I find Socialism Limiting

Post Reply New Topic

Enforced Equality I guess is the secondary term I would say. I get the underlying idea which I find very nice. Openness and such. But it seems to me to very quickly go off in the wrong direction of openness. I find very quickly that becuase "it makes it fair" I have to suffer with others whenever I'm in a Socialistic system. Whether it be school, my family, a club, whatever it may be, I notice more responses of "you can't do this" than I do with individualistic systems.

So for this very reason I'm a Capitalist. Now I understand the cliché that "oh the Capitalists don't care about people" and the "Capitalists are just a bunch of selfish blah blah blah" stuff, but I would say that people should get mad at the Capitalist who is abusing his/her power than the Capitalist who does stuff for the good of whatever it may be.

I get that there is a lot of greed and such, but one of the cool things about Capitalism is if there is some greedy person doing stuff and I want something that really doesn't exist, I can make that. I can run them out of business, their own greed being what caused their downfall. Now I guess with Socialism you get the "we can head that off at the beginning" type thing but what usually happens is the limiting thing.

I guess moral of the story is Capitalism gives you the supreme openness but requires restraint, while Socialistic Monetary Policies have that restraint built in at the expense of openness. I prefer the former over the latter.

Note: I understand that Capitalism is a mostly monetary system and Socialism is a political system and are entirely different things so a comparison isn't really possible, but I have this note here to say that I mean those sides of their respective issues/viewpoints. I'm not really good at expressing what I mean to say but I think with a little abstract thought you guys will get what I mean.

Contrary to first glance I am indeed a liberal, I'm just a Classical Liberal.

Enforced equality has the tendency to muffle personal incentive.

Once we stopped being nomads and started farming, industrialization was inevitable, and so too are the social ills that our brains just aren't wired for. Of our 40+ million year history, only the tiniest portion has been lived within the constructed artifice of labour, capital and state. Perhaps in another million years our brains will evolve to adapt.

Socialism is more to do with having more financial equality, its not really anything to do with limiting what activities you are allowed to do on a personal level. Also capitalism by itself doesn't work too well for the people involved, seems capitalism only works somewhat effectively when socialist type elements are added...because unregulated capitalism easily gets out of hand and doesn't do a good job of supporting the citizens within the society.

Incentive for what though? to get ahead of someone else due to the psedo-necessity of doing so. I get the point that is intended no one will do anything if everyone has the same access to goods/services/resources, but I kind of doubt that. What about all the things people do in a day for reasons aside from financial gain would people just stop doing housework, yard work and keeping their dwelling livable if we had economic equality?

Can we please have your definition of socialism. Do you mean Stalinism, Marxism, or Social democracy as attempted by the UK after ww2. These are the most common ones and they are all worlds apart from one another. Then of course we have the attempt by the media to call North Korea marxist. So could you define which you are discussing?

That's why I mentioned that restraint and the "fight back, make your own thing" parts. It can easily get out of hand becuase humans suck.



Most people don't like housework, yardwork, and all that stuff. I think the top reasons it gets done are aesthetics to show off to others and becuase if you don't keep it clean the bugs start to come in or worse. There's incentives for it, that's the only reason people do it (unless you love housework/etc.). If you meant the differences between work and play then the money wouldn't really matter if you did what you love. Really money is just an independence tool. Like, if I could do what I love then I wouldn't need money, but I'd like to get paid doing it for the simple reason that if I've got money I can get what I want and just control everything kind of. Like if someone suddenly did something stupid and somehow I had to pay for it (like insurance I guess, this is probably a bad example) I could just pay them and they'd go away.



I guess the one I have most experience with seeing as I live in the west would be Social democracy. I detest and am utterly scared Marxism and Stalinism as well as extremes on the opposite end of the spectrum as they destroy the concept of the individual.

whereas I see it as a necessity for hedging against political unrest. When you start seeing violent riots and police being assassinated, I told you so.

Now, you can talk tough there if you want to, but you have the critical weakness of something to lose.

in other words, you resent being asked to behave responsibly.

More like stupidly short-sighted. At the heart of socialism is the realization that the belief that the poor are just going to go away is delusional. They eventually have to be dealt with in on way or the other, and the Christians complain when we feed them to the lions.

The real problem is that the buffoons on Wall Street have an annoying habit of pooping in their own fish-pond, and they are first to come to the government with their hands out, with tears running down their faces, when they get into trouble. If they treat the government like their dads, sticking their hands out and asking for money when they have screwed themselves, they will follow Dad's rules. If they want less regulation, then they can learn not to poop in their own fish-pond.

Oh, just like you are going to use violence to beat up someone who does violence for a living? A corporate thug has been using such tactics since before he could walk.

I think democracy is a better idea.

I already see that in the news.


Depends on your definition of responsibility.


I'm pretty sure every economist knows on some level that the poor will never go away.


Agreed.


You could try talking people out of being violent but I'm pretty sure it won't go well.

If money was not needed things would be better...why should one have to have digital and/or cash backed by digital information in some computer in order to have independence? Why should the amount of money this system says you have determine your level of independence. I don't see why people don't question these things more.

But yes if you have a lot of money, you can pretty much buy your way out of most anything...that is why a lot of very wealthy people get away with a lot of things the average citizen would not. I see that as a problem some people especially those with a lot of money see it as great for them.

That is probably more of a self fulfilling prophecy, takes away from actually addressing poverty...if it is something that will 'never go away' than there is no real reason to really put much effort into putting an end to it. Also sort of funny a lot of people take pride in things like females gaining equal rights, black people getting equal rights, gay people getting equal rights and all that kind of stuff but when it comes to trying to eliminate having different economic classes apparently it is right and just, even nessisary to have that kind of division.

Long time ago two people needed something that the other had. One was probably very rude and abused his privileges like lots of humans do, so the other person decided that instead of being driven crazy, they would make a trade. That way the need was solved and the abuse was the other persons problem. Over the course of millennia, instead of trading stuff like 5 chickens for a cow, people just said "Hey, look at these shiny rocks! Lets just say 10 of them are worth a chicken." and everything was much easier becuase instead of carrying a bunch of chickens, you could carry a bunch of shiny rocks. Over time that translated from rocks, to coins, to paper, to digital transactions.



If it's abusive like it usually is, then yeah it's a problem. People suck.


That's why the focus is to get out of it.

People do suck....though I am not sure it can be assumed the barter system was necessarily abused more than the monetary system, though both do have their flaws. Also I am rather curious if perhaps this shiny metal has some kind of weird psychological effect on people and why....because I cannot see any logical reason why people found value in it aside from metals you could use to build things for instance..but value in having it sit around to look at? And the amount of it one has determining their place in the world kind of unusual if you think about it....but that went on so long the digital money still reflects that system but without the shiny rocks/metal.

As for the focus being 'to get out of it' I just don't agree much with the 'better them than me' mentality so much. It would be best if there isn't poverty and contrary to what those 'economicists say' poverty does not need to exist, it only needs to exist to keep financial hierarchy which a few benefit from while screwing over the rest going. Why do people insist on supporting this?

I find Capitalism to be oppressive. Achieve, compete, consume, assimilate, tote-that-bale, keep up with the Joneses, success, "fit-in", "stand out", individualism.. Blah blah. Cliche this and that. Status quo. Carry this chain all your life. "God", money, power, status, image...........

It's a law of nature. The best thrive, the sucky don't. In a perfect world, that wouldn't exist but we don't live in a perfect world. It's pretty crappy but no one here can tell you why it's that way or answer any other "what is life" question.

A law in nature huh? last I checked our monetary system has got nothing to do with nature it is a human invention and hardly infallible. How is having the most wealth synonomys with being 'the best' best at what? And the sucky...meaning anyone who has less wealth? and you actually believe this has a basis in 'nature', rather than being a human construct. Pseudo survival of the fittest rhetoric....is what this sounds like. But of course if its seen as nature and not a human construct then there is no way to change it but I am quite certain humans have the ability to change systems and societies they create...'Its a law of nature' is just a cop out really.