What is so bad about socialism anyways?

Post Reply New Topic

It should be workable and I think we have been duped into believing that we can only have one or the other.

Which planet is that? Earth's resources are renewable, if only people would use renewable energy sources and make the effort to recycle manufactured goods instead of throwing them in the landfill.

Your logic seems to be impaired. People are often 'born' into the "Haves" in a Capitalist society, and others grow up in communities of "Have-Nots" that make them virtually ignored by the successful working population. Almost every time someone has the rare luck of being a "Haver" they often just want quiet lives for themselves without the need to waste their money on them "smelly poors", it doesn't help with the current US tax rates and loopholes the rich seem to crave. "Haves" simply don't run out of income, there's much more to it than that.

Conventional Socialism would never work by the way, people often disregard it because they use the classical form as an example, Liberal Socialism however would work. Capitalism has since failed due to the ways the wealthy, banks, and wall-street can manipulate markets and political climates under their own will. Look at modern Socialistic societies in Europe currently, specifically countries around Scandinavia, They have the highest rates of human development, happiness, individual fairness, overall quality of life, their tax rates are among the highest in the world, their leaders are educated and open-minded, they're the closest thing to becoming near-perfect countries.

For the definition of socialism, please see:

• Rand, Ayn. Atlas Shrugged.
• Nozick, Robert. Anarchy, State, and Utopia.
• Von Hayek, Friedrich August. The Road to Serfdom.
• Blair, Eric Arthur (Orwell, George). Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Socialism posits two sociologically relevant classes: the bourgeoisie (i.e., the capitalist class) and the proletariat (i.e., the working class). The bourgeoisie is composed of the entrepreneurs, producers, large-scale investors, financiers, and corporate executives who are the job creators of the economy. The proletariat is composed of contractors, salaried employees, wage-earners, and so forth who exchange their labor in the free market for an honest livelihood. Socialism seeks to stoke class envy between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie and instigate class warfare, making a claim that the proletariat is entitled to the wealth the bourgeoisie has earned through hard work, talent, risk taking, and creativity. Thus socialism seeks to transform an honest working class into a host of parasites and moochers, forever with their hands open, using the apparatus of the state to penalize success with taxes and regulation. The end goal of socialism is to overthrow the capitalist establishment and replace it with a bureaucratic state apparatus that manages all functions of the economy and dispenses wealth and entitlements to the proletariat as a reward for passive obedience while the inner party lives a lavish lifestyle, operating in a network of nepotism and official corruption. Because a socialist economy is guaranteed to contract on itself as any incentive to work decays, the socialist party tightens its grip through increasingly totalitarian methods: Freedoms of speech, press, religion, and association are quickly extinguished along with, of course, private property. The quality of entitlements like health care, scientific research, and education decline as the nation's wealth is spent. Individualism of all kinds is forcibly suppressed, and state managers enforce increasingly stringent production quotas in a desperate attempt to grow the economy. Meanwhile, rationed essentials like food and clothing become increasingly scarce, and the infrastructure deteriorates without the resources to maintain it. Illegal black markets of rationed goods may pop up along with illicit bartering of services to bypass the strict governmental controls; consumer goods like blue jeans and portable audio-cassette players may be smuggled in from freer countries.

At this point, the socialist party, with its tenuous monopoly on power, faces an existential crisis. It can either introduce liberalizing reforms or double-down on failed party dogma. To maintain its hold on power, the socialist party will become decreasingly socialist in ideology while retaining its authoritarian control over society. It may liberalize the country in some ways by increasing the permissible range of expression, allow foreign investment, and allow a level of semi-private entrepreneurship. At this point, a coup d'état may occur, throwing the socialist party completely out of power and resulting in a new constitution and a sudden privatization of major aspects of the economy with a small class of connected oligarchs becoming very wealthy followed by a new crush of nationalistic authoritarianism over the veneer of freedom and democracy.

Alternatively, the socialist party's reforms may succeed in maintaining the party's singular authority by satisfying an increasing segment of the people's material needs. In this case, the socialist party is able to cleverly use capitalism to enrich itself collectively at the expense of competing capitalist regimes. It is able to accomplish this through an elaborate collaboration between party officials and a rising class of successful businesspeople and investors. The state is able to lure in foreign investment through the promise of cheaper labor and expenditure reductions, thus capturing an increasing proportion of the capitalist nations' manufacturing and other industry. As it captures wealth and increases in economic dominance, it invests in its military and uses its economic clout as leverage against the capitalist nations. Its people are unconcerned with Western concepts of freedom so long as they are prosperous and well taken care of—just as most Westerners put little thought into the underpinnings of their society and wants and needs beyond the immediate and materialistic. Soon, this state-capitalist/social-market nation is able to enlarge its sphere of influence over domains previously covered by the once-dominant capitalist nation, who is humbled by the threat of nuclear war, economic sanctions, and its indebtedness to the rival nation.

The third alternative is when the socialist party retreats further into its dogma and becomes even more totalitarian. It cuts off virtually all communication with the outside world, suffers famines, and develops its ideology into one of national self-reliance with worship of its leaders as demi-gods. It may maintain awkward alliances with other socialist nations and be seen by the international community as something of a freak. Its leadership, with little in the way of leverage and influence, will rely on histrionic displays of military threat and nuclear armament to bring foreign powers to negotiations for food and the like. It is later absorbed into its bigger-brother socialist neighbor that managed to find success by incorporating aspects of market capitalism into its authoritarian structure. Its capitalist neighbor to the south also falls to the rising power of the big socialist neighbor as its capitalist ally across the ocean's international power declines.

So a compromise system could be reached, one that:

- Retains conditions that promote and encourage upward mobility, with no limits on how much wealth could be acquired.

- Provides a minimum stipend to everyone, funded from the taxes that the wealthy must pay.

This system could support itself, provided that the wealthy people did not leave the system for another system that provided no such minimum stipend. This is because once there are no more wealthy people to tax, the system loses its income, and can no longer provide the minimum stipend for its citizens.

Of course, there is also the flaw that those who receive the stipend would not be required to spend it on food, clothing, housing, and medical care, thus forcing the system to provide these things, as well.

But we keep coming back to determining where the money would come from in the first place. (1) Tax the wealthy, and they will either leave the system for more hospitable places or buy their way into system leadership and change the rules to suit themselves. (2) Tax everybody, thus taking their money away, and giving it right back to them minus the costs of doing so. (3) Tax nobody, and just print more money whenever it is time to issue the welfare checks. (4) The system owns everything everywhere, and treats everybody like inmates in a global prison system, doling out perks and privileges only to those who do the most to support the Grand and Glorious Empire. No one escapes the system, because there is no place that the system can not reach.

yet it also raises teh quality of goods and skilled labor in a country by ensuring a minimum standard,
most scandinavian countries work because of that.

And maybe it would work here in the States, too ... maybe.

Any real system that currently works for the benefit of all of its citizens is obviously a Good Idea for that citizenry, but copying that system and forcing it upon us Rugged American Individualists would be the real task - too many people (including members of the Middle Class) have too much invested in the status quo to simply wake up one morning and embrace a new economic ideology.

The new economic ideology. To be come a quite humble and willing servant of the State. In America, this is not going to happen. Better ruination for all than subservience for many.

ruveyn

nothing should be forced.

nor do i think the federal / state divide would make such a system work easily in the first place.

(mind you just my impression,)

the reason i constantly bring it up is because it seems people forget that there are places where personal and comercial liberty go hand in hand with socialism.

there seems to be a very negative feeling associated with socialism and i think it's a shame as it inhibits some real improvement.
mind you there is no wonder pill when it comes to politics and we have our fair share of troubles as well, at the moment there is a proposal to completely seperate our helthcare from the regions and give them a seperate council to deal with financials and teh higher decision making not dictated directly by law.

we hope to reduce some of the more inefficient parts of our healthcare as today some specific procedures and outsourcing neccesities drive up the cost more than it should.
this is especially imaging services and advanced laser surgery.

Agreed.

Agreed, although I think this country's population has grown too diverse for a few-hundred Old White Men to govern effectively.

Agreed. Those places have smaller, more homogenous populations.

Agreed. For me, those feelings arise from the abuses of our fragmented Social System that I have witnessed first-hand.

If I could emigrate to one of those countries where Socialism actually works, I would. But then I would only be taking advantage of a system that I did not help put into place - a very unethical practice, in my opinion.

Free basic health maintenance, tests, examinations, and treatments for life-threatening or chronic conditions? I could go along with that.

Me paying for some 17-year old bimbo's breast implants, nose job, liposuction, and tummy-tuck so that she can win a beauty contest? No way in Hell!

Socialism does not work and in fact socialism is more leads to being under the rule of a dictatorship.

Socialism stifles innovation, because it discourages people from trying to be successful and rewards those that do nothing more but lay on the couch.

wrong on all counts

free education gives all equal opertunity for a productive job,

government funded research run off a liberal socialist system provides some of the finest sattelite navigation on the planet, used in both asian, american and european sattelites.
not to speak of the niels bohr institute of physics.

companies can get startup help directly from the state under good regulation making it possible for anyone with the right idea to start a company, i have seen no less than 4 companies up close funded using this system, ranging from offshore supply vessels to plastic injection moulding for the medical industry.

socialism has nothing to do with your individual rights beign compromised,
sure you make some minor sacrifices in that you have to wear your seatbelt but there is just as much freedom of speech over here, we also have a constitution much like yours.

Translation: The state replacing mother and father is going to be such a good thing.



You really don't know your history do you...

Or what about a Nigerian who came here specifically so she could have a baby?

Socialism is bad because it creates an entitlement society and makes people believe the Government is the solution to all of their problems. People with this mentality think that if they turn to the Government to help them, then they won't have to work for anything. I'm not saying that Government programs aren't necessary, there are people who need them. However, there are also a lot of people who use them to get money and other benefits without having to work for them. One of the main reasons our country was so prosperous for so long was hardworking Americans who believed in the American dream and believed this nation could accomplish great things. Socialism also allows for tyranny and erosion of Constitutional rights.

There is no such thing as a "free education". Education is paid for by somebody, usually the taxpayers.

ruveyn