<p>It was a joke dude…</p>
<p>Well, if the theory doesn’t benefit practically, then it’s obviously back to the drawing board for the theory. </p>
<p>What i was trying to say up there was that if the theory isn’t practical, then there’s something wrong with the theory.</p>
<p>The problem with socialism is that it assumes that everybody is equal.</p>
<p>@Fasinro: Classifying a sentence as a joke does not invalidate the sentence from being an argument by itself. Therefore, I was enticed to reply. If you don’t understand, must I give you examples?</p>
<p>@thebigcheese121: yes; that’s one of the major problems with it, which is a problem when “trying to apply the theory into practical matter”, supporting the idea that socialism works in theory, and not so much in pragmatic reality.</p>
<p>WTH? You just said that the problem with the theory is that you cannot apply it in practical cases. Which is exactly what I said.</p>
<p>My point is that nothing that works in theory should fail in practice. If it does, then there is something you didn’t take into account.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I worded it differently the first time I wrote it. Anyway, if people theorize that it doesn’t work, then it logically follows that it doesn’t work in theory. Of course people also theorize that does work, so it follows that it does work in theory. The trouble is that there is no grand unified theory of what happens when you apply socialism (or any other social system). So it’s false to say it doesn’t work in theory, just as it’s false to say it does work in theory. I guess you could say it’s the set of all possible outcomes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I flipped the two lines. I never said the first line was conjecture.</p>
<p>@Gerontius:No. As I’ve repeated twice already, the problem is not with the theory. It’s when “trying to apply the theory into practical matter” that the problems arise. </p>
<p>This is true with all theories. When you measure two sides of a right triangle after drawing them on a piece of paper, what your third measured side should be is the calculation based on the Pythagorean Theorem. And yet there is always error. It will never be perfect. Does that mean it “fails” in practice?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well bees in theory should not be able to fly and yet they do. Some things are just not feasible in theory and yet they work in practice. However, this is not the case with socialism. </p>
<p>Socialism was invented by a capitalist looking to make a quick buck. After all, the capitalist ALWAYS wins.</p>
<p>What exactly do you mean by “trying to apply the theory into practical matter”. If what’s put into words is put into action, then it should work, if the theory works right?</p>
<p>What do YOU think is the problem with “trying to apply the theory into practical matter” ?</p>
<p>I didn’t quite follow your Triangle example.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s a poor analogy because any theory of socialism is a theory of its implementation. Pythagoras’ Theorem, OTOH, describes something that cannot exist in real life, because it’s based on idealized axioms.</p>
<p>No, there is nothing wrong with the theory - you simply failed to take into account a few factors. If you measure the two sides and the angle accurately, have infinitely thin lines and a few other precautions, the third side will be precisely that given by Pythagoras Theorem.</p>
<p>I repeat, if the theory doesn’t work in practice there is something wrong with it.</p>
<p>
No offense, but that is rubbish.</p>
<p>Gerontius- No offense, but thats exactly what you say when you have absolutely nothing to say :).</p>
<p>I’ll elaborate on the triangle. The Pythagorean Theorem states that a^2 + b^2 = c^2. In theory, this works for all right triangles.</p>
<p>Now draw a right triangle on a piece of paper. Measure a, b, and c. Now using just a and b, calculate the theoretical value for c. Obviously, the experimental and the theoretical will vary. If the two are different, doesn’t this mean that the theorem doesn’t work in practice (in terms of how Geruntius defined it)? Does this mean that there is “something seriously wrong with the theorem”?
Now obviously, these problems can be accounted for by experimental error and whatnot, which is what you must do when “trying to apply the theory into practical matter”. Now in the case of socialism, you must account for something very similar to experimental error. That is, the theory is dandy by itself, but it only comes into problems when putting it into practice. The only thing different is that it is harder to account for the “experimental error” that is caused when applying socialism to real life.</p>
<p>^^You want me to elaborate?
If some ‘theory’ states that bees can’t fly, you don’t think there is something wrong with that theory?</p>
<p>^My point was that if your instruments were good enough, it would work. What is the equivalent ‘experimental error’ in socialism?</p>
<p>@Heaven: Socialism too is based on idealized assumptions. And so is almost every theory.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem is that it’s literally impossible to draw a right triangle (as defined by the axioms the theorem is based) on a piece of paper. You’re trying to apply the theorem to something it does not describe.</p>
<p>And countries are trying to apply socialism to something it “does not describe”. Both the Pythagorean theorem and socialism have assumptions that can not be perfectly met in reality.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But Pythagoras’ Theorem isn’t based on assumptions. It simply doesn’t describe anything real. There is no hope of practical application.</p>
<p>The assumptions behind socialism (which vary, since there is no unified theory) describe something that can be real but simply won’t be.</p>
<p>Most of this thread is like The Clash - a bad analogy</p>
<p>How can you imply that socialism does describe something real? There is no hope of applying pure socialism because many of its conditions, like the Pythagorean theorem, cannot simply be met.</p>
<p>Do you want to give an example of some axiomatic principle of socialism that simply cannot exist?</p>