Why do people think Socialism is Evil
- Thread starter UpSkirtDistress
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I keep seeing a lot of "They think..." being written. Has any of you ever straight out asked an American what they think about socialism, or are you just going by what you see on TV? And since I specifically registered to reply to this thread, I'll tell you what an American thinks. And what better American to define socialism than me, a conservative leaning independent?!
Socialism, in theory, is great. Even in practice, sometimes everything works out for the best. It's not that socialism is evil, it's the fact that socalist programs promote being lazy. If the government wants to give a helping hand to those who are struggling, I'm all for it. But the second that money is used to buy drugs (I have personally seen it happen) or other material possessions not needed to survive (like HDTVs or leather couches), I question why I should be footing the bill. I am a full time employee and full time college student who can hardly support my own needs.
Fact of the matter is, the rich will always get richer, even in a socialist society. Aside from off shore banks to keep money safe from the government who wants to take it, the ultimate goal when spending capitol is to make money. Spending money to lose it is asinine. That is where Rigs83's comment comes into play. I'll give him that the Reagan years probably weren't the best, but given that Jimmy Carter was president before him, I'd say he had a pretty long way to fall to hit rock bottom. Carter effectively taxed the rich so much (75%), they stopped spending. Not good if you want a job because no one has the money to hire, therefore none of us lowly wage slaves had any money either. That is why inflation was at 13% at the end of Carters presidency, compared to our 5%-6% today.
Sorry to rant. It just kinda came out that way.
Socialism, in theory, is great. Even in practice, sometimes everything works out for the best. It's not that socialism is evil, it's the fact that socalist programs promote being lazy. If the government wants to give a helping hand to those who are struggling, I'm all for it. But the second that money is used to buy drugs (I have personally seen it happen) or other material possessions not needed to survive (like HDTVs or leather couches), I question why I should be footing the bill. I am a full time employee and full time college student who can hardly support my own needs.
Fact of the matter is, the rich will always get richer, even in a socialist society. Aside from off shore banks to keep money safe from the government who wants to take it, the ultimate goal when spending capitol is to make money. Spending money to lose it is asinine. That is where Rigs83's comment comes into play. I'll give him that the Reagan years probably weren't the best, but given that Jimmy Carter was president before him, I'd say he had a pretty long way to fall to hit rock bottom. Carter effectively taxed the rich so much (75%), they stopped spending. Not good if you want a job because no one has the money to hire, therefore none of us lowly wage slaves had any money either. That is why inflation was at 13% at the end of Carters presidency, compared to our 5%-6% today.
Sorry to rant. It just kinda came out that way.
I don't think he's willingly ignorant, he does have the basic idea down. (forced redistribution from those that "have" to those that "want")Ultrajoe said:
Oh, also?
No one wants to pay tax money, fair enough.
So what money are we going to accomplish things with?
We want you to fix this country! ...Juuust not with our money.
And just to ensure that the flames get started? Capitalism never got rid of slavery, now they just call it minimum wage.
Think about it, with slaves you run the risk of them running away, but you pay someone an embarrassingly small amount for years on end you've broken their soul and own them outright anyways.
No one wants to pay tax money, fair enough.
So what money are we going to accomplish things with?
We want you to fix this country! ...Juuust not with our money.
And just to ensure that the flames get started? Capitalism never got rid of slavery, now they just call it minimum wage.
Think about it, with slaves you run the risk of them running away, but you pay someone an embarrassingly small amount for years on end you've broken their soul and own them outright anyways.
*IRE*[/quote]
I knew that someone would use the word ignorant. You can preach about how Socialism is different and better that communism all you want, I really don't give a shit about your political view and your not going to change mine.Ultrajoe said:
I think the reason socialism is distrusted by many is both for political and economic reasons. Socialists seek to create a more equitable society through wealth redistribution. The only body suitable for this task is the state. This means the state winds up controlling large amounts of resources, sometimes in a monopolistic way. Control of resources is political power, which as everyone knows corrupts. The more resources the state controls the more power it can exert on the citizenry and the greater the chances that citizens will lose their freedom.
This being said, I think that some moderation of the free market system is beneficial. It's just good to know that because there are so many anti-socialist people out there, that there will always be plenty of scrutiny where the state's reallocation of resources are concerned.
This being said, I think that some moderation of the free market system is beneficial. It's just good to know that because there are so many anti-socialist people out there, that there will always be plenty of scrutiny where the state's reallocation of resources are concerned.
OH DAYMNWouldukindly said:I don't think it's evil, I just disagree with it. But I'm a Libertarian, everybody hates us
HATESPAM 1.0!!!1!!!!
lol
------------------------------------
I don't hate them, but i do believe that Socialism is only temporary as it moves towards Communism, and THAT I have a problem with.
15 minutes? I waited to see a doctor for 3 hours, and I know people who have waited for 5.Nmil-ek said:
Not for life threatening things obviously, mine was an allergic reaction to a fly bite that had made my foot sweel up too big for my shoe, had no idea what it was.
The 5 hour thing was a broken leg I think.
Calm down, I dont actually care about your political views or knowledge. I was more becoming indignant at the fact that you feel the need, nay the right, to post in a topic you are addmitedly unsure of without even attempting educating youtrself. It's just poor form, adds nothing to the thread and only deepens the 'Socialists' perception that you're all out to get them.letsnoobtehpwns said:
I really hope you aren't out to get them; You can't actually get screwed over by Socialism more than you are now. Boogeyman 'Governmyent gonna teyk mah monie' socialism, sure, but we're all educated, reasonable people here, right?
Oops.sneakypenguin said:
That is such a general statement. The people I know were not "brainwashed" against socialism, and have not instilled a dislike of socialism in their children. This includes people in the Baby Boom Generation, Generation X, and Generation Y, by the way. In high school, I was taught both the benefits and down-sides of socialism (which, incidentally, is the same way in which democracy and capitalism were taught to us), not a general "socialism is evil" statement. No one I've ever met believes that.Glefistus said:
No, you have it backwards with the edit, communism came first, socialism came later. Formally, the main distinction between the two is that communism entails state OWNERSHIP of the means of production whilst ("first American to use the word 'whilst' since ever" award goes to me) socialism allows private ownership with state programs regulating how private enterprises are conducted (labor rules, quality standards, environmental regulation, etc.), and also involves redistribution of wealth (highly progressive tax system with most benefits going to the poor).UpSkirtDistress said:
I'm going to post more in a minute but I'm trying to limit the length of each individual post.
The first problem that anyone comes to whenever the word 'Socialism' is used concerns the minor problem that no two people can actually agree on what 'Socialism' is. A friend once lent me a book on Socialism by a man called Ramsay MacDonald. Ramsay MacDonald was a man who claimed to be a Socialist and so spent the entire first chapter explaining why his definition of Socialism was right and why everyone else was wrong.
I think a little clarification is needed. Rasmay MacDonald was once the leader of the British Labour Party. This was in the 1930's when the Labour Party actually could call itself left wing without the average passer-by coughing random organs in acts of incredulous ridicule. To Mr MacDonald, Socialism was a something that reffered to a democratic, socially progressive, reformist movement that sought to improve the lives of the common man in a slow and gradual way.
This involved things like free and expanded health care, better school provision, better housing, and other general amenities, all provided for by a system of taxation know as 'progressive' (this means that those with greater income pay a greater proportion to the government in tax). Things would be done slowly so that society would be able to cope with the gradual change that was being affected upon peoples lives. It would be done peacefully, lawfully and everyone would ve happy. At least in theory. Also, there would be no gulags, show trials, or mass executions. The ideological drive for this movement was a society called the 'Fabians'. Named after the late 3rd Century BC Roman General Fabius Maximus (who fought against Hannibal), it advocated slow, but steady non-violent change. It argued that any change that was enacted too quickly (or for that matter too slowly) would have serious repercussions on society as a whole. It should also be of note that there was a very heavy Non-Conformist Christian element within the Fabian (and thus Labour) movement. By these I mean Quaker and Methodist Churches, both very prevelent in the working class north, where at the time, the bulk of British industry lay. British Socialism has in fact often been called a mix of 'Methodism and Marxism'.
Now compare this to what was going on in Russia at the time. Owing to fall-out from the Great Depression and Stalin's mastery at propaganda, the 30's was not a bad time to be a communist. He sold his Soviet Union as a definitive alternative to a capitalist model that had clearly failed. Some, like G.B.Shaw, bought right into the ideal. Others like MacDonald did not.
He was a democrat and outright rejected all forms of government that were not. More importantly he rejected Stalin's claim on the use of the word 'Socialism'. This, after all was what he claimed his empire to be. Which brings us onto the notion of language and of definitions. My opinion lays firmly with that of MacDonald. I see Socialism as a democratic movement. One that is gradual and progressive. Another good essay to read on it would be Orwell's 'The Lion and the Unicorn'. You can read this online, just google it.
I can perfectly understand why some would be opposed to Socialism, it is how they were brought up. When you are told that a word means 'this', it is very hard to shake of such an idea. Also, there will always be those that are perfectly aware of what Socialism entails. I dislike using terms like 'greedy' and 'mean', but how would you describe the likes of Cheney, Thatcher, and O'Reilly?
Hobswawm once said that so long as there is social injustice in the world, there will always be the desire for a movement to combat it. That was always the aim of Socialism. A noble aim no less, and I believe we need it now more than ever.
I think a little clarification is needed. Rasmay MacDonald was once the leader of the British Labour Party. This was in the 1930's when the Labour Party actually could call itself left wing without the average passer-by coughing random organs in acts of incredulous ridicule. To Mr MacDonald, Socialism was a something that reffered to a democratic, socially progressive, reformist movement that sought to improve the lives of the common man in a slow and gradual way.
This involved things like free and expanded health care, better school provision, better housing, and other general amenities, all provided for by a system of taxation know as 'progressive' (this means that those with greater income pay a greater proportion to the government in tax). Things would be done slowly so that society would be able to cope with the gradual change that was being affected upon peoples lives. It would be done peacefully, lawfully and everyone would ve happy. At least in theory. Also, there would be no gulags, show trials, or mass executions. The ideological drive for this movement was a society called the 'Fabians'. Named after the late 3rd Century BC Roman General Fabius Maximus (who fought against Hannibal), it advocated slow, but steady non-violent change. It argued that any change that was enacted too quickly (or for that matter too slowly) would have serious repercussions on society as a whole. It should also be of note that there was a very heavy Non-Conformist Christian element within the Fabian (and thus Labour) movement. By these I mean Quaker and Methodist Churches, both very prevelent in the working class north, where at the time, the bulk of British industry lay. British Socialism has in fact often been called a mix of 'Methodism and Marxism'.
Now compare this to what was going on in Russia at the time. Owing to fall-out from the Great Depression and Stalin's mastery at propaganda, the 30's was not a bad time to be a communist. He sold his Soviet Union as a definitive alternative to a capitalist model that had clearly failed. Some, like G.B.Shaw, bought right into the ideal. Others like MacDonald did not.
He was a democrat and outright rejected all forms of government that were not. More importantly he rejected Stalin's claim on the use of the word 'Socialism'. This, after all was what he claimed his empire to be. Which brings us onto the notion of language and of definitions. My opinion lays firmly with that of MacDonald. I see Socialism as a democratic movement. One that is gradual and progressive. Another good essay to read on it would be Orwell's 'The Lion and the Unicorn'. You can read this online, just google it.
I can perfectly understand why some would be opposed to Socialism, it is how they were brought up. When you are told that a word means 'this', it is very hard to shake of such an idea. Also, there will always be those that are perfectly aware of what Socialism entails. I dislike using terms like 'greedy' and 'mean', but how would you describe the likes of Cheney, Thatcher, and O'Reilly?
Hobswawm once said that so long as there is social injustice in the world, there will always be the desire for a movement to combat it. That was always the aim of Socialism. A noble aim no less, and I believe we need it now more than ever.
If your saying i'm not educated or reasonable I believe you are mistakenUltrajoe said:
. What you did there reminds me of the pseudo-intellectual college kids I run into. If you don't agree with their progressive idealistic view of the world it is because your lacking the mental capacity to understand their logic. Rather than the actual case of just looking at something differently and reaching a different conclusion.
The Escapist community prides itself on being able to regularly discuss political issues like homosexuality, communism, socialism, abortion, etc.Ventuquies said:
And this is the Escapist Off-Topic forum, not a gaming forum. It's actually the second best place on the internet to have an intelligent discussion with someone. (First best is Shamus's comments section, it's a damn shame he doesn't allow politics to come up as a subject, though...)
As for the topic at hand, most of the people I've met dislike socialism and communism for the same reason; they believe that it implies a dictatorship, and often have warped knowledge as to their main goals. They believe that under either, the government controls everything you do or think. They believe that a policy of either is that you willfully hold money back from the poor so you can give it to the rich or keep it for yourself (they never notice that the policies that get branded as socialist or communist are completely opposite to this, failure of logic once again).
Basically, they mistake it for fascism and totalitarianism.
The educational policy I've seen thus far regarding this controversy is the following: "There's capitalism, which is what he have here in America, and socialism and communism, which are basically the same, where the government owns everything instead of the people."twistedshadows said:
You have the "which is what we have here in America" which is an obvious implication that capitalism is the embodiment of everything good and righteous (because people are always trying to enforce a general "America is always good and right" idea in American people), and "the government owns everything instead of the people" which is incorrect, and forces the student to infer the rest on their own, leading to people thinking "well, she said the state owns everything, so the people own nothing, which means that no matter what you have, it can never actually be yours, which means the government has the power to take whatever it likes from you without your permission."
Every teacher I've ever had that was responsible for teaching a field even related to any sort of politics has said this. So even if someone comes along and says something different, people won't believe it. A flaw in American education: teach young kids things that please the kids instead of facts, then try to force them to forget all that when they get older so they can relearn what actually happened. It might sound like a good method to encourage people to question the things they are taught, but usually people are just too stubborn to accept that everything they've known up to now has been false.