6 ms·

LOL. Go look at Europe. The answer to that is a definite hell-no.

huac 10y ago
Socialists have historically been some of the biggest proponents of democracy. You're probably trolling, but it'd be amusing to know which countries you think have socialist governments in place by force.
- the_watcher 10y ago
  Maybe democratic socialists. But the track record of explicitly socialist nations is pretty much the exact opposite of pro-democratic. There's a decent argument that those governments were coopted by corruption and never actually turned into true socialist governments, but that's also a flaw in the system, as it relies on humans to not act in their own best interest across the board.
  - randomgyatwork 10y ago
    There is also a difference between state-capitalism and socialism, many of the socialist / communist examples we have are actually state-capitalism.
- pjlegato 10y ago
  Perhaps you have heard of the People's Democratic Republics of East Germany, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Czechoslovakia, and Albania? Socialism was imposed by a foreign occupying army. Or take the Soviet Union itself. The democratically elected Provisional Government was overthrown by force. Even the socialists-only Constituent Assembly election was simply voided and ignored by the Bolsheviks when they overwhelmingly lost. Your claim is empirically false. Socialism has historically been imposed involuntarily at gunpoint in almost all cases where it has achieved any measure of real power. Moreover, once established, its show elections are a farce, with only pre-selected Party approved candidates allowed to win. You will no doubt reply that none of this was done by "real" socialists, and that <insert your favorite sub-sub-branch of socialism here> are the only "real" socialists. This is the "No True Scotsman fallacy".
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    History is split. Marxist-style socialism was installed by force in Eastern Europe, Russia, and other places. Democratic socialism was installed by free elections in northern Europe, and continued there in later free elections, with candidates of multiple parties allowed to run.
  - John23832 10y ago
    Ideally, political change can happen without violence or bloodshed. But we don' live in an ideal world. We never have, and we never will. Pretty much ANY political system gains power through bloodshed. The United States, Canada, England, France, Germany, pretty much the entirety of South America, Africa and Asia... With the wide ranges of political systems that span all these places, each and every one of them was put in place by violence. You point out the horrible regimes that adopted the word "Socialist" or "People's" in their name and point out all the atrocities that they have committed. While adopting those monickers != actual socialism, you've headed off that argument, so I'll give you that. However, don't lay violence as a means of gripping power at the feet of Socialism... That's a human trait.
    - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
      Disengenuous to ignore the appallingly violent way Socialism has historically grabbed power and suppressed their populations. Very different from rebellions for independence for instance.
      - John23832 10y ago
        Sure. The Stalinist were a horribly violent. So were the US backed gorrillas in every violent uprising in South America in the 1980's. So were Belgian trading companies in the Congo. So were the French people during the Reign of Terror. So were the Catholics during the all of the Inquisitions. So were the Spanish during the expulsion of the Moors. I could go on. The point being that this is not a Socialist trait. The first two were done with Capitalist intent. The last two were carried out with both political and religous power in mind. It's clear that you don't like Socialism, and that's fine... to each his own. But it's "disingenuous" to ignore history for the sake of proving your point.
John23832 10y ago
Gotta love politically inflammatory remarks by "throwaway" accounts. I wish people had the balls to stand behind their politics.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  I'm thinking new accounts could be unable to comment until they'd viewed 100 different subjects over at least a week? Make it harder to mint these 'troll' account.

huac 10y ago

Socialists have historically been some of the biggest proponents of democracy. You're probably trolling, but it'd be amusing to know which countries you think have socialist governments in place by force.

the_watcher 10y ago
Maybe democratic socialists. But the track record of explicitly socialist nations is pretty much the exact opposite of pro-democratic. There's a decent argument that those governments were coopted by corruption and never actually turned into true socialist governments, but that's also a flaw in the system, as it relies on humans to not act in their own best interest across the board.
- randomgyatwork 10y ago
  There is also a difference between state-capitalism and socialism, many of the socialist / communist examples we have are actually state-capitalism.
pjlegato 10y ago
Perhaps you have heard of the People's Democratic Republics of East Germany, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Czechoslovakia, and Albania? Socialism was imposed by a foreign occupying army. Or take the Soviet Union itself. The democratically elected Provisional Government was overthrown by force. Even the socialists-only Constituent Assembly election was simply voided and ignored by the Bolsheviks when they overwhelmingly lost. Your claim is empirically false. Socialism has historically been imposed involuntarily at gunpoint in almost all cases where it has achieved any measure of real power. Moreover, once established, its show elections are a farce, with only pre-selected Party approved candidates allowed to win. You will no doubt reply that none of this was done by "real" socialists, and that <insert your favorite sub-sub-branch of socialism here> are the only "real" socialists. This is the "No True Scotsman fallacy".
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  History is split. Marxist-style socialism was installed by force in Eastern Europe, Russia, and other places. Democratic socialism was installed by free elections in northern Europe, and continued there in later free elections, with candidates of multiple parties allowed to run.
- John23832 10y ago
  Ideally, political change can happen without violence or bloodshed. But we don' live in an ideal world. We never have, and we never will. Pretty much ANY political system gains power through bloodshed. The United States, Canada, England, France, Germany, pretty much the entirety of South America, Africa and Asia... With the wide ranges of political systems that span all these places, each and every one of them was put in place by violence. You point out the horrible regimes that adopted the word "Socialist" or "People's" in their name and point out all the atrocities that they have committed. While adopting those monickers != actual socialism, you've headed off that argument, so I'll give you that. However, don't lay violence as a means of gripping power at the feet of Socialism... That's a human trait.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    Disengenuous to ignore the appallingly violent way Socialism has historically grabbed power and suppressed their populations. Very different from rebellions for independence for instance.
    - John23832 10y ago
      Sure. The Stalinist were a horribly violent. So were the US backed gorrillas in every violent uprising in South America in the 1980's. So were Belgian trading companies in the Congo. So were the French people during the Reign of Terror. So were the Catholics during the all of the Inquisitions. So were the Spanish during the expulsion of the Moors. I could go on. The point being that this is not a Socialist trait. The first two were done with Capitalist intent. The last two were carried out with both political and religous power in mind. It's clear that you don't like Socialism, and that's fine... to each his own. But it's "disingenuous" to ignore history for the sake of proving your point.

John23832 10y ago

Gotta love politically inflammatory remarks by "throwaway" accounts. I wish people had the balls to stand behind their politics.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago
I'm thinking new accounts could be unable to comment until they'd viewed 100 different subjects over at least a week? Make it harder to mint these 'troll' account.