Socialism

Post Reply New Topic

I am a socialist.

i fight for equality and for the working class.
Socialism is for the masses to unite against oppression.
If u want to countine this conversation, post.

I think socialism is a great way to force people to be equals which is why I believe it doesn't work.

I believe that instead of telling people to help, people should willingly help on there own.

For instance, Welfare is a great socialism program. I think it forcibly takes my money and gives it to poor people. While this is all "super nice" and junk, it IS a charity. UNICEF, Green Peace, and some other charity; these charities send out people on 8th Ave, as I walk to work, and they ask me for some time and money. They "ask" me, where as socialism "tells" me. I say "no" because after the government has taken all my money for socialism programs and services, I've got just enough to buy food and survive. I imagine that I'd have extra money to donate to these OTHER charities but I cannot because the Government takes a nice chunk of my hard, earned money. So, my willingness to help OTHER people is actually prevented because of this forced "giving."

If I don't donate to UNICEF, they ask the next person. If I dont donate to the Government, I go to jail. Ask me about Freedom, now.

This is why I hate socialism.

EDIT: I wanted to add that "Socialism" is basically taking "good values" all people have and "writing them down to enforce them." So, its taking what CAN be natural and MAKING you do it. This is my beef with it. I'm all FOR helping people, but not FORCING people to help.

As well, Canada has a governmental health care system; its illegal to privatize it (if you can afford better, too bad!) and charities are STILL required for the system to run where it should (for a first world country). Socialism has failed, here, and actually prevented people from seeking alternative (no choices).

Interesting, I guess to each their own opinions. I would not describe myself as a socialist though as I do not think that socialism works. I think that economics tends to be too complex for any government to successfully control as socialist governments tend towards doing, and that this complexity causes socialism to have a messed up set of incentives, to have lots of unnecessarily surpluses and shortages, and that the whole policy debate that socialism by its nature must have ends up causing an impossible tangle between the plans of others that might end up causing tyranny. I also think that the goal of economic equality is an impossibility as proper incentization would require inequality in order to get the skilled and talented to act as they best could.

I will post more on this later. But I also believe that I am "for the working class" however I am not a socialist (I am assuming you are referring to yourself as a democratic socialist which I certainly prefer to a revolutionary "overthrow the capitalist bourgeois" kind). I understand that perhaps the policies I advocate, which often include across the board tax cuts rather then "progressive" taxation are opposed sometimes as hatred of the working class and the poor. However, this is because I believe that the policies of socialists result in failure and damaging to those groups they claim to help. I believe the policies that I advocate will ultimately result in the middle, and lower class in getting richer. That is what I desire.

I am also greatly disturbed by the fomenting of class-hatred. I found this incredibly counter-productive.

Yeah I'm a capitalist to. But we still need regulation on the powerfull.

workers of the world unite... you have nothing to lose but your chains!!

a) Socialism does NOT equal Communism

b) If we had Socialism, there wouldn't be a need for Welfare, because nobody would be below the poverty line.

What is a worker? Is the head of IBM a worker? How about the white collar people who work at desks? Do you have to be a member of a union? Can I decline to be a member of the union? If a decline to be a member, should I be forced to lose my job?

The problem with socialism is it has been tried and it has failed repeatedly. In Europe it is failing at this very moment. In Scandinavia it has failed (with the possible exception of Norway because of vast oil reserves that Norwegians actually tap unlike the United States). In Asia it has failed, in South America it has failed, and in Africa it has failed.

It has failed everywhere. It does not work.

The attempt to massively intervene in the economy is the enemy of the working people. It makes then poor and miserable. Perhaps equally so but only that. It gives rise to massive government departments, whose administrations became the largest supporters of socialist programs. Not because they are efficient, but because it gives them a job. Soon, it is ensured they, and all the people below them, cannot be fired. This means these government departments are even more inefficient compared to the private sector that have replaced.

There are too many of certain items, and not enough of others because nothing is based on the market only on government requirements. Government officials cannot adjust fast enough and the politics pales in comparison to anything in the corporate world.

The people may even support some, or most of it because people want a guaranteed job, or income, or the love to tax the hated rich but it will all come back to bite them.

As Europe's economy stagnates, and corrupt dictator's populations African starve you will forgive me if I do not join in on the effort with those who unite in the name of the workers but only in the end will bring about their ruin.

ADDENDUM: A useful volume that traces socialism from it's roots to today is Joshua Muravchik's The Rise and Fall of Socialism. It is not an "angry polemic," but rather a scholarly review.

re: my last post.

My posts have had a more irritated tone lately. I am going to lay off the political forum for a few days to see if I can get it at of my system.

I think socialism is merely a label and labels are not 'action.' People who say they are 'something' doesn't necessarily mean they will act like it

The only thing is that socialism is what most people argue on as the ideal of communism is too far off from what we have ever seen in reality to mention. Really, what we see as communism is actually socialism and the "socialism" in European nations is just a mixed economy.

If we had socialism then we would have other problems that would reduce the overall welfare to a point where most people would suffer. The issue brought up is one of coordination, if the society doesn't coordinate well then health and other sectors of the economy will fail. It is worth noting that the USSR actually suffered the largest peace time decline in longevity. Although some may argue the USSR is a bad example, still we could even see the issues of coordination taking a toll on their economy.

No prob, will miss.

You say this like Capitalism has worked.

You say that like capitalism hasn't. The current world has high growth rates, good standards of living for the majority and things of that nature. It isn't utopia but the economic system is allowing for production and people are consuming.

Socialism does not work because it completely disregards natural law and ignores human nature. Socialism is a euphemism for tyranny, the negation of freedom and choice.

Capitalism has worked and will continue to work as long as people keep their hands off the mechanism. How do you propose to generate wealth in a socialist economy? What happens when people stop working to provide the State with the means to fund the programs?

Socialism is irrational.

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail. ... rticledate

What about this: http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/25/pf/cred ... tm?cnn=yes
Do you agree with the logic behind that proposition?

Socialism is a good idea in a bad world, IMO.