Whats wrong with socialism?

[insane_alien]

So, theres all this crap about obama being and evil socialist and all this from the american media.

 

but, whats never explained is wats so wrong with socialism? i'm not that into politics so i'm not to well versed in all the terms so can someone explain it to me in laymans terms?

[Sisyphus]

Mostly I think it's Cold War inertia. The American right successfully associated "socialism" with "communism," and hence with "evil," as the USSR was the "arch-nemesis." Kind of like saying "that's fascism." People can and do think it's wrong for other reasons, but the word itself is taboo mostly just because it represents a generic enemy.

[abskebabs]

Depends what you mean by socialism.

 

The term was originally defined as a halfway house towards full blown communism. Hence the USSR was really a socialist state, not a communist state, as that is a contradiction of terms as a communist society is supposed to be stateless somehow.

 

The way the term is often used today is to characterise interventionist economic policy, while a market still exists(the condition is often characterised as a hampered market economy). However, as an economic analysis of interventions reveals, interventions lead to calls for more interventions; having produced distortions in the way the market operates by previous interventions, politicians shed crocodile tears and call for more to remediate other areas. Hence the results of the credit expansion and bailout policies intervening in the market carried out by the Federal Reserve for the past decade have now led to calls for further financial regulation and more powers to be delegated to the Federal Reserve.

 

Because of this tendency it could be just to call proponents of the second term "socialists" as a policy of interventionism "leads to socialism", as gradually further interventions are added until I guess a market ceases to exist. Such is the theme, I believe of Hayek's book "The Road to Serfdom." Indeed, this method of producing socialism is precisely that which is the strategy espoused by the Fabian Socialists, the effective intellectual vanguard of the Labour Party.

 

According to many standards, including by Mussolini's own definition, Facism may be a better characterisation for a largely hampered market economy than Socialism.

 

 

If you are more specific about which use of the term you are referring to I can hopefully provide a simple answer to your question.

[bascule]

What's wrong is that the majority of people speaking ill of socialism in the US have nary a clue what socialism actually is. They bandy about the term negatively due to cold war associations between socialism/communism and evil.

[insane_alien]

well i've mostly seen it bandied about when reffering to a public healthcare system(similar to the NHS in the UK) being introduced to the US. so i guess its in that context i'm reffering to.

 

as far as i was aware it merely meant the governement provideing services to public finaced by taxes but otherwise free to use.

[bascule]

I don't think any of the healthcare systems presently under consideration can be considered anything remotely close to socialism.

 

In that case the word "socialism" is being used as a generic insult without any consideration as to what the term actually means. That's why these people tend to use terms like "socialism", "fascism", "nazi", etc. interchangeably.

[Syntho-sis]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

 

It's been said that the only real difference in communism and socialism is:

 

Control of the government is attained by force in a communist society.

 

Control of the government is attained by politics in a socialist society.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem

 

There is literally TONS of resources as to why socialism in not an efficient economic system.

 

I think I'll keep my free market system and this democracy we have.

 

Although if you would prefer socialism you could always move to The People's Republic of China. I hear they are in constant need of scientists.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China

[bascule]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

 

Is this supposed to be your citation for what you say subsequently? If so I find no reference in the article.

 

It's been said...

 

...by who? "It's been said" sets off my hearsay warning alarm. It's a way to inject one's own thoughts without specifically branding them as such.

 

that the only real difference in communism and socialism is:

 

Control of the government is attained by force in a communist society.

 

Control of the government is attained by politics in a socialist society

 

Where'd you read that? A bumper sticker?

 

Control of government has been attained by force in countless societies, not just communist ones. Governance of America was seized by force from Britain. Does that make America a communist society?

[insane_alien]

i don't understand half of what the wiki is saying(again, i am not well versed in politics period) so again, keep it simple.

 

and as with bascule, i see no relation to the wikipedia article and your post(although that could be due to me not getting the article perhaps, but i trust bascule a bit more than you in these matters)

[Syntho-sis]

Is this supposed to be your citation for what you say subsequently? If so I find no reference in the article.

 

 

 

...by who? "It's been said" sets off my hearsay warning alarm. It's a way to inject one's own thoughts without specifically branding them as such.

 

 

 

Where'd you read that? A bumper sticker?

 

Control of government has been attained by force in countless societies, not just communist ones. Governance of America was seized by force from Britain. Does that make America a communist society?

 

First let me say this I wasn't positing it as direct evidence. There is not evidence to back up such a statement. It was more of an opinion I just didn't label it properly. Even if I had provided "who" statement, wouldn't that be more of an appeal to authority than actual logical reasoning? I'm sure you would have attacked me on that point as well. That's why I chose to distill it that way. What if I had decided to say my Grandmother says that? You'd most likely scoff, but what if I told you my grandmother has a PhD in economics?< (This is an example- she doesn't in reality)

 

See: Argument from authority

 

The article itself was more for providing more information on the subject for anyone who did not understand the definition of what socialism actually is. At least from an academic standpoint. It was not meant to superimpose my own thoughts or whatever.

 

Control of government has been attained by force in countless societies, not just communist ones. Governance of America was seized by force from Britain. Does that make America a communist society?

 

Yes, but that does not rationalize many of the underlying concepts that make up communism and/or socialism to any degree (Which was my whole point). My statement on such was more of a reference to the difference in how power is attained in such forms of government. It was a reference supported by general observation and research into that area, nonetheless it was still an opinion.

 

Let me say this again so no one gets confused. My statements on socialism were opinions drawn from portions of the provided wiki articles, and from other material I have read in the past. The article pertaining to "wiki-socialism" was for definition purposes.

 

Anyone who has a different opinion is more than welcome to argue why socialism is a better form of economic organization than the free-market system. I will gladly join in discussion on that topic.

 

Is this supposed to be your citation for what you say subsequently? If so I find no reference in the article.

 

You drew a false conclusion and decided that the statement I said subsequently was for reference to the article I provided on "wiki-socialism"

 

See link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#Criticism

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

i don't understand half of what the wiki is saying(again, i am not well versed in politics period) so again, keep it simple.

 

and as with bascule, i see no relation to the wikipedia article and your post(although that could be due to me not getting the article perhaps, but i trust bascule a bit more than you in these matters)

 

Well unfortunately I can't help you in that regard. I will however attempt to provide relevant resources pertaining to the discussion at hand and will attempt to keep personal opinions out of the court.

 

The article was provided for definition purposes. The statement was a personal opinion drawn from reading the said article.

 

Can I make it any clearer? Different perspectives are bound to hold different opinions after reading the article. That is OK.

 

And it's good you trust someone's opinion on certain issues. But when it comes to something like this, it's more befitting to rely on relevant resources. At least most of the time when such resources are provided, which to a certain extent I failed to do.

 

Apologies.

[ydoaPs]

b9Zls2AReVI

[Syntho-sis]

b9Zls2AReVI

 

Is that your stance on the debate? I certainly hope not.

[insane_alien]

so... again can someone explain to me what socialism is then.

[ydoaPs]

I certainly hope not.

 

Why is that?

 

 

Seriously, though. Socialism is terrible. We need to get rid of the fire departments, police, government maintained roadways, public libraries, and public school. Horrible thing, that socialism.

[John Cuthber]

You forgot the army- never a wise move.

[iNow]

I_A - In short, we all pay into the system and share the result/output of those collective payments. I pay taxes, and my taxes go toward things like public schools, public roadways, fire departments, police departments, water treatment and delivery, etc. Despite the fact that we, as individuals, may never use those services, we still pay for them to support the common good. Those are, at their core, socialistic systems.

 

In it's most extreme form, every worker pays all earnings to a central authority like government, and the government decides how those wages get distributed. We all work for the collective (social) benefit. However, that's not what we're talking about here now in the United States.

 

With healthcare, the idea is that we all contribute to a single system to spread the pool of risk to a greater number, thus reducing all of our individual contributions to a lower amount, while simultaneously covering more people. Much like we all contribute in tax dollars to ensure an active fire department, we all would contribute in tax dollars to ensure a basic minimum level of care for all citizens.

 

Why this is being associated with the nazis and being used as a negative/derogatory label... I simply can't conceive. It's based on misunderstandings and ignorance, as we already have a tremendous amount of "social" systems, all of which benefit the common good. IMO, healthcare is just one more part of that same safety net... that same set of systems which we implement for the greater good in an advanced civilization.

[Pangloss]

I agree with iNow, and think that the socialism label is bandied about in error by the right.

 

I wouldn't want to live under a pure socialism, a marxist government, or many other far-left forms, but then I wuoldn't want to live in an unregulated society or even a contract-enforcement-only society like the Ayn Rand Objectivists either. I believe in a system that combines a relatively free market with checks and balances that hold excesses in abeyance. In short, exactly what we have. The sliding back and forth of the exact line never concerns me to the extent that I feel we're "sliding into socialism" or "sliding into capitalism".

 

(But I don't know if we've addressed IA's question very well.)

[abskebabs]

We need to get rid of the fire departments, police, government maintained roadways, public libraries, and public school. Horrible thing, that socialism.

 

Ah yes, monopolise the provision of a service, reduce its quality, efficiency, increase unnecessary costs and lambast your critics for denying "common good" while doing it!

 

That's definitely socialism.

[insane_alien]

right i think i get it now.

 

it seems that my view of socialism wasn't so far off(taxes contributing to projects and services for the good of society and not necessarily the individual).

 

and that it is just some politicians using it as the latest 'ZOMG! TERRORISTS! HUNT THEM DOWN AND BURN THEM!'

 

yea/nay?

[Mokele]

IMHO, whether you think socialism is right or wrong, the mere fact that it's been completely ruled out of the debate (based only on cold-war fearmongering) is damaging, as it needlessly rules out options.

[John Cuthber]

Ah yes, monopolise the provision of a service, reduce its quality, efficiency, increase unnecessary costs and lambast your critics for denying "common good" while doing it!

 

That's definitely socialism.

 

I take it that you can provide evidence for that assertion.

In particular, I'd like to see how it applies to healthcare where the US system is much more expensive but doesn't provide a better outcome (by some measures) as other "social" systems elsewhere.

[abskebabs]

The US system is not a private system, but resembles a heavily regulated hampered market economy, so I think that's a false comparison. I don't find it an amazing observation that bureacracies can do slightly better than such a system in various ways, the systems aren't really that different. For a good article on that specific subject, check this out.

[swansont]

Ah yes, monopolise the provision of a service, reduce its quality, efficiency, increase unnecessary costs and lambast your critics for denying "common good" while doing it!

 

That's definitely socialism.

 

Huh?

 

Can you back any of that up?

[abskebabs]

For a critique of just one of those earlier mentioned fallacies, try this:

http://mises.org/etexts/enterprisingedu.pdf

[insane_alien]

a monopolistic fire service is better than when there were many fire service and they would call in fake reports and set fires deliberately to get more profitable jobs.