Is socialism actully bad and can you explain why?

See if you have the intellect to keep up...

For most of our history as a species, that evolved in groups, we have practiced a kind of socialism. Fact. For capitalism would not have maintained the optimum health of the group, which was essential for the individual survival. NOW, understand?

So you would not be here today if not for a very long tradition of a form of socialism, not capitalism, socialism. Now go off and ponder it sir.

 

Assuming you are correct, and people really have no choice but to work for some capitalist corporation (which really stretches credibility) or die from starvation and exposure to the elements, then that is still a choice.

Try running with your idea for a bit. Let's say some guy shows up at his hospital with a medical condition that requires immediate attention, or he's a goner.

and the doctor tells him "okay, I can probably save you, but it will cost everything you have, and you'll still owe me ONE MILLION DOLLARS. Are you willing to accept these conditions?

You believe that he has no choice, but to accept the deal? He can't say "sorry doc, but I guess I'll just go back home and die.

Is that really what you want to hang your hat on?

 

Socialism, in and of itself, is not bad.

When you hear that socialism is bad, you hear about the failures of socialism in the world. However, no one seems to take into account that the United States and other capitalist entities openly waged economic, political, and ideological warfare against any other system but capitalism. They undermined anything that countered their own philosophy. Claiming that socialism doesn't work is like claiming that flight won't work because all previous attempts seem to have failed when, really, they just failed to outperform an aggressive and ruthless competitor.

Socialism simply says that communal entities control/determine the economic condition they live in. The ways this can be achieved are numerous. But none of them will ever be tolerated by the forms of capitalism that dominate the board at the moment. While capitalism isn't, in and of itself, predatory and ruthless, western capitalism, as it has been practiced, struggles to be defined otherwise. It has many, many problems of it's own, but the propaganda is that the problems of capitalism are really just other peoples problems and that these other people or other philosophies is what prevents total prosperity with the system.

The nature of all systems is determined by the people who come to control them. Some are bad, for pracitical reasons, but this is always a fairly hard judgement to make- especially when there is no opportunity to field these theories absent some opposing force.

 

Extending the definition of socialism into absurdity like that is intellectually dishonest. You obviously have no idea what either socialism or capitalism is. How about you provide definitions of both so we can show you how wrong you are?

Actually, it is. The very essence of socialism is completely unworkable and thus bad.

And the socialists waged war back at capitalists, yet capitalism managed just fine. it is true that socialism was opposed by capitalists, but that is not a sufficient explaination. There is plenty of empirical and theoretical evidence which suggests that socialism did not work, regardless of external stuff.

No, because there is actually quite undeniable theoretical and empirical evidence that it does in fact not work.

 

and the optimum health of the group has always relied on evolution in order to keep up with ice ages, predators, and being able to help the group or be a hindrance to the group. Only in the fat years when hunters can bring in more than the productive members of that group need can welfare for those that are a drain on the resources of the group. Yet those that are a drain on the group are a hindrance to the group. And evolution weeds out those that are not capable of providing for the group by not allowing them to reproduce, which is why chicks hate broke dudes.

Your argument fails to take into account intra-societal forces which have helped to shape our very evolution. Those that are a hindrance to survival die. And their death is not a problem for those that remain because they were never any good to begin with.

Money is simply a form of measuring how valuable you are to the group. It's the brontosaurus you managed to kill in order to feed the rest of your tribe that makes you rich. It is the crop you managed to harvest, or the education old hunters can provide to the young that is the wealth of a society. The morbidly obese guy that can't waddle from his teepee to the tribal dumping grounds to take a dump is the one that can die, and nobody will shed a tear. It is the stupid one that can't figure out how to tie his mocassins that can die, without any injury to the tribe. It is the butt ugly girl that is so unhealthy that she can't possibly give birth that can die without harm to the tribe.

It is the lazy SOB that does nothing, but thinks everybody in the tribe owes him because he's part of the tribe that can die.

Let's let them die with as much dignity as possible, shall we?

 

That's the definition. It's fairly general with plenty of room in which one can decide how to go about this. I didn't think this was an absurd viewpoint.

Undeniable and empirical? I'm skeptical of this wording, but what do you have in mind?

 

Yes, wealth does go to a small percentage, and the problem is that percentage just keeps getting more of it, while the other two classes keep shrinking. This is a fact and is happening right now in the US and has happened before in the great depression, until the New Deal, a large list of socialist policies. What is the problem? Historically, it causes the economy to fail because too much wealth is horded in one sector of the economy. Another problem is the immorality of having a few capitalists at the top having all the power and with that, having the ability to extort the workers below, because the market allows it (for them) since they have so much capital. It has nothing to do with jealousy, just pride that the top class of the economy will always be able to support the other, even allowing human nature. This is historical fact. Pure capitalism always leads to a tipping point where the wealth at the top literally ends up crushing the lower classes. So what if the wealth of the poor is better than nobility of the past? Nonsense statement.This is beyond the economy and is a product of technology more than anything else.

Yeah, you do that. I would leave Sweden ASAP then.

Of course it is. And on the spectrum they are pretty far left. But there is nothing wrong with the military itself, just the size of it.

Yes, they have to set the wage low enough to make a profit within the markets, or be sustainable, but that is dependent on a multitude of other factors. As long as the wage allows you to make a profit, it can be set anywhere in those limits. I'm not implying it can be set to whatever the capitalist wants.

Everything done in an economy does have an effect on the society as a whole being it is dependent on the economy.

Yes, you can keep saying that again in again. Neither does capitalism. Purely free market capitalist economies have been shown to fail again and again, because it is simply unsustainable when all the wealth simply rises to the top and there is little regard for external devices like the environment. This isn't propaganda, and has happened again and again throughout the 20th century. I'm not advocating marxist socialism, but a mixed economy.

Another problem with capitalists is they fail to see that the two kinds of systems are inherently dependent on one another.

 

For the theoretical, look up "the socialist calculation debate". If you have an hour to spare, there is a good video which explains it very well, link below. The emprical evidence is the USSR, plenty of examples in the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KseRuyAjlHY&index=8&list=PLALopHfWkFlGH1rLjmLTK3cGsXQ37gSHX

 

I will watch the video, but the USSR does not seem to be empirical evidnece of the failure of socialism. It seems like an argument based on correlation.

 

You of course imagine it is always the same people in the top percentages... But that is false. Very few people stay in the top for a longer period of time. These "classes" are merely income brackets. They are not enduring classes of people. People move from one bracket to another all the time. Socialist rethoric makes it sounds as if there are enduring classes of the rich and the poor. There is not.

Indeed. Policies, which according to popular myth ended the great depression, but which modern economists have shown in fact just made things much worse.

What does that even mean, and what examples are there?

Why would capital enable them to do that?

The two are not separate. Capitalism greatly encourages technological innovation.

Sweden has no minimum wage law. We do have much welfare, but it is typically more sensibly designed than american welfare. Aren't you going to follow up and explain how minimum wages, unions and welfare save the workers? I was looking forward to proving you wrong. How sad.

Again, you are stretching the definition of socialism into absurdity. If militaries are socialist, every country in history has been socialist. It is plainly obviously that this definition of socialism is wrong.

Then how would a capitalist "exploit" workers, if wages could only be set according to economic realities beyond his control?

I see. If a worker get to little pay to support himself and his family, the right way is not to artificially raise his wage, because that distorts the price system. The right way is to simply supplement his income with welfare.

First of all, what is a "pure capitalist economy"? And secondly, what examples of such countries are there, and when did they fail?

How and what do you mean?

 

sure why not?

So its too detailed and also too vague? interesting! I didn't know that was possible

How is your definition not vague and meaningless? I'm not even entirely sure what it means? Are you just keeping the definition of socialism as broad as possible because its easier to attack?

Here the rest of your wiki definition:

by your brooad definition america is socialist

 

because most of it was irrelevant.

Most of the quote was irrelevant. Only the first paragraph provided a definition, and that definition was vague and meaningless.

It is not broad. It is clearly defined.

How?

 

This is kind of a trick question but in any case.

Socialism is a term that encompasses many things, some of which are good and some of which are bad, so you can not just say "Socialism is bad or good". Its both.

Extreme socialism is bad for the same reasons that extreme capitalism is bad. Under extreme socialism, most of the wealth of the nation is put under control of a few individuals. These individuals may be elected or not.

All that income creates a massive bureaucracy which eventually serves to sustain itself rather than the people it is supposed to be serving. Corruption normally becomes rampant and the people who are not on the inside suffer under a form of indentured slavery.

Under extreme capitalism the wealth of the nation eventually becomes controlled by a small number individuals. These individuals may be elected or not.

Oligopolies exert influence over the political system to create regulations and tax laws that favor them. The majority of the Politicians are in the pocket of the oligopolies so there is no one to fight for the workers and they suffer.

At the end of the day you end up with a form of indentured slavery ... same as with socialism.

In the US it we have adopted the worst of both worlds. We have massive oligopolies that control the majority of wealth that are interwoven with government that uses socialism as a tool to funnel capital into the large bureaucracy and the oligopolies.

Indentured slavery is upon us.

 

But the rich guy who loses a dollar to the socialists will likely reduce the pay of one of his workers by a dollar to compensate for it, or worse yet, lay off one of his workers. So in the end, even the poor can be affected adversely by taking from the rich. We just end up with more unemployed poor people.

Neither is there such a thing as "equality" in the workforce. Every worker brings a different skill set to the table, and thus no worker should expect to be treated the same as another worker. Two things affect the pay of a worker, his or her skillset and the demand for his or her skillset; among other more intangible traits. There is nothing more efficient than the free market to sort all this out. Any attempt by the government to sort it out, only makes matters worse.

 

How about socialism is equal sharing of misery.

 

Haha says the person that wants to forcibly take humanity back to a primitive way of living.

Sure we did, i didnt say we didnt - i said the vast majority had some sort of strong man dictator that socialism always brings. You are free to live that lifestyle today if you wish, just dont force it on the rest us.

 

I have no desire to come to America, not even for a holiday.

 

Its bad because it inspires theft, murder, subjection and hate of free people. Its should be banned -

[video=youtube;LduZfItthp8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LduZfItthp8[/video]

 

So too much wealth at the top is bad?

Have you ever been to a third world country? Things are pretty bad in those places, so it must be because there are extremely wealthy people. And you are part of the 1% if measured in global terms. So let's tax you and redistribute your wealth until sub-saharan africans are sitting in their homes with just as much food in their cupboards as you have in yours.

Deal?

 

Logically thinking they do not. People voluntarily participate in transactions almost every day of their lives and I have seen no indication that government would be any different. Perhaps [MENTION=59316]Mr. Swedish Guy[/MENTION] could lay out his logical argument that is supposed to indicate the contrary.

 

There are many issues that are not best left up to private individuals or actors as they affect too many people or are too challenging to resolve with government intervention with either carrots or sticks. Many people sit back and smugly proclaim this to be socialism when the reality in which they live would be absolutely miserable but for the government.

 

Socialism leads to problems like Greece is facing today. Socialism killed the Golden Goose that was once Greece.

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money.
Margaret Thatcher​

 

Utter horse (*)(*)(*)(*) capitalism doesn't produce oligarchies unless government compels it. If you think the only people Mr. corporate executive answers to are the stockholders which are increasingly the people who invest the money participants in 401k's donate to them, you are truly delusional. The whole US tax code, ten times longer than "War and Peace" and far more poorly written is in fact little more than an attempt to micromanage economic behavior at every stratum of the economy. On top that every company with more than about 40 employees has a dedicated staff that does little or nothing but try to insure that the company is in compliance with literally thousands of rules and regulations emanating from every level of government from the county to city hall to the state to the feds and which takes precedence depends almost entirely on how the various regulations are worded. By the way Charles Westinghouse did more to ease the burden on women than any government agency ever and he was an ardent capitalist.

 

And this is a very thoughtful and intelligent reply to the OP.

After ww2, in the 1950s onward, we demonized socialism, with propaganda and succeeded in manufacturing consent amongst the American public. Yet long ago we had Christian socialism, which has died out. It was based upon scripture, in the book of Acts, that told of how the Christians who were awaiting pentacost took care of one another. The rich footed the bill by selling their treasures, turned that money over to an apostle to be distributed to those "according to their needs". The men who did this were INSPIRED BY GOD to do this in the manner that they did. So one could rationally say that God prefers socialism over any system that creates the rich and the poor. And capitalism necessarily has a poverty class built into it, for there has never been a capitalist system without a mixture of social programs, that did not create a class of poverty. Poverty is present in all purely capitalist systems. So capitalism is not a system one would choose if you wanted to alleviate poverty.

My time in the military showed me something tremendous. I discovered that people really do like cooperation in working towards a goal, an ideal. It is in our dna, for we had to cooperate and look out for one another in tribal societies in which we evolved as a group. You see this in the military or in any group that values cooperation. We have been conditioned out of that, by capitalism, but we naturally move back into that in times of peril like ww2 which required cooperation and mutual sacrifice in order to work towards a goal and defeat a great enemy. We are at our best when we do this, yet that is not what capitalism is about at all.

 

So you do not think what was practiced by tribal societies for 10s of thousands of year was not socialistic in its very nature? What does this sound like then? The collective was of the greatest importance, not the individual. The entire group, those that could, worked collectively to care for the group, sharing in the resources they needed, equally. If you were a craftsman, and could chip and nap flint precisely, creating projectile points, that is what you did, for the group. If you were a better hunter, there was pride to be found in that, and so on and so forth. So the tribe literally owned the resources that individuals hunted and gathered. There were no kings, no owners of production, it was a socialized system.

Granted, it was a primitive socialized system, but the people were primitive compared to today. But that would change nothing. For you could use the same principles, of equal sharing, cooperation, work, and there would be no rich and no poor, and given where we are today with modern tech, it would work out much better. Of course we would have to condition people to once again be sharers and cooperative, which would be very difficult for conservatives and neoliberals. And you would have to have a good system in place, without sociopaths wanting to be rulers. But all of this is possible, for we have socialism, a form of it, in our human dna, as we evolved with it. That is just a fact, and an inconvenient truth for cons and neoliberals who only know selfishness and Darwin's jungle when it comes to economics.