Need help arguing this...

[Noah]

Facts are in the many IR journals I read. Better to consult academic material that way a lot of what you read tends to show the overall objective picture.

Remain completely unconvinced about the Cuba situation. Again from what I've read & watched I can't see the light at the end of the tunnel so to speak. You seem cautiously optimistic about a lot of issues but the more & more I see the world, the more & more I'm dissatisfied with it.

Socialism doesn't wash with the post-cold war world. The fact that capitalism won over socialism & communism after the CW speaks for itself. Since then we live in a new world order (by & large built by the west) hence can't see the world heading back down that road. That's why Socialism won't match as an alternative to globalisation. I'd imagine most people believe it failed miserably after the CW, esp. its consequences in East Europe.

As an econ movement, it is far less effective & efficient than privatisation. Econ history in West & East Germany epitomise this. If an egalitarian society exists surely econ equality would exist, it clearly doesn't. Think socialism on paper is great, think most people would love to live that way but in practice it just won't work. At best, Sweden is prob a good example of a socialist welfare state in N Europe but it is also a very wealthy country with high income inequalities which seems to contradict the very heart of socialism.

This is why I remain neutrel on the subject & say no more about it! I study IR so last thing I want to do in my spare time is talk about it some more! It's good that you feel passionately about a belief/movement whatever you want to call it but don't let it distort your views on the world.

Do you plan on reading a political subject at uni? Good luck if you do!

I'm currently having an argument with a capitalist, as you can see...can someone disect the argument into little parts and counter-argue it because it is proving hard for me...


:( Noah

[Tormented by Treachery]

The fact that capitalism won over socialism & communism after the CW speaks for itself.

Although socialism was the idea behind the revolution, the Cold War was only a victory of capitalism over stalinism. Interestingly enough, the way that the capitalist nations did this was through out-spending on military and the like. Because the west had more money to burn, whereas Stalin had to keep taking money from the people to finance this spending, eventually the USSR was unable to take any more away from the public. Hence the dissolution. In practice, we "out-Stalin-ed" Stalin. How can a capitalist nation use socialistic ideals to spend money? They can't. the Soviet Union was government-owned capitalist enterprises.


Since then we live in a new world order (by & large built by the west) hence can't see the world heading back down that road.

This argument makes no sense. He is openly admitting that the lower classes have been successfully oppressed by capitalism, and that is going to deter a revolution. Quite the contrary, this "New World Order" will use imperialist actions in an increasingly open fashion, until the movement reaches full strength, which will cause the leaders to put down rebellions with fascism, the last stages of the system before socialism or anarchism. If anything, this has simply hastened the spread of revolutionary ideas (over the long term). Although that seems contradictory, what I' mstating is that now there are less socialists, but in 50 years, there will be more, 100, more, etc.


That's why Socialism won't match as an alternative to globalisation. I'd imagine most people believe it failed miserably after the CW, esp. its consequences in East Europe.

Socialism has not occurred. Get that out of his head.


As an econ movement, it is far less effective & efficient than privatisation. Econ history in West & East Germany epitomise this.

I assume he speaks of the Weimar Republic. Indeed, although hyperinflation would bode badly for socialist ideas, maybe war reparations had something to do with it (since they'd have been paying until the 1980's). Further, many economic historians attribute the massive gains made by Nazi Germany on the practices set up by the Weimar Republic.


This is why I remain neutrel on the subject & say no more about it! I study IR so last thing I want to do in my spare time is talk about it some more!

So (s)he is only interested in this for economic gain? He or she has no vested interest in the welfare of billions of people?


It's good that you feel passionately about a belief/movement whatever you want to call it but don't let it distort your views on the world.

Socialists are the ones with more accurate views of the world. Capitalists simply wish to ignore the horrors of their economic principles in the blind hope that they won't be overthrown. It's good to feel passionately about something, but it's even better to fight for what you believe in -- freedom for all.

Hope I helped :)

[ColinH]

If this guy thinks Sweden is a socialist state then he'd better consult some better "academic material." Preferably something not from a first-year business course.

[anomaly]

This guy fits into the category I like to call "arrogant new college students". Obviously, because this guy is in college, he feels that his new-found knowledge surely must make your knowledge, Noah, look miniscule.

Unfortunately, our arrogant friend hasn't nearly earned the right to be so arrogant.

He doesn't know what socialism is. He claims first that it existed in Eastern Europe. You should tell our arrogant friend what 'state-capitalism' is! Secondly, he claims it exists in Sweden! Sweden, unfortunately for our arrogant friend, is simply a capitalist nation which still clings to the welfare state. Thirdly, our arrogant friend says socialism is an alternative to globalization. Uh, no it's not. But, state-capitalism can modernize a nation's economy as well as the forces of globalization can, and usually with far less of a human toll.

So, our arrogant friend is wrong on all three points.