Is socialism actully bad and can you explain why?

Okay, I'll agree that competitive bidding for resources is a good idea … but in the case of natural resources – which nature provided for free – why should some individuals have to pay rent and other individuals collect rent? Just because we need a system to create prices doesn't mean that we have to give that money to privileged parasites. In the case of natural resources we could use that beneficial pricing mechanism to fund the government and eliminate taxes on production and trade.


"The mere abolition of rent would not remove injustice, since it would confer a capricious advantage upon the occupiers of the best sites and the most fertile land. It is necessary that there should be rent, but it should be paid to the state or to some body which performs public services; or, if the total rental were more than is required for such purposes, it might be paid into a common fund and divided equally among the population." – Bertrand Russell

 

Exactly, making your work more of a social effort provides some incentive to better what you are doing for the good of the rest of society. Maybe not usually, but sometimes...

 

I don't know much about ancient history, but what I do know is that we practice corporate socialism. Since they are people too, it counts.

 

Most people who whine about socialism "being bad" dont even know the definition of socialism, mostly they just regurgitate old cold war propaganda

 

Corporate socialism. Lol. Some oxymoron that is. Oh wait. They are people too. I don't even...

 

Welcome to the 21st Century. Resistance is futile. You will be deep-fried and super-sized.

 

Socialism is very bad for many reasons.

Despite what people will no doubt claim it is a political system which relies on force and violence to control people.

At it's heart the notion of socialism is that the individual has no rights and owes everything to everyone else. A person has no right to the product of their labor or profit from it under socialism.

Socialism produces or creates nothing it relies on taking from those who do create and produce something. Eventually any such system runs out of people to steal from.

Socialism fails whether as a national system or even as a partial piecemeal idea such as here in America with public education and public entitlements.

People are better off left alone to solve their own problems but socialists cannot accept this and demand that people accept the ideas of socialism imposed on them as the only solution.

P.S the only difference between communism and socialism is a matter of degree. Much like the difference between manslaughter and murder.

 

You must be a corporate shill. Yes, complete free market anarchy definitely enables the rich to keep their freedoms, at the expense of the worker, who is not stealing, but only wants what IS rightfully theirs. Good luck with actually producing something at a scale larger than the individual without extorting peoples rights. All socialists want is what is rightfully theirs as producers and workers.

 

Lol, what?

 

The worker doesn't "own" the product of his labour, he was hired to produce that product for the person who provided the capital investment in exchange for money.

If the workers want to own the product of their labour - the profits - go start a syndicate. Or, if you don't want to go that far, make a union. I'm all for unions. But abolishing private ownership is not the way to go.

 

I'm sure what you have learned now in 4 pages is that many, MANY, people don't even know what Socialism is.

Socialism is generally viewed as "everyone makes the same amount of money", which is false. Socialism ONLY means the Government owns Industry. The people still manage it.

The people vote for a politician they think will represent the wages they want to be paid for certain jobs. It's supposed to be a vote for wages style of Government but even in Socialism you will see the same big pocket rich buying politicians to set wages more to their advantage.

There is Crony Socialism just like there is Crony Capitalism. Crazy how the problem with them is the same source.

 

Who owns the product of the labor is debatable. I tend to disagree with you on this point, mostly, but am fine with a hybrid system, in other words making sure the pay matches up relative to the national GDP and what the work actually is.

Unions are fine, but I think the OP is more asking about national unions (hint), not necessarily corporate or private ones.

Socialism says nothing about abolishing private ownership of the actual organization (or the right to manage it while also accepting the rights of the workers, whatever those rights may be). It is about production of goods and resources and who owns the product of the work itself.

 

Well you would be the shill spouting what is clearly unrealistic and false nonsense.

Socialism is the topic at hand and has nothing to do with the workers.
Any worker is perfectly capable of negotiating with an employer for wages etc.

government is not. But socialists demand that only government may dictate such things as wages.

 

1. Yes it does, because workers are part of the social organization of the company and production. So is the employer. It is advocating a more equal/common or fair distribution of production.
2. No, all workers do not have the ability or environment to always negotiate a fair wage.
3. Government should be the people or at least a representation of them. They don't need to set every wage, just limits according to the economy, so that employers can set fair wages. Stop trying to over-complicate everything.

 

Socialism has nothing to do with the workers? Are you sticking to that?

 

Not exactly. It works more along the lines of no child dreams of being a banker. Some people do aspire to making as much money as possible while doing as little as needed and they go into investments, others are forced into Law or Medicine and tend to be bad at it, because they lack the passion to be great. Passion is the secret. If you don't believe me then drive to the local department store of your choice and ask any employee about the product they are working with. When you get bored with that go to an art supply store, a sporting goods store, a comic book shop, and do the same. You will see first hand the difference between someone working a low wage job just to get by and someone willing to accept a low wage job to work in a field they feel passionately about.

 

Fair is strictly subjective which is why government nor anyone else other than the individual can decide what is fair.

Governments are always and always will be instruments of force and violence. This means to impose standards of fairness on one violates the rights of another,

Any and all workers can indeed decide for themselves and between themselves and their employers what is fair and do so better than government that is fact.

Individuals produce better without government control and always have it is not as you falsely claim a matter of production on an individual basis but also one of voluntary cooperation for mutual benefit which again works best without government.

It is not advocating equality or fairness but theft and tyranny. Always has and always will be

- - - Updated - - -

Socialism has nothing to do with the workers

 

And a society without government and a system of laws doesn't promote violence. What? Please. There is a social contract in a society with the government enforcing it, to inhibit just that. You have completely left the realm of socialism to somewhere besides even anarchy, which even has a form of government, so I don't know where to even go from here.

I am sorry, but more government does not mean more socialism and more tyranny. More government just means more of a social co-op organization when talking about even strict socialism. You are conflating terms so much here it's... oh man wow.

"Individuals produce better without government control and always have it is not as you falsely claim a matter of production on an individual basis but also one of voluntary cooperation for mutual benefit which again works best without government." This is a variation on socialism, so I'm not really sure of your point here. Pretty sure you are in denial or something.

 

No one said anything about NO government least of all me.

I simply stated the reality of what government is and it should be severely limited.

There is no such thing as a social contract.

More government by definition absolutely means more control and more tyranny period you are wrong about that.

It is not a variation on socialism because it is voluntary and no form of socialism is voluntary

 

You know, there are words for things, and socialism is that word. That there is no such thing as voluntary socialism is just your opinion, and just for future reference, in the strict definition, socialism is NECESSARILY voluntary.

 

No you are quite wrong it is you making up definitions which are not correct.

Socialism is always and exclusively enforced and imposed. It is never voluntary that is absolute fact

 

We know how much of it to allow. Consider the various facets of socialism we have in this country.....

 

Well how about you run through your reasons why it is good, and how that actually works in an example of some socialist company.

That's a lot better than doing your research for you. Then maybe we can help point out a few problems.

 

Uh no because the government under socialism requires you to self report on everything from your income to your electrical usage. After all if you are going to run essentially everything then you have to have a whole lot of information if you are not going to make a hash of it.

 

We have cancer, aka socialism. It grows and kills it's host in the end.