Why socialism is bad

Post Reply New Topic

...And the only way the government can afford these benefits without making the working class poor is through capitalism.

it can work...for ants and bees
its human nature to want to be more then we are
its not like that for insects
the Queen isn't so much the leader as it is a mother
(and it is a mother) ants and bees live in true communism
and it works for them

Actually that is incorrect. Physical force is the correct answer.

communism is not neccassarily physical force, it is just working towards a common good and usually associated with being classless. Physical does not work, if one uses force once the fear and power are gone that system will be overthrown.

Communism by its very nature requires coercion. As seen throughout history people will not willingly work towards this "common good" unless it is in their direct self interest (and usually with any sort of communal ownership, we see a tragedy of the commons emerge). Under Lenin's first economic plan, millions starved because the Communists said the land belongs to "everyone", and those who work the farm would also contribute to this greater good (and not keep or sell their harvest). Lenin's then instituted NEP, which allowed the peasants to sell harvest from a small part of their land. Economic recovery from the first world war actually occurred because of this in the Soviet Union (ironic, isn't it?). The Soviet Union tried the create this "New Soviet Man", one who would work towards those ideals you describe, and they failed miserably.

that was actually my point the only it did work was through physical force, but that is not what communism was based on.

Precisely. I think you missed sargon's point. Communism CAN'T work unless you FORCE those able to work to work.

Physical force is the final approach. The gun to the head, the beatings or the force labour camps etc... Up until then you need propaganda. Everyone knows it's produce or die... Communists merely mean it.

Not really, you can use force, deception, threats and rewards to control people, Capitalism shows how the middle two are extremely effective. The absolute bottom line control of Capitalism work just as well for other systems, you can starve people who don't work and you can brutalise those who attempt to sidestep the system.

I'd disagree, capitalism encourages people to willingly work in exchange for rewards (i.e. no need to control people really), whereas Communism requires force to control. The capitalist will not starve his workers to force them to work because they would be less productive/would die. Even when the U.S. was under slavery, slave-owners did not starve or brutalize (in most cases) their slaves because of this reason (interestingly, most slaves did not do dangerous tasks during this time because the slave-owners did not want their property damaged or destroyed). Under capitalism, people are free to work, or free not to; no party is "forcing" the other, which places it leagues apart from other systems.