Socialism ends in failure 100% of the time… just like democracy.

Socialism ends in failure 100% of the time… just like democracy.

Humanity has yet to develop a system of government that does not eventually devolve into some form of authoritarianism or anarchy. Yet in our hubris we think we will be different. I am not saying that a stable form of government is impossible. I am however saying that our lack of knowledge of our own psychology and world history makes it impossible for us. Perhaps this will change in future generations.

The solution is education. Yet we do not teach psychology as a core class and what we do teach kids about world history is topical at best. Societies that do not understand history are doomed to repeat it. A society that is not educated in psychology will be ill equipped to stop the rot of corruption.

Thoughts, additions, subtractions?

 

I suppose everything eventually fails if you give it enough time. Roman Empire lasted 1000 years, but eventually failed, and it took Europe over 500 years to get back to same level of civilization that Romans had. Of course Rome was neither capitalist or socialist. It was a slave based economy.

 

If democracy is failing in the United States, it due the imposition of socialism by a loud minority. Democracy is fragile because it allows the bullies to have a voice unless they become violent.

It’s been said that you elect socialists once because after that, they are in control.

 

The problem as I see it is that each side wants to blame the other while taking no responsibility themselves.

 

Someone around here posted a truth.

The creation of wealth is infinite.
The redistribution of wealth is finite.

 

No its not.

 

Small minds.

 

You have no idea where innovation and new technologies can take us. Who could have predicted that a few guys in a garage could create a multibillion dollar industry? Who could have predicted where the oil industry would go in 1859 in Pennsylvania?

So the redistribution of wealth is not infinite?

 

Well I mostly agree... but then how do you come up with "The solution is education?" How would that be a solution? The founders were brilliant and learned men, but didn't think the type of government they put together would last forever either, and they thought it was contingent on a lot circumstances (most no longer in play).

What sort of "education" are you talking about?

 

Nope.

 

No major disagreement here.

I would add that decentralization is a good hedge against eventual autocracy and/or collapse. Not in general, but certainly on a case by case basis. Political and economic autonomy (not isolationism per say, I'm thinking more like Switzerland) prevents one domino from necessarily toppling them all. Most of our states have suitable bureaucracies in place that they would be able to shift enough resources and authority around to maintain a semblance of civilization in most cases of national economic or political collapse and could resist the power of a rising hegemony. It wouldnt be painless of course, but it would be plausible. Though it becomes less and less so the more and more we abdicate state authority (states rights) to federal authority, and the more intricate and fragile we grow our 'supply chain.' At the end of the day, stability is very heavily linked to prosperity in that people in general get along better when they all have enough food and shelter. So long as those are maintained, the rest can be re-established rather peaceably most of the time.

It seems to me the reason socialism doesnt work is because of how dependent it is on centralization. You can't enforce equality on everyone when they arent all playing by the same set of rules (laws). And so socialism tends to centralize as much as possible in the pursuit of maximum equality, then it only takes one domino to knock it all down.

 

yes it is

 

That is true for all marxists

 

What do you consider to be wealth?

 

Which is patently false. Very few American's want to replace our economic system with "socialism" or anything like it.

Everyone should have a voice, it's up to the majority to maintain an even keel. Which, in spite of the efforts of the worst "bully" to ever assault our Government, tRaitor tRump, we American's have, so far, stood up to his efforts to impose an Autocracy on U.S.

Which has been proven wrong by our history. Several "socialists" have been elected to Congress and those seats have eventually been regained by Democrats and/or Republicans.

A lot of wild accusations have been made about socialism taking over America. It NEVER has. We have passed legislation that provided/provides a social safety net for American workers as a defense against the wealthy few Banksters and Wall Street, as a hedge against their greed that runs the economy into ruins on a regular and periodic basis. But in spite of all the hand wringing that social safety net is NOT socialism.

 

There are no truly democratic socialist nations, as there are no totalitarian dictatorships that actually do more than pay lip service to being socialist.

Which is not something America and Government by the people have ever had the need to concern itself with.

Cite a working example where that has ever happened.

My contention is true socialism has never and will never exist. Only because the wealthy have a propensity to run the economic train off the rails on a regular basis does society need to implement SOCIAL (not socialist) Programs and safety nets to protect working stiffs from their insatiable greed.

 

Wrong

Socialism IS totalitarianism

Socialism exists right here in every prison and many indian reservations

 

Wrong.

Many wangt to replace it and their numbers are growing

You are way out of touch

 

No, you've bought into the RW mythology that the LW is a socialist threat; which they've never been.

 

Exactly! And until tRaitor tRump These United States NEVER had to worry about totalitarianism.

But NOT in our Federal Government or even State and local governments. It just doesn't. Every Democrat is heavily invested in the well being or OUR United States, it's Constitution AND economy.

 

Wrong

I am not a right winger and have bought into no such myth.

The left wing is large and diverse some of the older more moderate left wingers are still arouund but have ceded control of the left wing to the far left socialists who wish for the overthrow of capitalism. Which they defined as ownershp of any private property to include children.
They control the democratic party hence the trans rights movement. They do not give a damn about trans people but it helps break down the traditional family which they consider a construct of capitalism and which must be aboolished.

Their numbers are growing because thy have had to daces to take over schools which they have.

They do not a majority only a large minority. Their goal is to cause as much unrest as possible gain twenty to twenty five percent of the poulation as supporters and then launch a revolution.

 

Of course we have.

We had it during WWII

Wrong only some democrats and they allow the far left socialists to run the party. They have been doing it for years, it is one of the two main reasons hillary lost. The other being her political incompetance

 

Irrelevant, everything is finite at any one time.

 

Ya, thats the other reason socialism never works- someone has to administer it and that someone always gets too powerful and too greedy

Are we talking about absolute socialism or socialism on a scale? I was assuming we're talking about it on a scale, as no govt has (yet) tried to make people share underwear.

Communist China is the closest example, though its a heavily corporatized bastardization of socialism, and their economy is perpetually teetering on collapse (depending which analysts you take seriously). Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia both had heavily socialized economies and both continually centralized more and more until their destruction.

Probably right. True socialism would place ALL resources under the jurisdiction of a commitee and no one would be able to own anything. Humans are never going to tolerate that. Thus the socialism we all debate about is the scale of socialism- how much we each may own vs how much we all 'own' together. And in that context, we could go A LOT MORE socialist. And I think that would be bad.

 

Just like capitalism.