Current Events > Why is socialism bad?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Damn_Underscore posted...

lol

Google is a funny word. It's obvious you don't know the meaning of it.

Garioshi posted...

Ever heard of Denmark? Norway? Sweden? Iceland?

Social democracies are not the same thing as socialism.

---

ButteryMales posted...

Google is a funny word. It's obvious you don't know the meaning of it.

Some people have already said it. Welfare capitalism isn't socialism. At all. Otherwise the US is literally currently socialist because we have public schools and emergency services as well as publicly-owned corporations.
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

Welfare capitalism

Now you're making up words because you didn't want to say social.

ButteryMales posted...

Now you're making up words because you didn't want to say social.

You literally don't know what socialism is, bro.

Also I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, so whatever.
---

averagejoel posted...

are there any currently socialist countries that the largest military power in the world did not try to squash?

Not that I can think of.

Do you think the US is the sole reason for the lack of success today?

---

Well, you see, Venezuela would have worked if the US didn't spend decades... being their biggest trading partner?

don't respond to joel

Damn_Underscore posted...

You literally don't know what socialism is, bro.

Also I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, so whatever.

Socialism vs. Social Democracy: Usage Guide
In the many years since socialism entered English around 1830, it has acquired several different meanings. It refers to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control, but the conception of that control has varied, and the term has been interpreted in widely diverging ways, ranging from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal. In the modern era, "pure" socialism has been seen only rarely and usually briefly in a few Communist regimes. Far more common are systems of social democracy, now often referred to as democratic socialism, in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments (as in Sweden and Denmark) in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth.
Communism, Socialism, Capitalism, and Democracy
Communism, socialism, capitalism, and democracy are all among our top all-time lookups, and user comments suggest that this is because they are complex, abstract terms often used in opaque ways. They're frequently compared and contrasted, with communism sometimes equated with socialism, and democracy and capitalism frequently linked.
Part of the confusion stems from the fact that the word communism has been applied to varying political systems over time. When it was first used in English prose in the mid-19th century, communism referred to an economic and political theory that advocated the elimination of private property and the common sharing of all resources among a group of people; in this use, it was often used interchangeably with the word socialism by 19th-century writers.
The differences between communism and socialism are still debated, but generally English speakers use communism to talk about the political and economic ideologies that find their origin in Karl Marxs theory of revolutionary socialism, which advocates a proletariat overthrow of capitalist structures within a society; societal and communal ownership and governance of the means of production; and the eventual establishment of a classless society. The most well-known expression of Marxs theories is the 20th-century Bolshevism of the U.S.S.R., in which the state, through a single authoritarian party, controlled a societys economic and social activities with the goal of realizing Marxs theories. Socialism, meanwhile, is most often used in modern English to refer to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control. (The term is also often used in the phrase democratic socialism, which is discussed here.)

Communism and socialism are both frequently contrasted with capitalism and democracy, though these can be false equivalencies depending on the usage. Capitalism refers to an economic system in which a societys means of production are held by private individuals or organizations, not the government, and where products, prices, and the distribution of goods are determined mainly by competition in a free market. As an economic system, it can be contrasted with the economic system of communism, though as we have noted, the word communism is used of both political and economic systems. Democracy refers not to an economic system but to a system of government in which supreme power is vested in the people and exercised through a system of direct or indirect representation which is decided through periodic free elections. For discussion about whether the United States is accurately described as a democracy or as a republic, see the article here.)
Readers should consult the individual entries for a full treatment of the various ways in which each of these four words is used.

ButteryMales posted...

Because if they lower supply the few properties they do sell or rent out will outpace what they pay.

Theres already FAR more demand for housing then there is supply so theres absolutely no need or reason this.

---

You said I made up the term "welfare capitalism". That is blatantly false. YOU are changing the definition of socialism for some unknown reason.
---

Prismsblade posted...

Theres already FAR more demand for housing then there is supply so theres absolutely no need or reason this.

Like I said market supply and physical supply is different. I explained to you why there's less market supply when there's a physical supply that meets demand.

Mareen posted...

Not that I can think of.

Do you think the US is the sole reason for the lack of success today?

it's certainly the biggest one

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

You said I made up the term "welfare capitalism". That is blatantly false. YOU are changing the definition of socialism for some unknown reason.

You think I own Merriam Webster?

ButteryMales posted...

You think I own Merriam Webster?

nordic countries are not socialist. they are not "mixed" either -- they are capitalist with some social programs.

capitalism and socialism are fundamentally different economic systems. they are mutually exclusive

---

state socialism: read "the road to serfdom"
libertarian socialism: calculation problem

---

averagejoel posted...

nordic countries are not socialist. they are not "mixed" either -- they are capitalist with some social programs.

capitalism and socialism are fundamentally different economic systems. they are mutually exclusive

"Socialism, meanwhile, is most often used in modern English to refer to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control. (The term is also often used in the phrase democratic socialism, which is discussed here.)"

Damn_Underscore posted...

You said I made up the term "welfare capitalism". That is blatantly false.

Yep, I googled it and it is a term.

I don't think the system itself is bad. It just seems the major people who want it end up either creating or supporting dictatorial regimes, with poor quality of life, little freedoms, massive income inequality (paradoxical, but the new party elite just replace the capitalist class), and political repression.

Since welfare state capitalism like you see on Nordic countries addresses the concerns socialists claim to have about workers rights, inequality, etc. whereas every socialist country is objectively a terrible place to live (which makes them either not true socialism, or secretly a good place to live depending on which group you ask), there is no reason to support socialism.

---

ssjevot posted...

Since welfare state capitalism like you see on Nordic countries addresses the concerns socialists claim to have about workers rights, inequality, etc.

the "workers rights" concerns are not addressable under capitalism, and addressing "inequality" is not actually a relevant part of socialist thought; reduced inequality is more a side effect of the economic system rather than an actual focus

whereas every socialist country is objectively a terrible place to live (which makes them either not true socialism, or secretly a good place to live depending on which group you ask), there is no reason to support socialism.

which issues that are present in "socialist countries" make them "objectively a terrible place to live"? are those issues not also present in the US?

---

Because you too may be the 1% some day and despite that being a statistically impossible thing, imagine if it happened?

---

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

Because it murders the rich and puts power back into the hands of the people, where it belongs.

Murders is the key word there. For accuracy, youd have to expand the quote to include poor people, as in especially poor people get murdered or die by famine under socialism.

---

Rich people aren't stopping me from being successful, so I really don't care what they do. I just want medical insurance to stop being a ratchet/scam.

I'm capitalist for life, too, and I hope America never goes to socialism.

---

averagejoel posted...

which issues that are present in "socialist countries" make them "objectively a terrible place to live"? are those issues not also present in the US?

I don't live in or care about the US situation. It's not relevant to the issues with every socialist country. And it's not an example of a successful welfare state capitalist country which is why I never mentioned it. You tell me what's great about the PRC, North Korea, etc. I'll let your attempted defense of those regimes speak for itself.

---

ssjevot posted...

I don't live in or care about the US situation. It's not relevant to the issues with every socialist country. And it's not an example of a successful welfare state capitalist country which is why I never mentioned it. You tell me what's great about the PRC, North Korea, etc. I'll let your attempted defense of those regimes speak for itself.

it's fine if you don't care about the US situation. but you didn't even attempt to answer my other question

---

Because it's pointless. You defend regimes like the USSR, PRC, and North Korea, no amount of whining about the US justifies that when there are plenty of countries that have the problems of neither.

---

ssjevot posted...

Because it's pointless. You defend regimes like the USSR, PRC, and North Korea,

first of all, [citation needed]

no amount of whining about the US justifies that

framing my questions and criticism of the US as "whining" is disingenuous and inaccurate. please address it accurately

when there are plenty of countries that have the problems of neither.

you are missing the point so spectacularly here that it's probably intentional

---

I literally do not care about what your concept of "workers rights" is if people working 12 hour shifts 7 days a week for a median income of $12,000 (this is the PRC by the way) with no vacation is the result. Ask anyone in a Nordic country or almost any other first world country outside the US feels about their workers rights in comparison.

---

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

Murders is the key word there. For accuracy, youd have to expand the quote to include poor people, as in especially poor people get murdered or die by famine under socialism.

Why do you want to murder poor people? Sad face.

---

Socialism is bad b/c it's gov't running things and making decisions for people with other people's money.

Look at it this way, you can run your life or someone else can run it for you...who do you think is going to take that more seriously?

ssjevot posted...

I literally do not care about what your concept of "workers rights" is if people working 12 hour shifts 7 days a week for a median income of $12,000 (this is the PRC by the way) with no vacation is the result. Ask anyone in a Nordic country or almost any other first world country outside the US feels about their workers rights in comparison.

I said that the socialist issues with workers rights fundamentally cannot be resolved under capitalism. that has nothing to do with wages in china. stay on topic please.

---

Government ownership of the means of production? Nothing in and of itself, but the people that push and support it tend to be...let's say very idealistic on human nature hence big mistakes get made in aligning rewards and outcomes. They believe everyone will show up to do hard and ugly jobs even if incentives change to each according to his needs instead of the capitalistic view that says incentive to make money and / or not starve will ensure everything gets done.

Small scale, this is why you hear about waiting lists for medical procedures in places with some form of government run health care. Not enough reward to become a doctor combines with not wanting to force people to be doctors or forcing doctors to work long hours, totaling weeks or months for things like CT scans or MRIs in Canada.

Socialism doesn't have to be this, but it's hard to sell a program that would only work ideally without complete loss of personal control and freedom in your labor. The old Regan anti-socialism record said a doctor may not get to choose where they practice (if they need a doctor in Juno, you get to move to Alaska), but the reality may be even worse, you may not get a career choice at all so that the needs of the state are met. And that may work, but it isn't what people really want out of socialism. They want the highest pay for the simplest job they can get, hence, the system crumbles without proper distribution of labor to keep things going.

Without labor, things don't happen, and we aren't a species right now that would do trash collection if we didn't have to one way or another, let alone anything big. I chuckle at various reddit posts about wanthing things like climate changed solved now, but also wanting everyone on a 24 hour work week. It's like people really think you put money on the table and what you want just happens, but the work needs to be done, and a lot of it will need to be done by people that would rather stay home. Capitalisms systems as practiced right now has horribly bad matchings between necessity of labor and reward, but that's a reason to fix it, not toss the system for people want the participation trophy idea to last them to the grave.

---

Wanna know how you can tell something is bad? If you comb through a topic about it and the people who say it's good are known trolls and shitposters, that should give you an idea.

---

Just do a video search for Penn Teller pie.
---

omega cookie posted...

Wanna know how you can tell something is bad? If you comb through a topic about it and the people who say it's good are known trolls and shitposters, that should give you an idea.

All the shitposters are calling socialism bad though?

Trick question: it isn't

Not when it's paired with anarchism anyway
---

lightwarrior78 posted...

Government ownership of the means of production? Nothing in and of itself, but the people that push and support it tend to be...let's say very idealistic on human nature hence big mistakes get made in aligning rewards and outcomes. They believe everyone will show up to do hard and ugly jobs even if incentives change to each according to his needs instead of the capitalistic view that says incentive to make money and / or not starve will ensure everything gets done.

human nature is not static. it changes to suit our environment.

capitalism rewards people for being greedy and manipulative and exploitative, so of course more people are going to have those traits.

if peoples' basic needs are met regardless of their ability, that can change. if incentives for being greedy and manipulative and exploitative are removed, those traits will become significantly less common

---

averagejoel posted...

human nature is not static. it changes to suit our environment.

capitalism rewards people for being greedy and manipulative and exploitative, so of course more people are going to have those traits.

if peoples' basic needs are met regardless of their ability, that can change. if incentives for being greedy and manipulative and exploitative are removed, those traits will become significantly less common

Capitalism thrives off the competitive and dominance instinct of man, which is anything but static, and a part of human nature and nature in general. To attempt to 'remove' that trait is as futile as changing the laws of nature.

No matter how cognitive you believe humans are we haven't evolved past our lizard brains at all.


---

---

Prismsblade posted...

Capitalism thrives off the competitive and dominance instinct of man, which is anything but static, and a part of human nature and nature in general. To attempt to 'remove' that trait is as futile as changing the laws of nature.

No matter how cognitive you believe humans are we haven't evolved past our lizard brains at all.

this reads like a rather poorly-written abstract for a philosophy thesis that would then be accompanied by 20 pages of writing and 5 pages of citations.

and I gotta say, it's not very effective without that writing and those citations

---

SocksForWok999 posted...

This, and its bad because government is so horribly inefficient and easy to become corrupt.

not that this is wrong, but lets not fall under the mistaken impression that private companies can be any less corrupt.

a lot of hardcore conservatives I talk to think the government sucks, and go in the complete opposite extreme and think privatization is some sacred cure-all for workers/economic woes. >_>

---

crazyman32 posted...

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/G8UAAOSw8S9d5cl6/s-l640.jpg

hahahahahahahahaha the fact that Ayn Rand is these guys best argument against socialism is pretty motherfucking telling.

---

Socialism turned some backwater Eastern European country to a global super power that sent the first man to space. Socialism turned a dying humiliated regional power to a country that is positioned to pass the USA economically soon. Its so bad bruh

---

---

Because it relies on an efficient and non-currupt government. Which we clearly don't have.

Even ignoring that, failure,and the risk of failure, are motivational necessities. It's basic human nature. While that doesn't mean medical or technological advances will come to halt, it will slow. There are many complicated components that combine into why innovations come disproportionately out of America.

Which is why you need to find balance, and as corporations have shaped policies to their benefit, we're at the point we need a little more to help people. Because it's also human nature for people to want to be risk adverse and "just get by", and it's at least my belief that we can do more here. Worker's rights being the biggest gap to me.

Pure capitalism is bad, pure socialism is bad. Like most things in life, it's about balance.

---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

Socialism turned some backwater Eastern European country to a global super power that sent the first man to space. Socialism turned a dying humiliated regional power to a country that is positioned to pass the USA economically soon. Its so bad bruh

That is massively reductive.

Plus, since more than a few members here are all about that the US is the mostest violent and worst country in the history of forevar, I got some bad news for you if you ever decide to read up on those two other countries youre referencing and how exactly they dealt with their citizens stepping out of line.

---

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

That is massively reductive.

Plus, since more than a few members here are all about that the US is the mostest violent and worst country in the history of forevar, I got some bad news for you if you ever decide to read up on those two other countries youre referencing and how exactly they dealt with their citizens stepping out of line.

what country wasnt violent towards its citizen pre 1980s? Im sure i wouldnt mind being a non white male in the American south in 1920s?

---

Garioshi posted...

https://youtu.be/jxiT30N6ti4

---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

what country wasnt violent towards its citizen pre 1980s? Im sure i wouldnt mind being a non white male in the American south in 1920s?

that response doesnt help your argument in support of socialism.

---

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

that response doesnt help your argument in support of socialism.

Eh, its a pretty good counterpoint to what you said.

Do you remember, for example, the middle ages? When feudalism, a rudimentary form of capitalism, reigned supreme? Many suffered.

---

Banana_Cyanide posted...

Not quite but not far from the mark.

What you're describing is communism which is worse

No that is socialism. That's literally the United Soviet Socialist Republic.

Communism is literally everything is public. There's no such thing as private property.

---