This is not to debate whether socialism works or not. This poll assumes an imaginary condition where it is universally accepted that socialism is the most successful model for the vast majority of the governed.

This is primarily aimed at my capitalist friends. An appropriate sister question would be if it was universally proven not to work, would you still be for it; but I thinks that's a much more predictable outcome.

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher

No.If someone wants something they should pay for it out of their own pocket not mooch off someone else .

__________________
"There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”—Theodore Roosevelt

Psychology 101a..on the first day of class...socialism cannot and will never "definitely work"
Successful examples of socialist groups in the U.S. are plentiful...so in principle there are examples of even very successful socialist groups.
HOWEVER - they all have policies to disband members, and do so.
In a government, you can't simply kick people out of the country because they do not take part in contributing, but are happy to bottom feed off the backs of everyone else.

It will never work.

__________________

The government cannot give without first taking.

But, of course, this leads directly to: what does it meant to say it works?

What are we assuming socialism is trying to do?

How do we decide if capitalism "works"?

How do we decide if any government "works"?

In short, all these questions revolve around on something we hardly ever ask ourselves. What is the purpose of government?

In addition to defining "works," it's also necessary to define "socialism." Nevertheless, I voted yes, because as worded the answer to the question seems obvious.

I suppose the OP did say "most successful model for the vast majority of the governed", but success can be a pretty subjective evaluation.

For example, I tend to favor free markets and a government that stays out of how we make a living. But it frustrates me when I hear pro-capitalist arguments that focus on "economic growth" or "wealth creation" as selling points. I don't favor capitalism because it will "make American number one". I favor it because, in my view, it maximizes freedom, because it maximizes the ability "do our own thing" and still get along as a society.

For the countries that are socialized, I believe that form of government is a step up from the feudalism they were living in 100 years ago. They could never have come to where we are now in their mother countries. That being said, my answer is that socialism in this country will always work for some and is working now. However, there are others who just aren't wired up that way and will never accept it.

__________________

A dual-system is what is needed to balance the country better. If people just came up with ideas without giving a shit what affiliation they came from, then we would have a lot less arguing and biases going around. Things would be a lot more reasonable. Instead, we continue to debate over whose system is best and who is a "damn" socialist, liberal, democrat, conservative, republican, etc and to tell you the truth all of those affiliations as a whole suck! They suck, suck, suck! There are some really beneficial concepts to each, but one side fears the other and we can never seem to find out how to piss people off less. No matter what, someone's asshole is going to be hurting, but that's the cost of freedom isn't it? Both sides must sacrifice in order to try to compliment the other and keep the economy from falling apart. Employers earn a profit, which is great; however, that comes at a price of investing in employees. It's not the politicians and their stupid parties in their entirely who are going to contribute to our demise, but our own ignorance and disregard for each other. Welcome to human nature and societal influence, folks. This is why we will never progress unless a president with an actual brain and less of a personal agenda will care enough to renovate it. Even then, things won't be a Utopian society. It doesn't exist. "Utopia" means "no place" in Greek. The poor have always been made so the rich can benefit. This is just how things are. If we had been taught to think logically and with some apathy instead of thinking one-sided and rewarding mediocrity and valuing rank instead of production, we would only have half the problems as we do now. Welcome to Hell, kids. Make the best of it and do your best to climb the rungs or someone else will make you his bitch.

__________________
"Today a [wo]man... tomorrow a worm...and the day after - a fly!" - Marquis de Sade

id even be for capitalism if it worked.

__________________
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”

-- Derrick Jensen

Uh... sure. I mean, my politic is defined by pragmatism.

__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas

In case there was a doubt, I'm against socialism regardless of outcome. I think it's inherently destructive to the human spirit.

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher

The results of this poll are amusing to me: that even in a fantasy hypothetical that is all roses and puppies and blowjobs, there is such dogmatic zeal that ZOMg NO WAY is socialism ok.

Lulz.

__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas

Whatever works, and socialism does.

Capitalism works fine too, for a very tiny minority at the top who live like kings and "manage" the rest of us while most everyone else starves producing what these "managers" get the lion's share of. Of course capitalism is the more "moral" system, since the main occupation of the fortunate few is to sit around writing out moral systems justifying this and explaining and how they're the only reason anything in society gets done at all, even though most of them are just descendants of someone who actually did something generations ago and they're mostly the very definition of lazy and useless themselves. We dregs, you see, simply have no real idea of how to go about doing what most of us do every day and would spend most of our time rutting or drinking or doing something else immoral, (which the prvileged, of course, utterly eschew,) if left to ourselves.

Used to be we called them "nobles" and the word means "a generally good person" even today, while we still use the generic "villain" or villager, to indicate someone evil. How far we've come.

__________________
Alizee Jacotay, the reason god invented hips

"Most everyone" is "starving"?

Not now in the developed world but that's a recent development. And most of us are starving when compared to how we we could be living. Also yes, the majority in the developing nations are starving as are the majority of the world's people in general.

__________________
Alizee Jacotay, the reason god invented hips