UnitedIssues U.S. Political Debates - Debate

"Can the USSR be truly called a socialist state?"

Original Opinion by Gaelin (136)

now i don't have a source for this, but im pretty sure that the definition of a socialist state is more or less one where the working class controls the means of production. In the USSR the state controlled the means of production, and i don't think it can be argued that the workers had much control of the state. doesn't this mean that the nation was not even socialist?

Responses

"false" by tkdblackbelt (7)

It isn't when the working class has the power it is when the power of production is spread evenly through everyone. Everyone is a socialist nation is supposedly equal so it is spread through everyone. Get your fucking fucks straight you fucking teller of falses

Source(s):

God

"lolz" by Gaelin (136)

the point is that the workers didn't have control of the means on production. on paper they did but in reality it was in the hands of an all powerful government elite. state capitalism may be a much more accurate term. as for the rest of your comment all I can do is laugh xD

"LOLZ" by tkdblackbelt (7)

a socialist state is not benificial to any society. with "equality" of everyone come intense division.

Source(s):

:)

"Sweden" by Gaelin (136)

If that's the case then why is Sweden, which has a socialist government, the highest rated country on the international democracy index? Sweden is also the fifth least corrupt state in the world and one of the happiest. it is also a leader in gender equality.

Source(s):

Various studies I can't remember but whose accuracy I am mostly sure of

Response removed by administrator.

"Well acording to some people" by Coillcumhannattensra (15)

it doesnt even make sense anymore

Source(s):

cnn
vroom

"anyone?" by Gaelin (136)

I see one removed comment and one saying "it doesn't even make sense anymore" can anyone argue? anyone able to prove that the Soviet Union was socialist??

"I understand what you are trying to say" by FreeRoamer (42)

I think alot of the confusion on this topic comes from the fact that many political/economic ideologies are loosely defined. This is mainly because theoretical ideologies are often altered when they are applied and put into practice, and thus differ from the actual system that is seen (such as the ideology of Communism when applied to USSR, which became a whole different system).

If you're definition of socialism is an economic system in which the working class owns and controls the means of production, then USSR was no in way a socialist state. You are right.

However by that same definition, could Sweden be considered socialist? I am not an expert on Sweden, but as far as I know they are capitalist (private individuals control means of production) with wealth distribution and public assistance programs for the poor (which are funded by the STATE). Does the working class control the means of production in Sweden?

And I strongly disagree with your claim that Sweden has gender equality. If you are exclusively talking about WOMEN's rights, then yes, Sweden has these. MEN's rights however are very lacking. In Sweden there is a "man tax" that ONLY men have to pay, the purpose of which is supposedly to pay for domestic violence, social costs, etc that are ONLY perpetrated by men (never the blatant sexism inherent in this idea that men, and only men, are the cause of these problems). Women's privileges far exceed men's rights in Sweden. If you equate gender equality with women's rights, then you are not necessarily correct. They are not always synonymous.

"socialist by the USSR's definition, not mine" by Gaelin (136)

I personally identify more with the Social Democrat definition of Socialism, by which I mean a nation with socialists in large numbers in it's government with socialist reforms in place. Also while I don't know anything about the "man only tax" you talked about such a tax would actually increase gender equality by slightly balancing the scales.

"Wow that is a really offensive statement" by FreeRoamer (42)

The last comment you typed was very anti-male. I feel fairly safe in assuming that you are female. First of all I am horrified that you actually think of this tax as enforcing "gender equality". To me, it seems that in your consideration of "gender equality" you completely leave out any concern for the welfare of men. How would this "man tax" balance the scales? Are you suggesting that only men create domestic violence? Because they don't. That is just as much of a stereotype as is the idea that Mexicans cause more crime, or that blacks eat fried chicken, and it is sexist. The idea that men do create more domestic violence stems from the societal definitions of gender violence, double standards, and the notion that violence towards women is seen as a heinous crime while violence towards men is seen as a joke. Furthermore would you support a "woman tax", to help pay for all the automobile accidents women cause? I didn't think so.

Thirdly, you made the claim that Sweden is closer to gender equality than other nations, yet you did not know about their "man tax", which is not such a huge secret. With all due respect, I do not think you know enough about Sweden to use it as a successful example to defend your economic beliefs. I am not saying I disagree or agree with Socialism, but Sweden is not a utopia.

Fourthly, you define a Socialist Democracy as a "nation with socialists in large numbers in it's government with socialist reforms in place." This seems kind of self-explanatory. Could you be a bit more specific?

"dude, im a dude.." by Gaelin (136)

While I personally would not support some weird man tax I was merely pointing out that it could work to balance the scales because men make much more money than women for doing the same jobs just about everywhere in the world. And as for what I would call a socialist democracy, for instance The UK, where healthcare is universal education is state supported and cheap and the Labour Party, basically the British version of the democratic party, Is actually socialist. Now the interesting thing is that that definition fits just about every western nation in the world except ours.. also I love how you accuse me of sexism and then state that women are bad drivers lol. Also, not knowing one fact about a country does not negate any other facts you might know about it, that's just silly.

"Don't take my statements out of context" by FreeRoamer (42)

I never said women are bad drivers...I created a hypothetical scenario in which a certain tax is inplemented only on one gender due to a sexist stereotype that that certain gender contributes more of a specific societal problem than the other...I never claimed that I truly believe women are bad drivers. Please do not take what I say out of context. That is a dirty method of argument. Also, being of a particular race or gender is not a sufficient alibi to claim you are not racist/sexist...just as saying "I have black friends" does not excuse you from being checked for racism. And thirdly, just because controversial statistics say that men make 20% more than women in certain areas of the world doesn't justify an enormous arsenal of sexist laws and oppressions against men to make up for one trivial inequality in one certain aspect of societal treatment.


Also you still mix up your definitions of socialism. In your argument description you define socialism as a society in which the working class controls the means of production, then in your last reply you say the UK is socialist because the government provides healthcare there. What exactly does the government providing healthcare have to do with the working class owning capital? Last time I checked, in the UK capital (the means of production) is still controlled by private individuals. The only difference is that after profits are gained, the wealthy are taxed and this goes to help others in some way. In other words, according to your FIRST definition of socialism, the UK is not socialist - rather it is capitalism with wealth redistribution. Not the same thing.

"Don't take my statements out of context" by FreeRoamer (42)

I never said women are bad drivers...I created a hypothetical scenario in which a certain tax is inplemented only on one gender due to a sexist stereotype that that certain gender contributes more of a specific societal problem than the other...I never claimed that I truly believe women are bad drivers. Please do not take what I say out of context. That is a dirty method of argument. Also, being of a particular race or gender is not a sufficient alibi to claim you are not racist/sexist...just as saying "I have black friends" does not excuse you from being checked for racism. And thirdly, just because controversial statistics say that men make 20% more than women in certain areas of the world doesn't justify an enormous arsenal of sexist laws and oppressions against men to make up for one trivial inequality in one certain aspect of societal treatment.


Also you still mix up your definitions of socialism. In your argument description you define socialism as a society in which the working class controls the means of production, then in your last reply you say the UK is socialist because the government provides healthcare there. What exactly does the government providing healthcare have to do with the working class owning capital? Last time I checked, in the UK capital (the means of production) is still controlled by private individuals. The only difference is that after profits are gained, the wealthy are taxed and this goes to help others in some way. In other words, according to your FIRST definition of socialism, the UK is not socialist - rather it is capitalism with wealth redistribution. Not the same thing.

"..." by Gaelin (136)

Look, while having black friends might now mean you aren't prejudiced against blacks I think it is fair to say that being black most likely means you aren't... in the same way I am not saying "I have male friends so I am not sexist against men." I am saying "I am male so I am not sexist against men. that would be silly." also if you look at my earlier comments you will notice that I clearly stated that the first definition was the Marxist-Leninist version and that the second, which I prefered, was the social-democratic definition. you mixed up definitions, not me. and look dude, you didn't have to be black to see that segregation was wrong, and you don't have to be a woman to see that gender inequality is wrong.

"Where did I ever say gender/racial inequality isn't wrong?" by FreeRoamer (42)

I never condoned racial/gender inequality, you are the one that approved of the idea of a man tax. Therefore that makes YOU the advocate of gender inequality, not me.

My point with the "black friends" analogy is that anyone can be racist or sexist against ANY race or gender. Yes, being black makes you less likely to be racist towards blacks. That doesn't exclude the possibility though. Ever seen the show "Boondocks" on Adult Swim? Uncle Ruckus is a great example of a black person who is racist against his own kind. While there aren't many people who are racist/sexist against their own gender or race, they are out there. And whether or not you are actually a consistently sexist person, your previous statement was indeed very sexist. An example of the reverse equivalent would be a woman who thought women did not deserve the right to vote.

Yes, you confused the ideologies. You first called into question the Marxist-Leninist form of socialism and asked if the USSR was a good example of this. A user named "tkdblackbelt" (third response) didn't answer the question and instead critiqued Marxist-Leninist socialism. Then to refute him, you pointed to Sweden as an example of a successful socialist state. However, Sweden doesn't have a Marxist-Leninist form of socialism, but rather a social democracy. To refute him, you should have pointed to an example of a successful Marxist-Leninist society, not a successful social democracy.

"..." by Gaelin (136)

I never approved the idea of a man tax, only offered some defense for it. and my point was that there is no example of a successful Marxist socialist society because there is no example of such a society. the governments that we think of as socialist such as the USSR the PRC and Cuba are in fact bureaucratic dictatorships no closer to socialism the Hitler's Germany. he did not specify marxist socialism, he said socialism. and Sweden frequently has a socialist government, dominated by the socialist party. that is why I gave that example. Look, I'm tired of debating whether I am prejudiced against myself, and it really has nothing to do with Socialism.

"Also, fictional character.." by Gaelin (136)

next time youre looking for an example of a person behaving/believing a certain way/thing I recommend you choose an example that is not fictional..

"If you disapprove of the man tax idea, why offer a defense?" by FreeRoamer (42)

If I made a sexist comment against women, or a racist comment against blacks, you would be all over me calling me a bigot, a chauvinist, etc., no matter how "tired" I was of defending myself. But never mind the sexism argument, it doesn't matter. Back to socialism:

Ok, I get it. In the question description you were referring to Marxist socialism, and in the fourth response you were referring to social democracy. I see now. At least I hope you were, because if so then you were right and we can get this out of the way.

"and my point was that there is no example of a successful Marxist socialist society because there is no example of such a society. the governments that we think of as socialist such as the USSR the PRC and Cuba are in fact bureaucratic dictatorships no closer to socialism the Hitler's Germany"

- I absolutely agree. You are right.

"next time youre looking for an example of a person behaving/believing a certain way/thing I recommend you choose an example that is not fictional.."

- Not exactly sure what this means. Not sure that I want to either.

"fictional." by Gaelin (136)

You cited "Uncle Ruckus" from the TV show the Boondocks as an example of someone being discriminatory from their own kind. Uncle Ruckus in not real. not a good example.

"There are still people out there like Uncle Ruckus " by FreeRoamer (42)

Usually they are called "Uncle Tom's", and there are equivalents of these among every race, gender, or group.

"then give an example." by Gaelin (136)

...

"..." by FreeRoamer (42)

...I actually personally know a few people like this in real life. Would you really care to know their names?

"not reading all post " by Teddyroosevelt (45)

you want to here something realy sexist i dont think there are any women on this site because most women dont care about politics

just kidding realy i am sorry to the women if there are any but back to whever you can call the ussr as a true marxist state and i would have to say no why because karl marx defined communism as a pure and equal democracy and last i checked in a democracy you cant be force fully moved to siberia for politcal beliefs the reason i think communism has never realy appeared in the world is you cant suddenly change poeples way of thinking it has to evolve into it. example the united states is bred in with democracy going from greece to rome to england all had democratic aspects in the case of the soviet union it evoloved from mongol empire into russia of autoracy ruled by ivan the terrible and under them people owned no property and if the tzar wanted something built like st petersburg he could have whole towns rooted up and moved and thousands would probaly die in the process sound familiar
so the bolsheviks became what they revolted agianst

Source(s):

brian landers empires apart history of the united states and russia

"Thank you teddy" by Gaelin (136)

you just made my point BEAUTIFULLY