Why is Socialism Bad?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by bobber205, Jul 3, 2010.

  1. bobber205 macrumors 68020

    bobber205

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #1
    Is it just because "scary" foreign governments have it?

    Wouldn't we better off having a nice mix of capitalism *and* socialism? :D
     
  2. lewis82 macrumors 68000

    lewis82

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    Location:
    Totalitarian Republic of Northlandia
    #2
    It's "bad" because, back then, americans were afraid of the Russians.

    Socialism (I'm talking about socialism like in Norway, or Sweden, and to a lesser extent, Canada) has always been OK. I guess another problem in the US is the rich having more power than the poor and wanting to keep as much money as they can for themselves instead of helping others.
     
  3. spinnerlys Guest

    spinnerlys

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Location:
    forlod bygningen
    #3
    Why is socialism considered bad anyway?

    Because the countries, that tried to impose it under the name "Socialism", used force and bastardised the concept?

    Btw, I grew up in one of those "bad" countries.
     
  4. jav6454 macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
  5. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
  6. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #7
    Because the American people need something, anything, to be afraid of at any given point. We as a country have always had some some sort of threat to willfully keep out eye on while ignoring the raping we're receiving from home. Socialism is just one of many such buzzwords that wets the collective pants of America.

    Happy 4th. :rolleyes:
     
  7. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #8
    short version:

    its not. end of story.


    long version:

    socialism is perceived as a negative because it helps more than just the individual, which is what America and Capitalism are built on. well that and greed, which doesn't work so well under socialism, but it can work.
     
  8. Mugambo macrumors 6502

    Mugambo

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2009
    #9
    +1

    America HAS to wave their huge nuclear penii when there's political tension between unknown countries on the other side of the globe. Halliburton and related allies starts pinching the president's butt to open up an avenue to "somehow" have US troops to "maintain peace". :rolleyes:
     
  9. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #10
    God Bless the USA.
     
  10. AP_piano295 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    #11
    Win.
     
  11. #12
    Socialism is for losers and leads to failure, that's why.

    Socialism breaks down and decreases the competitive spirit and if the USA were a fully socialist country around the time that Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak first met, then there probably would be no Apple computer today. Why innovate when you can be a lazy socialist bum?

    There's a difference between socialism and basic social services provided in most countries such as police, fire dept etc., but a fully socialist society is utterly disgusting and is often accompanied by varying degrees of fascism and totalitarianism. Hugo Chavez is a good example of a fascist socialist.

    Socialists at best are very ignorant individuals and at worst, they can be pure evil.
     
  12. Tower-Union macrumors 6502

    Tower-Union

    Joined:
    May 6, 2009
    #13
    Wow, just wow. . . Hear that? Its the sound of Canada, Europe, Australia, and EVERY SINGLE FIRST WORLD COUNTRY other the the USA howling for your ignorant blood.
     
  13. Heilage macrumors 68030

    Heilage

    Joined:
    May 1, 2009
    #14
    We don't have socialism, we have what is known as a Social Democracy.

    Socialism in it's pure form is effing evil.
     
  14. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #15
    It's this kind of wooly liberal thinking that allows socialism to flourish,police and fire departments are the sort of organisations which would benefit greatly from privatisation,at present all sorts of leeches are taking advantage of these services without contributing in anyway and it's all being paid for out of my tax dollar.Those too stupid to earn their way out of the ghettos by application and hard work should be left to fend for themselves and if they perish so what there are millions of Mexicans who will work twice as hard for little or no reward at all.Don't be to quick to write off fascism they had some brilliant ideas amongst them how to deal with socialists,they just straight out killed them.If this country didn't have a socialist military paid for out of taxes and instead used Halliburton/Xe etc we'd not only gain control of the worlds resources but make a handsome profit for shareholders doing so.I really can't stand these wishy washy types who think they can have partial socialism without importing all its hateful ideas,help other people,pah,feck 'em.
     
  15. SwiftLives macrumors 65816

    SwiftLives

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2001
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    #16
    Wow. I agree with that statement as long as you replace the word "socialism" with "neo-conservatism."
     
  16. ravenvii macrumors 604

    ravenvii

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Location:
    Melenkurion Skyweir
    #17
    Haha, funny joke is funny.

    ... right?
     
  17. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #18
    Or simply conservatism.
     
  18. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #19
    The tension between individual and society is built into us. Humans compete individually, but our strength as a species is that we build societies and support one another. A primitive human who jealously guards his invention of a method for throwing stones at an advancing tiger becomes lunch. A dozen of them equipped with that knowledge drive the tiger away and all survive, including those who were not throwing stones at all.

    What they did not do is deal with the tiger by throwing their weaker members into its jaws. They never would have thought to do that, because in pre-civilized humans, those weaker members were their families, people to whom they are intimately connected.

    The emergence of modern, civilized humans brought with it two major hurdles we have yet to fully overcome: first, humans began living in organizational units much larger than the human brain's capacity to forge and maintain intimate relationships. This limit has come to be known as the Dunbar number, and is usually estimated to be around 150. It is the size of an organization beyond which people are unable to know and care about one another in a deep personal way, and our understanding of the lives of humans outside that circle is necessarily abstract. As a result, our theories about what "people" are like tend to say more about ourselves than about any external human being.

    The second hurdle is a mixed blessing: our giant brains give us the power to try to understand why things are as they are, to speculate how they should be, and to hatch plans to effect those theories. Where a primitive human would have simply lived as befits a member of his species, like any other animal, a modern human perceives a logical contradiction in his own nature. He forms abstract theories about "what is best" and they tend to support half of his nature at the expense of the other half.

    These theories inform him either that, despite standing on the shoulders of hundreds of generations of modern humans, he is a uniquely independent, self-made Titan among men, and supporting the less capable should not be his concern, or that the contributions of any individual are as nothing when compared to those hundreds of generations, and so individual excellence should be taken for granted, and individuals should content themselves to be a humble part of a whole much greater than themselves.

    In the worst cases emerge extremist versions of these positions, which posit one of those polar extremes to be true moral virtue, and the other absolute evil. It was with this sort of simplistic thinking in mind that Emerson wrote, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." Such thinkers attempt to shape the world to a theory small enough to fit within their "little minds."

    Probably the best sign of the failure of extremist positions is that they both require increasing authoritarianism to maintain. Either the self-compounding advantage of wealth must be increasingly defended against those "losers" from whom it is jealously withheld, eventually leaving the rich themselves in a gilded cage, or the people must be repressed to force them to act as if individuals do not matter. Each extremist approach will require the most brutal exercise of state power to sustain itself, and each will justify that horror as a moral necessity, and always aimed at the proper targets.

    Both communists and the American sort of false libertarian make the same fundamental error. They both envision a society utterly free of state coercion, but both believe the way to get there is to pass through a state of infinite coercion until "the bad people" stop having all their "bad ideas" that ruin everything, and they feel that the the ability to simply visualize that mirage of paradise on the other side justifies the means required to inch them closer to it.

    The best sort of society is not the one that lacks all coercion in some imagined utopia of ideological purity, because they all do that, but the one that requires least coercion to sustain itself in practice, among real humans who do not all agree with one another. It allows individuals to be rewarded for excellence, but does not suppose that such excellence confers an absolute, unassailable advantage. It is characterized not by glorifying the individual at the expense of society or vice versa, but by the very contention between those two poles that is our nature as a species. We are neither ant nor scorpion. We are human. Our success on this planet shows human to be a quite effective thing to be in most respects, and a society that attempts to force us to be something else is likely to work to our detriment.
     
  19. spblat macrumors 6502a

    spblat

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    #20
    We would, and we do. The tension is about what mix to implement. In my opinion it can be shown that individual liberty suffers with either too much *or* too little socialism.
     
  20. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #21
    You'd never make a politician, you are altogether too reasonable. The problem is, of course, that people tend to be unable to define things by what they are, but are far more comfortable defining things by what they are not. Knowing your enemy is so much easier than knowing yourself.
     
  21. bobber205 thread starter macrumors 68020

    bobber205

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #22
    So much win. :D
     
  22. McGiord macrumors 601

    McGiord

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2003
    Location:
    Dark Castle
    #23
    Some people are confusing communism with socialism.
    In practice many totalitarian rulers cover their communism as socialism, and Hugo Chavez is the worst mixture of all bad things that you can find in any government, he calls it Socialism of the XXI Century and in reality it rose from a rotten fake democracy with the largest corruption scheme to something even worst system that demolises all values and positive things that any culture can have.
    They key ingredient of any good form of government is its citizens.
     
  23. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #24
    complete Socialism will always fail. Just like 100% Capitalism will always fail. The correct place is somewhere in the middle.

    Reason that Socialism will fail is it is assumes everyone gets paid the same. There is no drive to do better. In the short run the people at the bottom make out like bandents but the problem is the people at the top and working hard gain nothing by their extra work so the quit working as hard so the everyone income starts dropping because the people at the top do not work as hard so less total income to share and it is a nice downard spirl.

    On the same token Capitalism will fail if it has not controls put on it. People own greed will destroy things and prevent new ideas from taking place. They will gain monopolies and cheat the system to gain more power and it will become families that run everything and if you are not born in to the right family it will be impossible for you to move up.

    Some things always need to be socialism run. I feel things like k-12 education should be that way. Everyone has the right to an education threw at least HS. Police, roads, military, fire department are other examples.

    Over all I feel the US is to far in the Capitalism direction and I feel part of the EU is to far in the Socialism direction. Both are not at the balance point.
     
  24. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #25
    I don't see where imposing controls on capitalism is the same as socialism. Seems to me that controls which help create a level playing field among competing interests aren't socialism.

    A certain amount of socialism is helpful as long as the motives and controls are rational. For example, had Social Security been clearly explained as an old-age assistance program and limited to that, we wouldn't have had so many people believing that it was all that would be needed--and continued to save, on their own, for old age. And had it been limited to old-age assistance, we wouldn't be watching that system go bankrupt.

    A major problem with "to each according to his needs" is the ancient one of "Who decides?" An overly-generous decision-maker quickly overloads the ability to provide--which is what has happened here in the U.S. We can no longer afford the transfer payments to to tens of millions of recipients. The tax money does not exist, absent a reduction in the material standard of living for everybody--including the recipients.

    We were once rich and powerful from our productivity. That is no longer the case. We're broke and deeply in debt.
     

Share This Page