What's so bad about socialism?

[Krylos]

Hello all,

Before you start hating please accept that I'm only 15 years old and my world views are very naive.
I've noticed that there seems to be a general hate against socialism and communism. Well I personally can't really relate to communism since it demands a violent revolution, which is bad. I, however, really like the idea of socialism.
This forum generally seems to be a bit on the right so I'd like to know why you don't like socialism/ why you think it doesn't work.
It is, of course, always important to listen to both sides to make up your mind.

The idea that everyone lives together happily doesn't sound too bad to me. If there was no money or at least an even distribution, nobody would have to starve. There would be true equality. Racism could maybe disappear within a few decades, since everyone has the same conditions and you don't suffer from poor or suppressed predecessors.
My vision is that everyone would work for everyone else and the strong would do anything they could to help the weak and this would enable a good lifestyle for anyone.

One might argue that a lot of people would stop working since they are being supported by other people. That is a valid point. We'd have to change the motivation for jobs entirely. You wouldn't go to work because you want to gain money to increase your lifestyle and consume, but just to help others or even humanity as a whole.

And imgagine the change in the economy: If there weren't all these companies working against each other but instead helping each other, there would be an enormous growth within a short amount of time.

What do you think?

Greetings,
Krylos

[hellheaven1987]

Go and take Biology 101 and learn what Natural Selection is.

[Enemy of the State]

The idea that everyone lives together happily doesn't sound too bad to me.

Society is people living together and not killing each other. That is what we have now. Are we all happy all the time? No, that is impossible, human desires are infinite, however, we all greatly benefit from living in society. What you are proposing is, wheter you realize it or not, the replacement of a society based upon cooperation and mutual benefit to that of coercion and exploitation.

If there was no money or at least an even distribution, nobody would have to starve.

Without money there is no way to know what to produce and for who. In a market economy, consumers send signals to producers by exchanging money for products they want. It is far more likely that everyone would starve if money, and thus the price system, was to be abolished.

My vision is that everyone would work for everyone else and the strong would do anything they could to help the weak and this would enable a good lifestyle for anyone.

One might argue that a lot of people would stop working since they are being supported by other people. That is a valid point. We'd have to change the motivation for jobs entirely. You wouldn't go to work because you want to gain money to increase your lifestyle and consume, but just to help others or even humanity as a whole.

How do you change motivation? The answer is obvious, through the barrel of a gun. You change the motivation from reward, to fear of punishment. In a market economy, incentive is offered to do jobs that nobody in their right mind would want to do otherwise. Nobody dreams of becoming a janitor, or the trashman. Nevertheless, these are jobs that have to be done. The incentive to do them is wages. The only alternative is coercion.

And imgagine the change in the economy: If there weren't all these companies working against each other but instead helping each other, there would be an enormous growth within a short amount of time.

You benefit from this competition. Everyone does. Competition directs the flow of resources. Resources are limited, that is just the way things are in our universe. We need to have a system to allocate those resources. In a market economy, resources are allocated to where there is the most demand, through the price system, as I explained earlier. Without money and without competition, we would have no way of knowing wheter we are rationally allocating resources.

Furthermore, competition is merely a small part of the free market, it is not the dog eat dog world you seem to see it as. Far more important is cooperation. To borrow an example from Milton Friedman, have you ever thought about how a pencil is made? It may appear simple at first, but where did the wood come from to make the pencil? Someone had to chop down a tree. Where did he get the axe to do that? Someone had to make the steel for the hatchet. Someone had to mine the iron and coal. Someone had to make the equipment to mine those materials, and so on, to infinity. No one man can make a pencil. People from all over the world, who have never met and might hate each other if they ever did, work together without even realizing it, to produce a pencil that costs you a few cents to buy.

Hitler wasnt a socialist, nor was Stalin a socialist, nor was the USSR socialist, nor is China socialist.

Oh come on, the USSR had a public ownership of the means of production. That is the Marxist definition of socialism.

[hellheaven1987]

Furthermore, competition is merely a small part of the free market, it is not the dog eat dog world you seem to see it as. Far more important is cooperation. To borrow an example from Milton Friedman, have you ever thought about how a pencil is made? It may appear simple at first, but where did the wood come from to make the pencil? Someone had to chop down a tree. Where did he get the axe to do that? Someone had to make the steel for the hatchet. Someone had to mine the iron and coal. Someone had to make the equipment to mine those materials, and so on, to infinity. No one man can make a pencil. People from all over the world, who have never met and might hate each other if they ever did, work together without even realizing it, to produce a pencil that costs you a few cents to buy.

Na, it still does not change it is a dog eat dog formula, just this time it is a gang of dogs eating another gang of dogs.

[Enemy of the State]

Na, it still does not change it is a dog eat dog formula, just this time it is a gang of dogs eating another gang of dogs.

Living standards have skyrocketed for everyone since the dawn of the industrial revolution. Even the poorest in our society live better than kings of ages past. There is no one getting eaten, not through the market at least.

[LWT]

Exactly this is why we need socialism:

Living standards have skyrocketed for everyone since the dawn of the industrial revolution. Even the poorest in our society live better than kings of ages past.

Not only capitalists should benefit from new technology like in the industrial revolution, but everyone. People with power often try to abuse their power for their own good, so that's why we need a government that reverts this process and makes sure everyone's getting his fair share.

[The spartan]

Living standards have skyrocketed for everyone since the dawn of the industrial revolution. Even the poorest in our society live better than kings of ages past. There is no one getting eaten, not through the market at least.

Well, no, that isn't true at all. Liberia is not better off from free trade, sorry. The global south is still pretty bad off, and those that are doing "better" are only doing better with the upper % of wealth earners.

[Krylos]

I know what Natural Selection is.
But why can't the human race overcome it? It is by far the most advanced and intelligent species on earth.

[hellheaven1987]

But why can't the human race overcome it? It is by far the most advanced and intelligent species on earth.

So? That does not explain why we should abandon Natural Selection.

However, I don't disagree a limited form of wealth redistribution is a must and the reason is simple; the lower class is far more numberous than upper class and in a war, number would make different. Hence upper class should make sure the lower class would remain happy and ignorant in order to preserve their own safety (in other words, it is like paying protection fee to mafia so the mafia would leave you alone).

[Mangalore]

So? That does not explain why we should abandon Natural Selection.
...

I think you should check what Natural Selection is. Mankind has stopped being entirely subject to it quite some time ago and in general we consider societies desirable which nullify the effects of natural selection as much as possible by protecting as many individuals of a society as possible and rejects the notion of letting people die of disease or disabilities. The only ideologies who permit that have a wrong concept of natural selection and apply pseudo scientific social Darwinism to human society.
In many ways we funnel base biological instinct created from evolution within a social animal group into entirely into artificial constructs which allows us today to see all mankind as part of our social group regardless of genetic affiliation.

Class stratification is also not natural selection but the usage/abuse of our social system to offset it by making it irrelevant for people of higher class if they are capable or healthy since they managed to occupy a greater resource pool solely by merit of birth. So technically natural selection has been a non factor since the dawn of organized civilization.

The ultimate drive of natural selection is to safeguard oneself and one's descendants from its effects so the evolution of mankind to not be bound to it is a logical conclusion.


As for socialism. As usual monolithic application of a single ideology usually proves impractical. The golden/less disruptive path always seems to be a more moderate stance so while socialism as an end game has been rejected by the West, a lot of it's ideals has become mainstream goals for most people including right wing conservatives. Today it is rather radical to propose that we should let the poor starve in the streets, deny healthcare to people incapable to pay for it and the like and I would say most people would consider such radical positions asocial and immorale.
So the entire West has hybrid systems of capitalist market economies where the state intervenes into matters to guarantee basic living conditions for everyone.

[Col. Tartleton]

I think you should check what Natural Selection is. Mankind has stopped being entirely subject to it quite some time ago and in general we consider societies desirable which nullify the effects of natural selection as much as possible by protecting as many individuals of a society as possible and rejects the notion of letting people die of disease or disabilities. The only ideologies who permit that have a wrong concept of natural selection and apply pseudo scientific social Darwinism to human society.

No, that's not right. If you survive to reproduce offspring (for whatever reason, being good at hunting, having access to medicine, raping a Catholic girl who won't have an abortion) you're naturally selected. That's what it means. Period. Human society is an evolved mechanism to ensure that we do, as individuals, make babies.

All of my ancestors were naturally selected. I assume, I'm going to be naturally selected, and I would hope my children would all be naturally selected so that some day I can be a grandfather.

In many ways we funnel base biological instinct created from evolution within a social animal group into entirely into artificial constructs which allows us today to see all mankind as part of our social group regardless of genetic affiliation.

Eh, I know what you mean, but I'm not sure there isn't an almost equal evolved impulse to prey on our own species.

Class stratification is also not natural selection but the usage/abuse of our social system to offset it by making it irrelevant for people of higher class if they are capable or healthy since they managed to occupy a greater resource pool solely by merit of birth. So technically natural selection has been a non factor since the dawn of organized civilization.

Obviously no social animals are subject to natural selection in your scientific view of nature.

The ultimate drive of natural selection is to safeguard oneself and one's descendants from its effects so the evolution of mankind to not be bound to it is a logical conclusion.

Nah.

As for socialism. As usual monolithic application of a single ideology usually proves impractical. The golden/less disruptive path always seems to be a more moderate stance so while socialism as an end game has been rejected by the West, a lot of it's ideals has become mainstream goals for most people including right wing conservatives. Today it is rather radical to propose that we should let the poor starve in the streets, deny healthcare to people incapable to pay for it and the like and I would say most people would consider such radical positions asocial and immorale.

Right. Even right wing types like myself don't want that, we want poor people to be fed by their own labor if they can do it, and we want to draw a distinction between the incapable and the unwilling (the incapable need some help, the unwilling shouldn't get any), but we still want everyone to do well. I mean as a college student not a day goes by I don't feel bad about the disparity between my spending and my earning. But there's not much I can do about it, I can't really put off college until after I work long enough at just over minimum wage to pay for it all, then do college, then go back to working, etc. I just have to accept the system I live in.

So the entire West has hybrid systems of capitalist market economies where the state intervenes into matters to guarantee basic living conditions for everyone.

Even though we'd collectively and thus mostly individually be better off if it wasn't run by the monolith, but by frat bro styled philanthropy. By which I mean selling admission for massive parties and donating the profits to charity, and throwing money at strippers, and insisting on paying above market value for everything, balanced by working really hard/using up your trust fund as extravagantly as possible, before working really hard because you used up your trust fund.

[John Doe]

No, that's not right. If you survive to reproduce offspring (for whatever reason, being good at hunting, having access to medicine, raping a Catholic girl who won't have an abortion) you're naturally selected. That's what it means. Period. Human society is an evolved mechanism to ensure that we do, as individuals, make babies.

All of my ancestors were naturally selected. I assume, I'm going to be naturally selected, and I would hope my children would all be naturally selected so that some day I can be a grandfather.

Not quite right anymore, birth control methods have created a low birth rate in most first world country. Not to mention advances in medecine has tilted the selection process, premature babies have a higher chance of survival, and basic vaccination allowing more people to live longer and bypass some selection hurdles. There is still a selection taking place, the natural part of it has shrunk dramatically. Even socially, the 1 child policy compounded with the pressure to have a male child will have consequences on future generation, this is man made.

[Diocle]

Socialism is the way to win the great battle against nature, to save humanknd from extinction and to conquer the Galaxy!

Now more seriously: I'm Socialist because I think that with our numbers, thinking about individual freedom of choice is childish, idividual initiative is today only a dream, to build anything in this world you need cooperation of a great number of men, the individualistic way to the progress is death from many years, now we are living in an horrendous Cpaitalistic Collectivization camouflaged as a free individual initiative...so yes I think Socialism is the only way.

We should find an agreement about which kind of Socialism we need there are many kinds of Socialism.......

[xcorps]

Socialism is the way to win the great battle against nature, to save humanknd from extinction and to conquer the Galaxy!

Now more seriously: I'm Socialist because I think that with our numbers, thinking about individual freedom of choice is childish, idividual initiative is today only a dream, to build anything in this world you need cooperation of a great number of men, the individualistic way to the progress is death from many years, now we are living in an horrendous Cpaitalistic Collectivization camouflaged as a free individual initiative...so yes I think Socialism is the only way.

We should find an agreement about which kind of Socialism we need there are many kinds of Socialism.......

Tsk. Your premise is flawed, so flawed.

A) The world's population is longer lived, healthier, wealthier and more aware than at any time in our history. Without socialism.
B) Individual initiative does not preclude cooperation. In fact, I think that if you asked any person who was succesful at anything, they would insist that the opposite is true, that individual initiative fosters cooperation. Without socialism.
C) Cpaitalistic Collectivization has created enough charity in just one year to just about completely refute your absurd attack. Without socialism.

Surely you can do better? One hopes....

[Diocle]

Tsk. Your premise is flawed, so flawed.

A) The world's population is longer lived, healthier, wealthier and more aware than at any time in our history. Without socialism.
B) Individual initiative does not preclude cooperation. In fact, I think that if you asked any person who was succesful at anything, they would insist that the opposite is true, that individual initiative fosters cooperation. Without socialism.
C) Cpaitalistic Collectivization has created enough charity in just one year to just about completely refute your absurd attack. Without socialism.

Surely you can do better? One hopes....

We don't need charity, take your charity for you, it's only crap! We want all and we'll get all!

We want your business, we want your companies, we want your factories, we want your machines, we want you and your money, your house, your kids, we want your world, to change it upside down, we want all and we'll get all......no fear! we don't vote, Democracy is for you nice people!

We can wait.......wait and work......we'll work till your next inevitable Capitalistic idiotic war and its bombs will start to kill milions of poor idiots, and we will be there.....and we'll tell only this simple speech to your soldiers watching their homes, their wives their children vaporized:

"Comrade do you want to go on with this crap? No? Well! Follow us, keep your gun and fire on your officers, and we'll stop this murderous crap!"

[Derpy Hooves]

We don't need charity, take your charity for you, it's only crap! We want all and we'll get all!

We want your business, we want your companies, we want your factories, we want your machines, we want you and your money, your house, your kids, we want your world, to change it upside down, we want all and we'll get all......no fear! we don't vote, Democracy is for you nice people!

We can wait.......wait and work......we'll work till your next inevitable Capitalistic idiotic war and its bombs will start to kill milions of poor idiots, and we will be there.....and we'll tell only this simple speech to your soldiers watching their homes, their wives their children vaporized:

"Comrade do you want to go on with this crap? No? Well! Follow us, keep your gun and fire on your officers, and we'll stop this murderous crap!"

\
Why does this all sound so vehemently violent? If that is how true Socialism is, then I want no part in it. Definitely if the world becomes the dystopian world of the book We by Zamyatin

[Matthias]

Tsk. Your premise is flawed, so flawed.

A) The world's population is longer lived, healthier, wealthier and more aware than at any time in our history. Without socialism.

No, there is socialism everywhere, and indeed, the wealthiest countries are pretty darn socialist. Even the good ol' USA. The military is among the most socialist of organizations there ever was, and the US military especially is quite a socialist monolith. But we have SS and Medicare etc. etc. as well.

B) Individual initiative does not preclude cooperation. In fact, I think that if you asked any person who was succesful at anything, they would insist that the opposite is true, that individual initiative fosters cooperation. Without socialism.

Nope, once again, socialism is present in every modern democracy/society.

C) Cpaitalistic Collectivization has created enough charity in just one year to just about completely refute your absurd attack. Without socialism.

Nope. Modern capitalism couldn't even exist without large doses of socialism. Which is why it doesn't exist. Without socialism. Because we have socialism of all types and forms.

Surely you can do better? One hopes....

You can't even figure out that socialism already exists in every modern economy, so you have little reason to hope for much.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-240.html

You quoted a freakin' cato institute study on welfare and want to be taken seriously?

[Rights of the Individual]

Quite frankly, Socialism is merely a stepping stone to Communism.


With no money, there is no incentive to produce/sell anything. With no incentive to do it voluntarily, threat of force and outright violence becomes a necessity for the state to maintain control, and thus we've reached a Stalinist Communism.

As far as racism and such goes, may I remind you that Hitler was a Socialist. The concept of racism is a subcategory of a bigger, collectivist idea that uses social divisions for power gains. It benefits the leaders in charge because they are allowed to pit the different societal groups against each-other or align them against a minority; The Communists against the Socialists in Weimar Germany, the Patriots against the Japanese Americans in WW2 era America, Germans against the Jews in Hitlers germany, ect.

[justicar5]

Quite frankly, Socialism is merely a stepping stone to Communism.


With no money, there is no incentive to produce/sell anything. With no incentive to do it voluntarily, threat of force and outright violence becomes a necessity for the state to maintain control, and thus we've reached a Stalinist Communism.

As far as racism and such goes, may I remind you that Hitler was a Socialist. The concept of racism is a subcategory of a bigger, collectivist idea that uses social divisions for power gains. It benefits the leaders in charge because they are allowed to pit the different societal groups against each-other or align them against a minority; The Communists against the Socialists in Weimar Germany, the Patriots against the Japanese Americans in WW2 era America, Germans against the Jews in Hitlers germany, ect.

#

No he wasn't. He killed everyone in the party who took the 'socialist' part of the name seriously. (See the Night of the Long Knives.)

[Ciciro]

As far as racism and such goes, may I remind you that Hitler was a Socialist. .

Hitler was not a socialist, in fact Hitler had little to no experience with business so he pretty much let big businesses do their own thing.