What's so bad about socialism?

[Ak1980]

I doubt anyone really hate the concept of helping the poor, the problem is only in the degree how much the poor should get assistance and how much percentage of your income get cut to help the poor.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Modern social policy isn't just about poor people being granted the luxury of not starving to death. There are many more aspects of it. Social mobility is one. What vagina you crawled out of should limit your life choices as little as possible. That's achieved through education and regulation, and before the modern welfare state social mobility was pretty poor. Capital should be easily attainable for those who have none. If I have everything I need for a business but money, in a laissez faire market there are still plenty of things that can stand my way, and I can be used to make someone else rich by making myself poor, barriers that a government should remove.

Basically a free market can often result in things we judge undesirable, and a government can take action to regulate it.

[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....

[xcorps]

In which countries is this true? Also, what insanity is that? Since when is being poor in the US better than having a working class job?

Since 1995 to be sure:

• In 40 states welfare pays more than an $8.00 an hour job. In 17 states the
  welfare package is more generous than a $10.00 an hour job.
• In Hawaii, Alaska, Massachusetts, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, New
  York, and Rhode Island welfare pays more than a $12.00 an hour job--or two and a
  half times the minimum wage.
• In nine states welfare pays more than the average first-year salary for a
  teacher. In 29 states it pays more than the average starting salary for a
  secretary. And in the six most generous states it pays more than the entry-level
  salary for a computer programmer.
• Welfare benefits are especially generous in large cities. Welfare provides
  the equivalent of an hourly pretax wage of $14.75 in New York City, $12.45 in
  Philadelphia, $11.35 in Baltimore, and $10.90 in Detroit. For the hard-core
  welfare recipient, the value of the full range of welfare benefits substantially
  exceeds the amount the recipient could earn in an entry-level job. As a result,
  recipients are likely to choose welfare over work, thus increasing long-term
  dependence.

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



Sorry for the teh double post, edit is very finicky right nao.

[Krylos]

Thanks, Dragus.
@xcorps
Your statement is also slightly flawed.
The first world population is longer lived, healthier and wealthier than at any time in our history.
We are abusing resources and people from the second and third world. Look at all those people in Africa that are starving to death. Look at all those children that have to work in mines or factories so their family would get enough income to survive.
That's one of the main issues with capitalism: Everyone is focused on his/ her own benefit. As long as you can cheaply get shoes, electronical devices and other consumer goods, you're happy.
The main reason why the first world is so healthy, wealthy and long lived is mainly because of it's technological advance. Never before have we had so many medical, educational and technical opportunities as before.

As I previously mentioned: Absloute socialism probably is not necessary, but we really need to make the current capitalism more social in order to achieve more peace and equality in the world.
Human lives should stand above money.

Of course my whole statement here was pretty hypocritical. Why don't I just go to the third world and help these people?
Well mainly it's because in a capitalist world like ours this would require an enormous amount of money, which I don't have.
There are already many people working on projects like these and they aren't extremely successful.
In order to really change something we need to all work for the same thing.

That's why we should be politically active and get people to help.

[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!"

[xcorps]

We are abusing resources and people from the second and third world

"We" aren't abusing anything. Maybe "YOU" are abusing someone. I've never been a Somali warlord or on Mbasogo's staff. This article demonstrates the troubles with Africa, and it's got nuttin' to do with capitalizm.

Good luck changing the world.

"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!"

Joan Baez did it better. And she was cooler, but hey, not bathing for a month was cool too.

[Krylos]

You mean to tell me the poor working conditions and low wages of the workers there aren't even remotely related to capitalism?
Not doing anything about it is almost as bad as actually causing it. There is plenty of food and resources on earth. The thing is people don't want other people to be happy. We just look for ourselves. That's what capitalism is all about.
The reason why there are dictators there is that the African countries were colonies. The only things the european powers wanted was money and resources. That's why they didn't help the people establish their own governments and good economies. When the colonies eventually seceded and became their own countries, the colonists left and the countries were still underdeveloped. This was easily abused by local powerful people and that's how they came to power.

[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?

[removeduser_4536284751384]

We are abusing resources and people from the second and third world. Look at all those people in Africa that are starving to death. Look at all those children that have to work in mines or factories so their family would get enough income to survive.

There are two options for them. A second industrial revolution with all the poor living standards, or poverty and all the misery that brings. It's physically impossible to turn them into developed countries, they have to grind up to that for years through continued industrialization.

If we had a button that could magically make every developing country as rich as the developing world, we would press it. Unfortunately, we don't.

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.

You're talking about liberal government social policies. I'm pretty sure xcorps is taking about actual socialism, the USSR kind.

[King Gambrinus]

The problem with socialism and communism is they are far too conservative and base themselves off capitalist economics, the concept of nation-state, the concept of family, the concept of ownership, and of course the concept of "human nature" (lulwat? Who is Marx, Adam Smith or any other person to define what human nature is?) and then there's works of propaganda like the Communist Manifesto, which is really just a political pamphlet. Marx is really just a conservative looking for his name to be written into stardom. He is a great bogeyman for our current oppressors and his ideology is really just liberalism on recreational drugs. "Anybody who makes plans after the Revolution is a reactionary" as Mikhail Bakunin so beautifully put it.

Any revolution that bases itself on the last one is bound to fail. I reccomend you read some of the Young Marx and Young Hegel to get a more accurate description of what Utopian Revolution is supposed to be.

[Derpy Hooves]

You have a good head on your shoulders, a good heart, and please continue to fight the good fight. You will see success, one defeated republican (U.S.) and one aging (and slowly phased-out) dictator at a time.

I hope not, or at least I hope the Democrats or the Republicans do not always win, because if neither always wins then that means our system is working. Though I would love for there to be an appearance of a viable thrid party.

[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

[Diocle]

Violent? Only one time, and only to exploit the right (the only one) occasion we need to stop their idiotic war. Do you understand? The war is violent, and very violent will be stopping it (as in 1917), but...... then you'll see! All will be like in your dreams, my dear Little Pony!
All people will be happy, nice and (red) colored!

Isn't a wonderful dream?

Joan Baez did it better.

No, sorry but you are confused: Vladimir Ilic did it better, very better, very, very better!

[Col. Tartleton]

So basically you want to take all our stuff and render us unable to fight back? Because charity is insulting whereas theft is empowering, and while you are philosophically perfectly willing to use revolutionary force for your own objectives you view all other uses of force as crimes against humanity. I'm sure the war will be over by Christmas and relatively bloodless to boot. Of course the purges won't be...

You silly socialists are all the same. Motivated by the same base impulses as Genghis Khan, Caesar, and Biggie. Gimme the loot.

[Matthias]

You're talking about liberal government social policies. I'm pretty sure xcorps is taking about actual socialism, the USSR kind.

No, you and xcorps don't define what socialism is. Socialism comes in all sorts of forms, and liberal government social policies is quite a popular one right now. All government social programs are forms of socialism. Some incorporate capitalism and the free market more than others.

To give the credit of longer life to capitalism is freakin' hilarious, when so many social programs play a huge role in that statistic.

[The spartan]

Since 1995 to be sure:

• In 40 states welfare pays more than an $8.00 an hour job. In 17 states the
  welfare package is more generous than a $10.00 an hour job.
• In Hawaii, Alaska, Massachusetts, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, New
  York, and Rhode Island welfare pays more than a $12.00 an hour job--or two and a
  half times the minimum wage.
• In nine states welfare pays more than the average first-year salary for a
  teacher. In 29 states it pays more than the average starting salary for a
  secretary. And in the six most generous states it pays more than the entry-level
  salary for a computer programmer.
• Welfare benefits are especially generous in large cities. Welfare provides
  the equivalent of an hourly pretax wage of $14.75 in New York City, $12.45 in
  Philadelphia, $11.35 in Baltimore, and $10.90 in Detroit. For the hard-core
  welfare recipient, the value of the full range of welfare benefits substantially
  exceeds the amount the recipient could earn in an entry-level job. As a result,
  recipients are likely to choose welfare over work, thus increasing long-term
  dependence.

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



Sorry for the teh double post, edit is very finicky right nao.

Seems to be a bit misleading; what circumstances does a person have to be in to earn that much welfare? How much welfare do they lose by getting a minimum wage job? I am guessing you just all of a sudden lose all welfare benefits after you get a minimum wage job...even moreso if you have a family.

[xcorps]

That study IS from '95, so welfare outlays have certainly decreased since the PWRORA was passed in 1996.

[The spartan]

That study IS from '95, so welfare outlays have certainly decreased since the PWRORA was passed in 1996.

OK? That doesn't clear up a whole lot though. The accusation is that a person can earn more solely off of welfare than having a minimum wage job + welfare, which sounds like complete BS.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Availability of credit, a market based specialization of companies, widespread access to technical education in several fields for citizens of all socioeconomic statuses and a politically competitive Party-System that adequately represents population segments... those have been shown to be strong factors in the creation and recreation of a dynamic, integrated and mobile society.

It's not about Conservatism, about Socialism, about Liberalism or other Ideological frameworks... it's about being practical, getting things done with as little social costs as we can and creating the adequate environment for individual motivation.