Whats wrong with socialism?

[insane_alien]

yes, it produces more wealth but that wealth is concentrated among a few.

 

socialism spreads it out more.

[Sisyphus]

Perhaps I should have just simply stated that socialism is doomed to fail because it rewards need and punishes ability. Human natural self interest or self preservation will therefore bias people to become needier and less able in a socialist system. Why put forth effort when your goals can be achieved without effort? Why become able when the able are castigated and the needy are considered noble?

 

None of this applies to a mixed economy, however.

 

With regard to the intent of this thread (universal healthcare), an incremental approach to achieving socialism is still an attempt to achieve socialism. Why pretend it is not?

 

Because it isn't? Is that really what you believe, that all government programs are part of a secret plot to gradually embrace complete socialism?

[insane_alien]

the UK has had a social healthcare sevice(NHS) for over 60 years with some before that(although it was not universal). we are still very much a capitalistic nation. you may as well argue the same of the police and fire services. not to mention schools, public works like roads and waste treatment. hell, anything that recieves government funding is an example of socialism, including the government.

 

bit pointless to say public healthcare is the first step on a slippery slope. because if it is a slippery slope(which its not) then you're already halfway down it.

[entwined]

yes, it produces more wealth but that wealth is concentrated among a few.

 

socialism spreads it out more.

 

Oh....well I guess that explaines why the average working class Russian has so much more disposable income than the average working class American....yeah right.

[insane_alien]

i agreed that socialism will not generate as much absolute wealth.

 

less spread out more equally can still result in less per person across the board.

 

think about it.

[entwined]

i agreed that socialism will not generate as much absolute wealth.

 

less spread out more equally can still result in less per person across the board.

 

think about it.

 

I have thought about it....and that is why I prefer capitalism.

[insane_alien]

fine, but nobody was advocating pure capitalism or pur socialism. this thread had the one and only purpose of informing me of why the american media were screaming about even a hint of socialism being evil. this was answerd some way back.

[entwined]

fine, but nobody was advocating pure capitalism or pur socialism. this thread had the one and only purpose of informing me of why the american media were screaming about even a hint of socialism being evil. this was answerd some way back.

 

Oh.....well from your opening post, I inferred that you wanted to know what was wrong with socialism, rather than wanting to know why the media was upset about the "hint" of socialism being somehow evil....which it ain't.

 

Socialism is not evil, it is just an economic flop however well meaning are it's supporters.

[The Bear's Key]

so·cial·ism (ssh-lzm)

n.

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

 

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language

entwined just answered the question (thoguh inadvertantly): what's wrong with socialism is pretty much its definition, especially #2.

 

When a person hears about socialism (with Obama in context), then looks it up to gain understanding, they might not see the European blend of socialism and capitalism, but rather the imminently soon-to-materialize full blown communism part of that definition. Reading it, socialism's in the active -- moving towards communism.

 

Guess the rightards have successfully poisoned that well for a very long time.

 

So as of now I'm entirely stopping my use of the word. It's best to just create a new one, which really speaks of balance that's yet innovative and prosperous. A new system. It's also necessary because with all the modern technologies and developments, the other concepts have become fairly aged (including capitalism).

 

Why put forth effort when your goals can be achieved without effort?

Forgot to answer this before

 

No such monkey. Goals can never be achieved without effort.

[entwined]

entwined just answered the question (thoguh inadvertantly): what's wrong with socialism is pretty much its definition, especially #2.

 

When a person hears about socialism (with Obama in context), then looks it up to gain understanding, they might not see the European blend of socialism and capitalism, but rather the imminently soon-to-materialize full blown communism part of that definition. Reading it, socialism's in the active -- moving towards communism.

 

Guess the rightards have successfully poisoned that well for a very long time.

 

So as of now I'm entirely stopping my use of the word. It's best to just create a new one, which really speaks of balance that's yet innovative and prosperous. A new system. It's also necessary because with all the modern technologies and developments, the other concepts have become fairly aged (including capitalism).

 

Now theres an idea....pay no attention to what socialism really means, just look at it from a utopian perspective....and trust your government to never let it evolve into a full blown economy killing albatross.

[Skye]

Medicine in the US, mainly through the American Medical Association, has opposed reforms that undermine the rights of private practitioners since these sorts of ideas started to spread from Europe in the early 20th century. This opposition is partly dependent on self-interest, private practitioners being more wealthy than employees generally, but also ideologically. The ideological opposition has not just been founded on opposition to socialism, early attempts to promote state medical insurance modelled on the German system were undermined by WWI.

[The Bear's Key]

Now theres an idea....pay no attention to what socialism really means, just look at it from a utopian perspective....and trust your government to never let it evolve into a full blown economy killing albatross.

I propose that you're looking at capitalism as utopian more than how I'd look at anything. My views is we need a step forward, much like the vision by our forefathers while totally careful to not alter it -- plus utopia's something I don't lend much credibility to. However...balancing variables of the world and its societies like a talented chef would the ingredients in a fantastic meal, yes.

 

And I propose that you trust government far more than I do.

 

Going by the most obvious example, you're trusting the government when a certain major part of it tells us capitalism is great, and the politicians running on that motto. Curious, do you also trust the same major part of government when it claims the need for smaller government and less taxes?

 

As for me, I'm an Independent and never will join a party even if 100% of their moves and uttered words spoke to the very core of my interests. (They'd likely gain my vote, but that's about it)

 

Politicians are never to be fully trusted.

[Severian]

The best thing about socialism is that you know, no matter how poor and depressed you get, everyone else will also be just as poor and depressed.

[The Bear's Key]

The best thing about socialism is that you know, no matter how poor and depressed you get, everyone else will also be just as poor and depressed.

Conversely, no matter how rich and cheerful you get, everyone else will also be just as rich and cheerful.

 

 

Yet probably it's hard to reach that juncture before it gets sabotaged for being a threat with the following criteria...

 

Helps the general business marketplace yet thwarts the crooked players, and so it's BAAAAAD

[bascule]

The best thing about socialism is that you know, no matter how poor and depressed you get, everyone else will also be just as poor and depressed.

 

That sounds more like American capitalism

 

[insert token comment from some austrian school nutjob about how if the economy were really free everything would be great!]

[Syntho-sis]

Now theres an idea....pay no attention to what socialism really means, just look at it from a utopian perspective....and trust your government to never let it evolve into a full blown economy killing albatross.

 

Ever give a thought to the poor masses of this country? Of course, the masses aren't poor; on a global and historical scale, they're moderately wealthy and getting more so year on year. Socialism is grounded in the Nineteenth century concepts of poor exploited workers so let's pretend for the sake of argument that they really are poor and plentiful. Oh, and trapped there. There’s no fluidity in this imagining unlike the real world. The standard argument runs: how do we help these people? We give them wealth. Where do we get the wealth? From the government. Where does the government get the wealth? From the rich. Where do the rich get the wealth? From exploiting the poor. So the money runs a cycle back to its rightful source.

 

http://philtforpontefract.blogspot.com/2007/05/socialism-doesnt-work.html

 

The question I believe was.. "What's wrong with socialism?"

 

Hybrids does not equal pure socialism. Lots of things are born out of even more expansive ideas and concepts. You keep what works, not the additional garbage that has been packed on by hundreds of years worth of morons thinking they know what is right for the people.

 

And a note on morality i.e. Greed.

 

Greed has absolutely nothing to do with if capitalism/socialism works or not. Greed will always exist, doesn't matter what form of economic organization we use.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Most realistically (for now)? It's a threat to a power structure's dependants: the thieves and greedies who demand no interference by authorities or public leveraging of fairness onto their schemes.

 

The Founding Fathers created government to provide Justice, not fairness.

[The Bear's Key]

The Founding Fathers created government to provide Justice, not fairness.

I think the first amendment itself disputes that.

 

However, if you want some of the nitty gritty, here we go. Be my guest and point out where you see justice highlighted

 

 

Article I, Section 8

 

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

 

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

 

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

 

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

 

To establish post offices and post roads;

 

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

 

 

Article V

 

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution...

 

 

Article VI

 

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

 

 

Preamble

 

...establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

 

(source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html)

 

 

 

The Preamble mentions lots of things, including justice. I'm not seeing it as being exclusive of issues on non-justice or fairness.

[entwined]

[

 

 

Greed has absolutely nothing to do with if capitalism/socialism works or not. Greed will always exist, doesn't matter what form of economic organization we use.

 

 

 

We can be grateful for the existence of greed because without greed, humankind would be living in a cold damp cave .... or less.

Edited September 21, 2009 by entwined
Consecutive posts merged.

[JillSwift]

We can be grateful for the existence of greed because without greed, humankind would be living in a cold damp cave .... or less.

Ah, and that's just it, isn't it?

 

Greed/selfishness is a survival trait, but so is social behavior and altruism.

 

The isn't about whether altruism or greed, but when to use each and to what extent. ==

[The Bear's Key]

Self preservations is not the same as greed. That's what's promoted, but it's entirely false.

 

Greed includes continually taking long after you've had a good fill, often to the detriment of most others. Self-preservation might help fuel that, but it's really a lack of certain morality for people's general well-being solely to benefit oneself, as I see it.

 

Trampling people to escape a building fire, that's more like self-preservation, and not greed.

 

And so is building up the community.

[JillSwift]

Self preservations is not the same as greed. That's what's promoted, but it's entirely false.

 

Greed includes continually taking long after you've had a good fill, often to the detriment of most others. Self-preservation might help fuel that, but it's really a lack of certain morality for people's general well-being solely to benefit oneself, as I see it.

 

Trampling people to escape a building fire, that's more like self-preservation, and not greed.

 

And so is building up the community.

So, you're saying that taking all the resources you can to ensure you have access to them in the future is not a survival trait?

 

Mind, survival isn't just response to immediate danger, it's a continuum of interplay between organism and environment. So, it's self preservation to doom others to the fire in order to be a survivor, it is also self preservation to horde food so that you'll be able to eat during the lean seasons.

 

That does not mean you can't also survive the theater fire by pooling resources with others (we three can crash the locked door down!) as well as survive the lean season (We can hunt together and catch more food than the three of us will need!)

[padren]

So, you're saying that taking all the resources you can to ensure you have access to them in the future is not a survival trait?

 

Mind, survival isn't just response to immediate danger, it's a continuum of interplay between organism and environment. So, it's self preservation to doom others to the fire in order to be a survivor, it is also self preservation to horde food so that you'll be able to eat during the lean seasons.

 

That does not mean you can't also survive the theater fire by pooling resources with others (we three can crash the locked door down!) as well as survive the lean season (We can hunt together and catch more food than the three of us will need!)

 

I like to think that most people desire to flourish, not seek to greedily accumulate as much wealth as possible. Greed does exist as it's own end and it may be responsible for some of the largest concentrations of wealth that have had beneficial impacts on our society... but I don't think overall it is an attribute to be praised.

When people cut out a huge range of the experiences life has to offer because they are too obsessed with accumulating wealth despite having huge amounts of it already - that strikes me (at least subjectively) as unhealthy.

 

When the chips are down and people are trying to survive, their circle of concern shrinks dramatically - whether to just themselves, themselves and a mate, or children, or extended family, or a tight group of friends it always shrinks when people are starving.

When times are better, people do genuinely care about the people around them, in their communities, and are emotionally affected by the state of health of their town, state, country, species and such. As social creatures we can't help but to have a connection between our health and those we associate with to enhance our survival - whether it is altruistic or subconsciously self serving it definitely exists.

 

I don't know about most people but I've probably had 3 years of couch crashers simply because it bothers me to know I have a futon that is a perfectly good bed that doesn't get used when no one is on it. The need to see resources utilized in a manner that helps people trumps resource ownership. I still have what I need that I won't give up, but I have my needs and I am part of the community too.

 

I guess it's a complex topic, before I started rambling I just wanted to point out the difference between the desire to flourish and the desire for greed.

[JillSwift]

I like to think that most people desire to flourish, not seek to greedily accumulate as much wealth as possible. Greed does exist as it's own end and it may be responsible for some of the largest concentrations of wealth that have had beneficial impacts on our society... but I don't think overall it is an attribute to be praised.

When people cut out a huge range of the experiences life has to offer because they are too obsessed with accumulating wealth despite having huge amounts of it already - that strikes me (at least subjectively) as unhealthy.

 

When the chips are down and people are trying to survive, their circle of concern shrinks dramatically - whether to just themselves, themselves and a mate, or children, or extended family, or a tight group of friends it always shrinks when people are starving.

When times are better, people do genuinely care about the people around them, in their communities, and are emotionally affected by the state of health of their town, state, country, species and such. As social creatures we can't help but to have a connection between our health and those we associate with to enhance our survival - whether it is altruistic or subconsciously self serving it definitely exists.

 

I don't know about most people but I've probably had 3 years of couch crashers simply because it bothers me to know I have a futon that is a perfectly good bed that doesn't get used when no one is on it. The need to see resources utilized in a manner that helps people trumps resource ownership. I still have what I need that I won't give up, but I have my needs and I am part of the community too.

 

I guess it's a complex topic, before I started rambling I just wanted to point out the difference between the desire to flourish and the desire for greed.

Embarrassingly, I missed where Bear's Key mentioned greed as a moral issue,and that changes things a good bit.

 

My answer is based on the fact I view greed and altruism not as attitudes or morals, but as tools. It's then morality that defines when they are used.

 

I happen to agree that greediness is easily abused - and that hanging on to resources to the exclusion of the well being and survival of others is reprehensible, as I have empathy and I want those around me to have opportunity for contentment as much as I wish to have that opportunity.

 

However, we also use greed (as a tool) to our personal benefit without crossing a moral line. Saving money, storing more food than you need, buying land, etc. It's both part of survival and reaching for that contented life.

 

Which is why I see any healthy society using facets of both socialist and capitalist ideas.

[bascule]

The Founding Fathers created government to provide Justice, not fairness.

 

Not sure what that has to do with the topic at hand; apparently you have some strange strawman of the topic at hand going on in your head. For what it's worth the Bill of Rights ensures all sorts of degrees of fairness.

[Pangloss]

I think the way that capitalist meme is supposed to go is that just because a system is fair (just, equal, etc) doesn't mean that everyone will be successful to the same degree. For one thing, equality under law doesn't equate to equality in life. People die, they get into horrible accidents; they fail entrance examinations -- things happen. But it's also not an attempt to create equality in the result. It's about fairness in opportunity, not making everyone the same.

 

Put another way, one might say that the point of pure capitalism is equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. The point of pure socialism is equal outcomes, regardless of opportunity.

 

The irony is that whenever these pure forms are attempted in the real world, the capitalists don't get equal opportunity and the socialists don't see equal outcomes.