The Instigator
billsands
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheUnexaminedLife
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Socialism is inevitable

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/20/2019 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 306 times Debate No: 123488
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

billsands

Pro

No idea works the first time, If you look at modern attempts at liberal democracy they started gradually and haltingly, The major cataclism that started the movement of liberal democracy across the globe was in France. The French Revolution was a bloody mess as was the Russian revolution
First attempts and making an automobile or a flying machine were pretty much failures but insane people had a vision and kept trying new ideas. Things that stand still? They die. Society is constantly changing, Socialism keeps coming back over and over because we can't get rid of the idea because its inevitable eventually we will make it work as we did make the auto work modern medicine electricity moon rockets and democracy
capitalism is very productive but has great flaws also. . We will evolve out of Capitalism as we came down from the trees and moved out of caves and stopped thinking the world was flat. . Many things thought impossible 1000 even 100 years ago are real now
Socialism is only a matter of time
TheUnexaminedLife

Con

The future is not determined. History does not proceed by mechanical necessity. There are a plurality of possibilities when it comes to the future and about what humans want the future to be and it is their choice about which type of future will be created. Many factors contribute to how the future will turn out. A society's technology and its culture and law and the ways of life of its people will create different possibilities about what can be done. Each individual too has a different array of possibilities at any one time about how their own lives and futures will turn out and the actions they choose to perform have an impact on the whole society. Workers might be complicit in the way their boss is running the country and so help to create a future in which their boss's vision comes more into reality. A political leader might introduce a new policy which alters the future situation of the country. The world happens in all its complexities and there is no determined arrow which points to a communist or socialist state as its ends point. There is no end of history or inevitable trajectory.

Before Socialism occurs an existential risk might turn into crisis and the world's population wiped out. Societies might revert back to monarchic-style rule. Their could be decades in which anarchism is the guiding principle. Capitalism might continue until we are all living in a Matrix-like scenerio or have transcended human biology and integrated our consciousness' with AI technology. The future holds so many potentials for what it might become. No one of these futures are determined. Some possibilities are just more or less likely to occur.

Now a brief history lesson:

Because your history is incorrect. The French Revolution did not start liberal democracy. Democracy since ancient Greece has been a select group of people (usually wealthy males) 'deciding' on how things should run and in some situations how society should operate. After the Greek's were conquered by Rome, Empire and monarchic rule was spread throughout Europe. There were centuries of monarchies. But then under the Tudor period in England the power of the monarchy was weakened because the kings and queens had distributed their power to decide on how society should operate to aristocrats and members of the Gentry. The Gentry were middle-class people gaining autonomy through the economy and through humanist ideas (post-Luther) some of which were appointed to have political positions in place or in the service of the aristocracy. Elizabeth I (the last Tudor) had to increasingly fight against her politicans over the governance of her country. The Tudor period saw a shift in the justification of power away from religious faith in the divine ordination of monarchs to a rationality which not just the monarch had access to. Parliament challenged the monarchy and educated men set forth new bills and ways of running the country which would have been the prerogative of the monarch to decide and present. The printing press and places to read and debate ideas (like coffee houses and salons) contributed to rival power factions to the state which distrupted the monarch's monopoly on reason and priveleged access to divine truth (i. E. The press attacked the state). It is unsurpising then that the dynasty which succeeded the Tudors (the Stuarts) would see the rise of parliamentry democracy. Groups of men debating reasons instead of obeying the monarch -- that was when democracy began. Then Oliver Cromwell. Charles I was beheaded in 1649. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke lived around this time and constructed and justified theorises of democracy (the state being responsible for its people). This was a good 150 years before the French Revoltion and 50 years before Rousseau. In the succeeding centuries proper democracy would only be instigated as more and more people were included in having a say in how society should be run and who should be running it. It was only in the 20th century when women got the vote.

So think. Democracy as it was originally conceived of was in ancient Greek society. Almost 2000 years pass until the Tudor period and parliamentry democracy is formed, Europe having went through centuries and centuries of tribalism and variations of the monarchy. Marx wrote Das Kapital in the 19th century influenced by Hegel and Kant and Plato (some socialist ideas arguably in Plato and Kant. Less in Hegel).

Socialism and Communism were terms coined in the 19th century. They're still relevatively new political theorises (or -isms) despite having their precursors. Think of all the factors and complexities in history which brought about democracy. Socialism and Communism still have a lot to work out over centuries if they are going to be effectively applied to a society. But there is no guarantee that they ever will. These ideas could fall through for a few thousand years. They could be deliberated on and decided to be inadequate and not the kind of visions of society we want to strive for. Or then again a huge solar flare could wipe us all out. The future is uncertain; there are no inevitabilities in the universe only probable outcomes.
Debate Round No. 1
billsands

Pro

Hegel, And historical materialism make the observation though history is hardly a strait line, And though long periods of time pass between progress, Humanity moves toward equality in steps no slavery women get to vote end to segregation and of course slavery still exists women are not equal we never got rid of racism, But as long as we keep fighting things do move forward, Bit by bit, This might take 10 000 years but Socialism is inevitable
TheUnexaminedLife

Con

Hegel argued that what he called the absolute Idea was unfurling throughout history causing in its practical application the expansion of freedom and liberty for specific nations until the end of history would occur where the absolute Idea was fully realized in the world. If you are attempting to use Hegel's dialectic movement to defend your viewpoint could you explain to me what the absolute Idea is?

Marx famously turned Hegel on his head and argued that the historical conditions that mattered for changing the future and driving history were the technological means of production and not ideas or Hegel's concept of the absolute Idea. So for instance he argued that all the new industrial machinery created the capitalist bosses and factory power relations where the workers were subserivient to them. This is historical materialism. I have already argued against this by saying that many different factors affect what the future will become. The ideas prevalent in a nation as well as the technology and the politics and the decisions of individual people and so forth all affect what type of future is created and indeed what type of technology is developed to use and structure how people choose to live their lives. Why do you think that only the material conditions which Marx describes drive history?

There is no necessity to the future where If P --> Q. Humanity is not like an egg which must hatch and mature into a chicken over thousands of years. So many different possibilities could occur in these thousands of years which completely change the course of history and come out with different end results. What will happen you can only infer. Why do you think socialism is the inevitable end point and not something else? Why won't the future for instance be a different version of capitalism like the Matrix scenerio where robots use us for batteries as our autonomic systems and brains are given datum to make us think we're living in the real world?
Debate Round No. 2
billsands

Pro

i was speaking in general terms not specific and Marx once said the state would fade away the thing to take away is society is not static it is changing
TheUnexaminedLife

Con

yes things are always changing -- processes and the complex interactions of an unimaginably large amount of stuff reconfiguring reality moment by moment

there is no reason to believe that all this change will end in socialism just because a few men have said so and then justified their claim on dubious theoretical frameworks

things can change in new and surprising ways and there are no powers of human rationality (yet) that can predict specific events in the future or that a society will become socialist or whether humanity will be wiped out by a massive catastrophe or whether mankind will intergate itself with machinery and AI tech until the old forms of politics become simply obsolete

in other words there is no way to judge socialism as 'inevitable' in the future -- it is only possibly a future certain societies might adopt
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by billsands 2 years ago
billsands
ok hitch i basically agree
Posted by Hitchslapper 2 years ago
Hitchslapper
Democracy is quite popular in the United States and around the world. That is a great thing for socialism!

Democratic Socialism is nothing more than another term for democracy, Despite slander to the contrary

I would go even further and say that the ideas of democratic socialism brought forth by fine men like Bernie Sanders, Is democracy improved and refined

Anyone who compares the vision of Bernie Sanders, To other countries who have failed wearing the term socialist, Is being intellectually dishonest

It is in fact a straw man argument to infer any link between those failed nations, And the vision of Bernie Sanders

The ideas of Democratic Socialists like Bernie takes off everywhere democracy does, Its only a matter of time until the United States wakes up. Lets hope its before the god obsessed people (GOP) and other countries like them, Have rolled back and/or voted down enough environmental measures to kill us first
Posted by billsands 2 years ago
billsands
i have been watching i think socialism is inevitable
Posted by billsands 2 years ago
billsands
my sister is rich and had private, But for some reason she often used the NHS out of necessity, She liked it A LOT. Champaign socialist go figure
Posted by TheUnexaminedLife 2 years ago
TheUnexaminedLife
Some non-perscribed drugs are moneitised and can be bought; drugs your doctor prescribes for you however are free.
Posted by TheUnexaminedLife 2 years ago
TheUnexaminedLife
The NHS in the UK works because the taxes of the country are used to provide free and universal healthcare for everybody for any illness or medical problem without charge -- no insuranced needed. It is also the UK's greatest employer. Private healthcare is purely optional for those with enough money to use it.
Posted by billsands 2 years ago
billsands
people die here because they don't have insurance you have no idea how lucky you are
Posted by billsands 2 years ago
billsands
My sister lived in the Uk for ten years and she was wealthy sort of a champagne socialist of sorts but she is smart and i asked her about the NHS because i knew she had private insurance, Why don't you have private insurance btw? Are you poor? She said she often used the NHS, I don't know why i don't know how it works, I guess if you have private insurance you often end up using the NHS. She was impressed she liked the fact she never had to pay for prescriptions at point of use, I find a lot of complaints come from biased people like you, You have this axe to grind, I know my sister she has a kid, If the NHS was a s bad as you say it is/ she would not have used it for 10 years, I have talked to many americans who really liked the nhs maybe thats just an indication of how awful our private CAPITALIST SYSTEM IS, My family is from holland, The netherlands they privatized their health system, Its all private companies but it is heavily regualted and subsidized by the state, My cousins love the system the only complaint is that you have to pay full price for name brand drugs, I personaly think hybrid systems work the best where public and private come to some compromise. . Neither total state or total private systems seem desirable to me, I prefer what works to what is politically correct like china, It doesnt matter if the cat is white or black as long as the cat catches mice 3:)
Posted by Masterful 2 years ago
Masterful
And that's at the expense of 12% of my income. WTF. I'm paying 1/8th of my income for something I use once per year for a sinus infection. Screw the inefficiency of government they know only how to spend and not how to run a service optimally. The NHS is a tax money sink and sucks.
Posted by Masterful 2 years ago
Masterful
I hope not. I can't even get a doctors appointment on the NHS.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.