Can someone tell me why Socialism is so bad?

[Akka]

So, in essence, you completely missed his point.
Half-reading a message is a sure way to not understanding it, especially when it confers to irony. Actually, it's also quite rude, it's a bit like cutting someone mid-sentence. Shows how much someone cares about really getting what others said...

Anyway, if you had read the entirety, what he parodied was precisely how pro-free market people rails against socialism being "utopic" because based on "ideals" that are supposedly false... all the while supporting a system that can only work on just as equally idealistic and false premises, like perfect knowledge, perfect rationality, perfect situation and the like.

 

[happy_Alex]

To talk about Socialism is to an extent to get into a discussion about semantics. What is important are the effective outcomes of a society and it's values and over-riding philosophy.

Before people start bleating on about the evils of socialism, they would do well to remember that every developed nation is mixed economy, to varying degrees. Many things that socialists have campaigned and fought for have become axiomatic in virtually every society.

 

[Sharwood]

So, in essence, you completely missed his point.
Half-reading a message is a sure way to not understanding it, especially when it confers to irony. Actually, it's also quite rude, it's a bit like cutting someone mid-sentence. Shows how much someone cares about really getting what others said...

Anyway, if you had read the entirety, what he parodied was precisely how pro-free market people rails against socialism being "utopic" because based on "ideals" that are supposedly false... all the while supporting a system that can only work on just as equally idealistic and false premises, like perfect knowledge, perfect rationality, perfect situation and the like.

Actually, I understand the point entirely. I was just only referring to the first half of his post. I should have deleted the second half, but was quick replying, and didn't think to edit it. Socialism doesn't work for the reasons he espoused. In the same way capitalism doesn't either, for the reasons he also espoused. So get off your damn high-horse.

 

[Dumanios]

Socialism and Religion go together like Hitler and a Rabbi would.

 

[Camikaze]

Socialism and Religion go together like Hitler and a Rabbi would.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Socialism and Religion go together like Hitler and a Rabbi would.

The International League of Religious Socialists demands an explanation.

 

[El_Machinae]

Bureaucracies are inefficient, in the end. A market that's fluid can quickly respond to trends & to needs. Government has a hard time being small. So, when it's a choice between a large government and many small businesses competing, the small businesses look pretty good.

With large corporations, we lose a lot of fluidity, but ostensibly, there are still small businesses waiting to take up the slack. Often this isn't true, but it's a decent theory.

Free markets run into problems whenever a series of small actors acting selfishly is not the best outcome. There are a variety of scenarios where this will happen. Even with the horrors of bureaucracy, a superior outcome can happen with government involvement.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

I think it has come to the point where the terms socialism and capitalism have become as cloudy as liberal and conservative. In most political rhetoric today, capitalism means the status quo(which may or may not be capitalistic in nature) and socialism means some change(which is never capitalistic) from the present economic system.

 

[amadeus]

It strips people of their liberty and their dignity; their liberty by using government force (the only power legally enabled to deprive you of your life and freedom) to seize what you have legitimately earned and their dignity by enslaving them to a system where any advances in their standard of living are taken from them and by putting them into a system of dependency where the government (legal monopoly of force) has the power to deprive you of that too.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Besides the right-wing propaganda that's been coming out of the Republican Party and the teabaggers and such.

Why would a government that we directly control be worse than entrusting the important services we depend on, such as water, national security, health care electricity, even education in some cases, to private sector companies that we have no control over, except not buying the product. In the case of electricity, national security and the like, there isn't even that option. It's their way or you can live in the dark.

Could someone just explain this to me, please?

I would also like to see such an explanation. Liked it very much.

Have you read Road to Serfdom? The central argument of the book is that a socialist government would cease to be democratic due to the needs of running a successful planned economy.

It's a very short, straightforward book that I read in one day, and I'm sure you can find it for free on the internet somewhere.

That is a very bad recommendation. Don't bother with that book, it is not worth wasting any time on.

Yep. There is simply no incentive to work harder in a socialist system. Human beings are not naturally altruistic. We do things for personal gain, and socialism - in the traditional sense, I'm not talking about the so-called "social democracies" here - does not leave adequate scope for such personal gain.

Poppycock.
You disappoint me lad.
Many time you basted about what a great student you are, always making your professor proud, always providing the right answers.
And so you present this.
Yes, I am really disappointed.

The International League of Religious Socialists demands an explanation.

Indeed. Good call, Erik.
Of course there are no reason why socialists can be religious. Actually some excellent posters on this very board are socialists and religious.

I think it has come to the point where the terms socialism and capitalism have become as cloudy as liberal and conservative. In most political rhetoric today, capitalism means the status quo(which may or may not be capitalistic in nature) and socialism means some change(which is never capitalistic) from the present economic system.

That is a good observation.
In the recent decades, political terms have been twisted to the unrecognizable. Especially in the USA it seems.

 

[Richard Cribb]

My apologies. This post wasn't so good that I intended to doublepost.

 

[Perfection]

Because real men don't care about other people.

 

[amadeus]

Because real men don't care about other people.

You can care about other people without having a federal marshal point a gun at you.

 

[Sharwood]

Poppycock.
You disappoint me lad.
Many time you basted about what a great student you are, always making your professor proud, always providing the right answers.
And so you present this.
Yes, I am really disappointed.

Firstly, I don't think a few times in over a year qualifies as "many." Secondly, I'm a student of International Relations, not economics. What I know about socialism is mostly historical. Thirdly, I don't see you refuting me, and I don't think I'm wrong. Fourthly, your disappointment or lack thereof doesn't particularly concern me.

 

[Akka]

It strips people of their liberty and their dignity; their liberty by using government force (the only power legally enabled to deprive you of your life and freedom) to seize what you have legitimately earned and their dignity by enslaving them to a system where any advances in their standard of living are taken from them and by putting them into a system of dependency where the government (legal monopoly of force) has the power to deprive you of that too.

So basically, it does the same than the "free market", but with at least some body born out of the will of people rather than simple mechanics from money.

(and considering that all you "legitimaly earned" could not have been earned in the first place without the whole context of "society" and "legal system" and the like that is provided because of the government and the rest of the population, it's quite hypocrite to pretend it's "stealing" rather than "paying back", but I guess that what's inconvenient is usually "forgotten")

 

[Richard Cribb]

Firstly, I don't think a few times in over a year qualifies as "many." Secondly, I'm a student of International Relations, not economics. What I know about socialism is mostly historical. Thirdly, I don't see you refuting me, and I don't think I'm wrong. Fourthly, your disappointment or lack thereof doesn't particularly concern me.

Firstly, I find it rather frequent. But that is not that important.
Secondly, this is about politics, more precisely a political ideology and what sort of societal formation said ideology wants to establish. Not that politics and economics can be separated, but still.
Thirdly, a bit of modesty might be called for when one enters an area not well-known instead of lashing out such sweeping statements. Human nature is a complex topic, and there are incentives in socialism. The first should be obvious for any student of history, and about the second literary tons of books and articles have been written, they are all out there to be studied. Thus, a refutation from me is not called for, and I am not in the trade of handing out lectures for free anyway.
Fourthly, your lack of concern doesn't concern me at all.

 

[Perfection]

You can care about other people without having a federal marshal point a gun at you.

Closet Liberal!

 

[Gustave5436]

It strips people of their liberty and their dignity; their liberty by using government force (the only power legally enabled to deprive you of your life and freedom) to seize what you have legitimately earned and their dignity by enslaving them to a system where any advances in their standard of living are taken from them and by putting them into a system of dependency where the government (legal monopoly of force) has the power to deprive you of that too.

Libertarianism is an inherently socialist ideology. Therefore, your argument that Socialism 'strips people of their liberty and dignity' is false.

 

[Hsinchu]

Socialism is not a government we directly control.

It is at its core an economic principle. The means of production controlled directly by the utilizers of those means of production to produce... the producers.

What people don't seem to understand about "socialist government" is that the "producers" don't produce a product. "Socialist government" is not the same thing as a democracy.

A democracy, everyone gets a say, and we figure and hope that the soundest decisions are made and consensus can generally be gained because the intent of the group is the benefit of the group and not individual benefits.

In a socialist government we are talking about the benefit of a certain class of people. In the case of the United States where a welfare state and unemployment state exist, a large portion of those means are being directed toward people with a vote but no contribution. A long time ago we abolished fees for voting, which was a step forward. However, in those days, the poor didn't receive large government subsidies to sit at home and do nothing and collect checks. If you didn't have money, you sure as hell had to find some way to LIVE in order to be around to vote.

I don't disagree with representative government. I don't disagree on any particular point in regards to social services either. What I do disagree with is not being able to control my own tax dollar. A socialist state means that some broke bloke controls my tax dollars because there are so many more lazy unemployed welfare state and government pension takers that can outvote my tax dollar.

I have no problem with a socialist state that I can "opt out" of. My caveats are that I can keep my home, my yard, my stuff, and be allowed to visit the local supermarket without getting killed. For this, I am willing to pay fees that are accountable to going toward these caveats only. The rest of the social crap, the socialists can keep and find a way to pay for themselves.

Don't forget that government paychecks depend on Joe Blow's paychecks. If the government pays John Doe with Joe Blow's paycheck, then aren't three people living off one paycheck? Joe Blow has a wife and kid. Those are the three people that should be living off his paycheck, not President Freestuff and John Doe.

 

[Akka]

I have no problem with a socialist state that I can "opt out" of. My caveats are that I can keep my home, my yard, my stuff, and be allowed to visit the local supermarket without getting killed. For this, I am willing to pay fees that are accountable to going toward these caveats only. The rest of the social crap, the socialists can keep and find a way to pay for themselves.

Don't forget that government paychecks depend on Joe Blow's paychecks. If the government pays John Doe with Joe Blow's paycheck, then aren't three people living off one paycheck? Joe Blow has a wife and kid. Those are the three people that should be living off his paycheck, not President Freestuff and John Doe.

It rather seems that you're lost on two points.

Point one : you seem to mix "government" with "mercenary security agency". A government is what makes a whole society runs, it's not just the private police forces of the few who have the bucks.
You should probably think a bit about what a whole society imply. Safety nets exist for a reason, and it's not just because 5 % of the blokes wanted a free paycheck.

Point two : the overused "lazy bums" caricature is a bit old. I don't doubt there is abuse, but I'd like you try to live on government paycheck alone for some time. You'll probably notice that it's not anything close to comfortable. Though there IS, true, lazy bums who abuse and profit of other's money (and they should be checked and their paycheck revoked if they are found guilty), there is quite a large majority of people who simply don't like it, but need it, and would be much happier to find a job. Sometimes it's laziness, most times it's just not that easy.