said, I think Marxism has failed to progress much in the 20th century. The theories of Das Kapital have been accepted unchanged and Marxist-Leninism has been practised without adaption since Lenin's death. The cult of personality and failure to adapt to new situations and enviroment stalls the potential of the Left.

In answer to the original question, Socialism would fail in the US because market values are too strongly engrained for people to accept concepts of collective benefit and egalitarianism. After decades of the Soviets being the (actually worrying) boogyman, people in the US are hardly likley to adopt the theories their arch enemy claimed to follow.

I get the feeling that quite alot of people don't really know what they support when they declare themselves socialist, I have a theory that they just think of the ideal outcome and a warm fuzzy feeling of community without considering processes and practicalities.

Answers.com's definition depends on what property is, does it not? I defined it as what society grands, for various reasons, like accounting for responsibility(like knowing where it is, state of it), rewarding things, or something in accordance of a persons' rights.(said it earlier(riw)) Tax means that society does not grant that anymore. Government is supposed to represent society, and takes the tax. But very well, if you have your definition of property as something that is intrinsic to some thing, it is theft. In that case, not all theft by govt negates the set of rights of the person.
I agree, a relationship of govt with free market and corporations is not necessarily bad. I think it is slippery if the relations are not clear though. I think transparently should be demanded, there should be a clear organization that knows all of govts interactions with capitalism, and is open to scruteny.
That still leaves the problem of inability to compete with some corporations, though. (But i am not sure how bad that is, perhaps it is not bad.)
About Sweden, I thought they had capitalism there? I mean, Europe's left governments still employ capitalism, but with many controls like laws on work conditions. And of course, they heavily employ tax for social programs.
I think that is the way to go for quite a time in the future, moderated capitalism.
I thought that socialism is a form where the whole society forms government, which in that case is supposed to be the power of the people. What is your definition of democratic government then? The current steaming heap of crap?
@bns: An egalitarian society? Sounds scary, would not want that.. What do you mean? I think people should have the right to gain more wealth, rewarded by contributing, up to a point. Just that they do not hog resources.

Personally i am against socialism an-sich, next to what i earlier said what it misses. i guess too much power gets concentrated in the logistics that is currently in corporations and free market. Perhaps next to the separation church - state and govt&police - justice system, there should be a separation govt - mayor logistics.(i should be more clear what i mean, but the words dont come to me, hopefully later.)

Also, can we next time kill PWill's roundabouts in less posts.

It hasn't worked anywhere else, I don't see why the U.S. would be any different.

It's not a government in the sense as we are used to know it.

It's not a central government, or anything.

It's like thousands of thousands of micro infrastructure agencies administrating the sharing. the communities will substitute our now so called families, forming kind of clans.

people do govern themselves and don't pay taxes as there won't be any more money anyways.

I absolutely agree with the upmost transparency and scrutiny of the government. I am thankful that there is The Freedom of Information Act in the UK, though I am unclear what other countries policies are when information is requested about public bodies.

On the point of being unable to compete with certain corporations; you're right in that certain corporations hold strong monopolies on sectors of the market, and yet despite legal intervention hold on to it with an iron grip. It is a problem and something does need to be done, though the market is still largely very competitive.

You're also right about Sweden. It is very much just a strong Social Democratic country. It has become a lot more moderate since their economic troubles in the 1970's, mainly thanks to the Social Democrats losing the elections twice in the second half of that decade and the centre-right government introducing much more market-based policies. Still, to be fair on the Swedish Social Democrats, even before, they were quite moderate and socially progressive compared to many similar parties.

Finally, another voice of reason in this thread.

Socialism, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, so far have been quiet successful in the United States however the cost has been extremely high. Of the ruffly 9 trillion dollar nation debt, 4 trillion is debt the government owes itself. That 4 trillion is coming due soon when the baby boomers retire. I think the end of this socialist experiment is also coming to an end soon.

@Buddha443556: Uhm, is the ratio of US expendature on social programs not a way smaller part then that? And talking about debt increase is talking about a difference, is this difference relative to the past or is the difference to be split evenly between current spending. It is just too easy to twist the numbers that way.
Also, people might just be willing to pay more tax for social programs, or just to decrease spending on other stuff. That renders your response rather void for them.(It is basically this thread, http://socialdiscussion.com/civil-li...html#post77668 read the premise of the thread first!, the third post tells why it is important.)

As i said in other thread, perhaps socialism has not worked because of the US. I do not thing socialism without any other things will work, though.(why already in thread) But it is not near as dangerous and sure to be evil as you say.

There's been a socialist party in the United States since the '70s. Don't seem to be able to get elected though.



Socialist Party USA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes!! I am going to join them. Anyways the reason that any other political party doesn't do very good is because the Republican and Democractic parties are just to large and most people are either one or the other.

You guys missed my point. Socialism is nice on paper, but we live in an imperfect world full of imperfect people. Because of real-world conditions, you have to force people, through taxation and law, to conform to a Socialist system.

It requires a strong centralized government to enforce the policy. My point was that by establishing a strong central government, in the name of Socialism, or any other 'ism, is a bad idea. That is why Socialism doesn't generally work.

Once you establish the level of control required to impliment state socialism, you have set the stage for totalitarianism.

MRiGnS, your talking about libertarian socialism, which is quite different.

Neither would libertarianism either.

Have you read your Constitution lately? This country was founded by libertarians.

I've always thought that small town communities in the U.S. are vaguely socialistic. There's a sense of community, where people realize their strength in numbers. One person will help another, without money being the bottom line. I think smaller communities get this idea ... that everyone sinks or swims together. Being the only guy on an open wilderness is a call for death.

But larger cities, this connection towards other humans and nature has been somewhat abstracted and lost. A person doesn't see the direct effects of their actions anymore, as the system is too large. We just look through a pin hole at our own little world, and make choices that maximize our own happiness.

I think it's possible that socialism could work on both a small scale, and large scale ... although it would require a large scale change in mindset.

Edit: Note I'm talking about a democratic form of socialism, not an authoritarian form.

Canada could be considered a democratic socialist country and we have our own fair share of problems with it. Many become dependent on that social welfare that comes from the government, sometimes to the point of being immovable. But it does have it's good points too, like being able to go see a doctor even if I'm broke. May take me 3 months to get in but at least it's free.

That is not socialism, that is just people being nice and helpful.
I'm nice, and try to help my neighbors when they need it, but I am far from a socialist.

Libertarian in comparison to what? What I'm saying is exactly Marx' scientific socialism. Authoritarian socialism is a contradiction.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Where_would_the_Founding_Fathers_fit_into_today's_ political_climate

from: Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and movements which aim to improve society through collective action and to a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community."

Meaning, if the community decides something is a bad idea, they should not be forced to support it.