Why do people think Socialism is Evil

[ZZ-Tops89]

Okay, now for some reasons why socialism and communism are bad:
1. Individual freedom i.e. the "Milton Friedman argument". Essentially, markets allow people to divorce their background from their status. For example, your bread may have come from a farm owned by a person who isn't the same religion, race, or ethnicity as you, but you probably won't care about that so long as the bread is cheap. It's when the state gets involved that racism, bigotry, and other virulent social ills become entrenched. Segregation in the South, for example, was incredibly expensive to maintain and was remarkably inefficient; only massive state intervention kept it afloat for so long. In short, markets ignore racial, religious, and ethnic background (social class is sometimes correlated with the aforementioned factors, but usually only after periods of state intervention that entrenched discrimination).

2. Markets allow for best allocation of resources. No commissar, public official, or lone man could ever even begin to do even a somewhat decent job managing economic operations. Think about the process that goes into just making a pencil! The point here is that central planning fails to adequately respond to complexity.

3. Market incentives are good. People may deny it all they want, but all we really care about, in the end, is our own interest. This isn't necessarily selfish, but it isn't selfless either. Investing money in an education for one's children, donating money to charity because you gain a feeling of self-worth from it, and a long list of other good deeds are not purely selfless in their motivation. I genuinely feel good about myself when I do things that help the needy; am I not fulfilling my human need for self actualization by doing this?

4. Government is bad at managing things. Even worse than the worst managers in large corporations, and that's generous. Public officials only care about getting re-elected, and often will capsize the boat once they're lame ducks (for personal as well as potential political reasons, such as leaving the new guy with a bad situation which could lower peoples' opinions of him). Further, the ignorant masses rarely form developed opinions so policy decisions will pay lip service to constituencies while doing massive damage to the overall country (pork is bad, especially when politicians have access to a lot of it).

I'll post more later depending on responses.

 

[Socius]

socialism or even komunism is a great idea, on the paper that is.
but the idea was wrecked by greedy selfish bastards, yes Im talking about Stalin, destroyed it by giving himself everything he wanted and he took everything from the people, the very principe about sosialism, komunism is to share, and share alike!

 

[Ultrajoe]

Oops.

If your saying i'm not educated or reasonable I believe you are mistaken . 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.[/quote]

Not at all, you could be so right you crap textbooks. I was more remarking on how I percieve your attitude. Oddly enough, one I attatch to the snarky university kids I know. Not least is your almost terrier-like tendency to take every word spoken as a personal attack, and positively leap at the chance to yip back at shadows with comparisons to, in slight hypocrisy, snarky Uni kids. If it helps, I really do like you as a conversationalist if not as a politcal analyst. That's why I took the example in brackets and not your entire post.

I don't think you're wrong because you disagree with me. I think you're wrong because what you belive is false. There's a subtle difference, but one that carries with it a certain level of respect. I think no less of you for your opinions, I leave that to Snarky University kids and Born-Again Atheists.

So how about we take a step back and begin anew:

What gives you the perception that Socialism will steal of the rich's wealth?

 

[PTSpyder]

First off, read Karl Marx and you will realize how little you know about this topic. I will concede a few very limited roles where the government does a good job. This is entirely limited to public safety *law enforcement/fire/military*, infrastructure development maintainance and in extremely limited role in financial regulation. Outside of these examples, there has never been a single example where the government has been able to do a better job at providing a service then the free market. It has to do with human nature, and is too long to get into a discussion about here on a forum.

 

[ZZ-Tops89]

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."

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.

Firstly, academia is notoriously critical of capitalism, although much more at the college level than at the lower levels. You seem to have replaced one generalization with another; in countering the generalization that communism is all about fascism and total state control, you've made the assumption that pro-capitalists are all uniformly and unequivocally in favor of the status quo (or at least capitalism). I regard myself as a pro-capitalist, but I have huge problems with both capitalism and the status quo. A completely unregulated capitalist system would be a bad thing, which is why none has ever existed. The basic tenets of capitalism, such as private ownership of property and the means of production, a relatively unconstrained right for the owner of property to make free decisions about how to allocate said property, open trade both between individuals and on an international level, and lack of state interference in how businesses and industries conduct their operations (in terms of what they produce, how prices are set, and how much is produced, at a minimum), are generally good ideas.

 

[Barciad]

ZZ - Tops89, have the last 3 years taught you nothing?
The Market needs regulation. I thought we might have learnt that sometime between 1929 and 1945. Well, we did. We learnt it very well indeed and thus 1945 - 1975 are called (by the French at least), the 30 Glorious Years. Then comes Friedman, Hayek, et al and bugger it all up.
This insane meltdown has shown once again that firms need to be regulated whether they like it or not. Especially the financial sector when you think what they have just done to the economies of our two great nations.
Just asnwer me this - do you not consider it galling in the extreme that individuals that spent years telling the government to stay out of their affairs. That they were weighed down in red tape. That all what was needed was for more de-regulation and all would be well.
Then they go and screw up everything becuase of the total lack of regulation.
And then go begging the goverment for handouts and getting angry that more was not being done.
Tarring and feathering would be considered minor punishments.

 

[vede]

First off, read Karl Marx and you will realize how little you know about this topic. I will concede a few very limited roles where the government does a good job. This is entirely limited to public safety *law enforcement/fire/military*, infrastructure development maintainance and in extremely limited role in financial regulation. Outside of these examples, there has never been a single example where the government has been able to do a better job at providing a service then the free market. It has to do with human nature, and is too long to get into a discussion about here on a forum.

I dunno who you're talking to, and the lack of a quote indicates that it was meant as a general statement directed at all participants, so:

I have read the work of Marx. Hell, I actually keep a copy of the "meat" of the Communist Manifesto with me, whose entire purpose is as a response to people who make the statement you've just made.

Yeah, I'm a communist, and guess what? I disagree with Marx on a few things. For example, I don't believe that a distribution of populace is necessary, while he lists it as one of the ten things that need to be done to attain communism.

It's not like Marx is the only person to ever be a communist, nor is it impossible for a communist to disagree with Marx.

 

[PTSpyder]

Okay, now for some reasons why socialism and communism are bad:
1. Individual freedom i.e. the "Milton Friedman argument". Essentially, markets allow people to divorce their background from their status. For example, your bread may have come from a farm owned by a person who isn't the same religion, race, or ethnicity as you, but you probably won't care about that so long as the bread is cheap. It's when the state gets involved that racism, bigotry, and other virulent social ills become entrenched. Segregation in the South, for example, was incredibly expensive to maintain and was remarkably inefficient; only massive state intervention kept it afloat for so long. In short, markets ignore racial, religious, and ethnic background (social class is sometimes correlated with the aforementioned factors, but usually only after periods of state intervention that entrenched discrimination).

2. Markets allow for best allocation of resources. No commissar, public official, or lone man could ever even begin to do even a somewhat decent job managing economic operations. Think about the process that goes into just making a pencil! The point here is that central planning fails to adequately respond to complexity.

3. Market incentives are good. People may deny it all they want, but all we really care about, in the end, is our own interest. This isn't necessarily selfish, but it isn't selfless either. Investing money in an education for one's children, donating money to charity because you gain a feeling of self-worth from it, and a long list of other good deeds are not purely selfless in their motivation. I genuinely feel good about myself when I do things that help the needy; am I not fulfilling my human need for self actualization by doing this?

4. Government is bad at managing things. Even worse than the worst managers in large corporations, and that's generous. Public officials only care about getting re-elected, and often will capsize the boat once they're lame ducks (for personal as well as potential political reasons, such as leaving the new guy with a bad situation which could lower peoples' opinions of him). Further, the ignorant masses rarely form developed opinions so policy decisions will pay lip service to constituencies while doing massive damage to the overall country (pork is bad, especially when politicians have access to a lot of it).

I'll post more later depending on responses.

This comment is eloquent, thoughtful, factually accurate, and complete. What this man speaks is the pure truth of the matter. I didn't think it would be possible to so clearly lay out an almost complete argument in such a limited forum. I am more the slightly impressed...

 

[PirateKing]

I don't think anything is wrong with socialism. I mean, our country will never change unless there's a terrorist attack or something. But we've already socialized a few things here in America. A few more wouldn't hurt.

 

[Ultrajoe]

This comment is eloquent, thoughtful, factually accurate, and complete. What this man speaks is the pure truth of the matter. I didn't think it would be possible to so clearly lay out an almost complete argument in such a limited forum. I am more the slightly impressed...

You... you must be joking right, I thought PTSpyder was posting that as a joke.

 

[sneakypenguin]

.

So how about we take a step back and begin anew:

What gives you the perception that Socialism will steal of the rich's wealth?

Well for one the means of going about the redistribution of wealth, there is the progressive income tax which in the UK is 50% for those over 150k(35% about to be 39 in the US) this can be harmful to sub chapter S corperations (those small businesses that file their taxes with their personal) This takes money from producers. There is the increased capital gains tax which penalizes investments be it venture capital or retirees. Punitive death taxes/gift taxes punish wealth.

How is it that almost 50% of the workforce doesn't pay taxes,If all of the Obama tax provisions were enacted in 2009, the number of nonpayers would rise by about 16 million, to 63 million overall, or 44 percent of all tax returns. How are you not stealing from the rich? Granted you might not think it stealing but I say punishing wealth could be classified as such.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

I pretty much agree with the Robin Hood theory mentioned earlier. I support Capitalism because it is my belief if I am to work and strive to eventually achieve financial success, despite my current status position, anyone can. I refuse to support a system that essentially is giving to the poor by taking from the rich. The rich in most cases are rich because they have earned the wealth they now flaunt and those beneath that level of monetary are incessantly jealous, believing that desire a slice of the proverbial pie yet are unwilling to work towards acquiring it own their own, thus they complain it is not fair when someone with money purchases their sixth sports car.

If I have the money to lay out for $100,000 car and the person next to me can not afford one at all. Why should I have to suffer increased taxes and whatever additional add ons to "balance" the two of us? Call it selfish all you want, I earned my wealth and intend to use it, the other did not and that is not my concern.

 

[Low Key]

I don't think anything is wrong with socialism. I mean, our country will never change unless there's a terrorist attack or something. But we've already socialized a few things here in America. A few more wouldn't hurt.

It depends on what it is. Sure, we have a welfare system here, but it's not like everyone who gets a government check actually spends it on what they should.

 

[keyton777]

Mostly because the only uses of socialism in nations thus far have been failures, unfortunately, people forget Sweden, socialism can be great if used with a democratic political system.

P.S. AMERICANS: Stop calling Obama a socialist. He is a capitalist, to be sure. Taking a step to the left is not automatically a socialist move, just like steps to the right are not necessarily fascist.

please dont group us with our fucking news networks, we know their lying idiots most of the time, and like to make some shit up, and jump on the wrong things.






oh, lack of freedom would be my guess, i dont personally care,i dont much care if you tell me what to do with my worky time, im just waiting for the bell to ring, or the clock to hit that magic number, mess with my free time, and ill beat the side of your skull into a hole in the wall, and use your skull for a soup bowland the rest of the bones for furniture

 

[vede]

Spoiler

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."

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.

Firstly, academia is notoriously critical of capitalism, although much more at the college level than at the lower levels. You seem to have replaced one generalization with another; in countering the generalization that communism is all about fascism and total state control, you've made the assumption that pro-capitalists are all uniformly and unequivocally in favor of the status quo (or at least capitalism).

Actually, yes, you're right about me going from extreme to extreme, but that's mostly caused by almost everyone I've ever met in an educational environment being either vehemently patriotic, or totally anti-everything-we-have-now. I've witnessed very few exceptions so far.

The only places I've seen middle-ground people are home (my dad), and on the internet (mostly here and a couple other places I frequent).

Just to check, what region of the US do you live in? My perspective is from a very bible-belt little town, so my experiences may differ from those of people in more liberal areas. We've had kids disciplined for denouncing the bible here, as an example.

 

[ZZ-Tops89]

ZZ - Tops89, have the last 3 years taught you nothing?
The Market needs regulation. I thought we might have learnt that sometime between 1929 and 1945. Well, we did. We learnt it very well indeed and thus 1945 - 1975 are called (by the French at least), the 30 Glorious Years. Then comes Friedman, Hayek, et al and bugger it all up.
This insane meltdown has shown once again that firms need to be regulated whether they like it or not. Especially the financial sector when you think what they have just done to the economies of our two great nations.
Just asnwer me this - do you not consider it galling in the extreme that individuals that spent years telling the government to stay out of their affairs. That they were weighed down in red tape. That all what was needed was for more de-regulation and all would be well.
Then they go and screw up everything becuase of the total lack of regulation.
And then go begging the goverment for handouts and getting angry that more was not being done.
Tarring and feathering would be considered minor punishments.

I would argue that poor regulation rather than de-regulation played a role in the financial crisis. Further, I would agree with you entirely in terms of the financial sector. The financial sector differs from other parts of the economy in that transactions occur much faster and much more money is involved in each transaction. For any other type of good, production time and shipping are all issues that limit volatility. Major retailers have to begin planning for the Christmas shopping season as early as May or June. These delays limit volatility since usually we can figure out where the problems are before they become crises. Even huge advocates for globalization like Jagdish Bhagwati out at Columbia recognize the financial sector is volatile and needs some regulation at both a national and international level. My opinion is that outside of the financial sector, regulation is usually unnecessary.

My concern is that regulation is often misguided and inefficient at doing what it's supposed to do, as well that the individual rights aspect I explained earlier. As for your second paragraph "answer me this...", I would argue that yes, mistakes were made. I would say that the high capital gains tax in the USA, among a slew of other bad ideas, made people less willing to pursue conservative, prudent investment strategies. High-risk, high-reward investments became popular since conservative investments usually ended up being taxed to the point that they ended up being losses. But there was also an aspect of under-regulation as well, and I concede that. The point is that the issue isn't so clear cut. I'm not so much a laissez faire capitalist as I am a pragmatist; if regulation will lead to a better outcome than non-regulation, I'm in favor of it.

 

[ZZ-Tops89]

Spoiler

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."

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.

Firstly, academia is notoriously critical of capitalism, although much more at the college level than at the lower levels. You seem to have replaced one generalization with another; in countering the generalization that communism is all about fascism and total state control, you've made the assumption that pro-capitalists are all uniformly and unequivocally in favor of the status quo (or at least capitalism).

Actually, yes, you're right about me going from extreme to extreme, but that's mostly caused by almost everyone I've ever met in an educational environment being either vehemently patriotic, or totally anti-everything-we-have-now. I've witnessed very few exceptions so far.

The only places I've seen middle-ground people are home (my dad), and on the internet (mostly here and a couple other places I frequent).

Just to check, what region of the US do you live in? My perspective is from a very bible-belt little town, so my experiences may differ from those of people in more liberal areas. We've had kids disciplined for denouncing the bible here, as an example.

I grew up in the Chicago area, and while I did high-school debate I was exposed to the Chicago School through some of my debate coaches who went to the University of Chicago. Currently I'm a college student in Washington DC (but I go home for summer break today!)

 

[n64link]

Me personally, Because I bust my ass every day for just enough money to pay my bills and eat. **** giveing to the "needy" I've lived around "needy" people all of my life, They don't work, don't want to work, wait for that govrnmet check, spend it on booze or drugs, oh wait. does begging cout as work? Now there are some exceptions, very few, that I've seen. But most are lazy and become complaciant in their poverty.

To those who support socilism, If you had 2 houses and I was homeless would you give me one?

 

[vede]

Spoiler

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."

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.

Firstly, academia is notoriously critical of capitalism, although much more at the college level than at the lower levels. You seem to have replaced one generalization with another; in countering the generalization that communism is all about fascism and total state control, you've made the assumption that pro-capitalists are all uniformly and unequivocally in favor of the status quo (or at least capitalism).

Actually, yes, you're right about me going from extreme to extreme, but that's mostly caused by almost everyone I've ever met in an educational environment being either vehemently patriotic, or totally anti-everything-we-have-now. I've witnessed very few exceptions so far.

The only places I've seen middle-ground people are home (my dad), and on the internet (mostly here and a couple other places I frequent).

Just to check, what region of the US do you live in? My perspective is from a very bible-belt little town, so my experiences may differ from those of people in more liberal areas. We've had kids disciplined for denouncing the bible here, as an example.

I grew up in the Chicago area, and while I did high-school debate I was exposed to the Chicago School through some of my debate coaches who went to the University of Chicago. Currently I'm a college student in Washington DC (but I go home for summer break today!)

It's possible that has quite a bit to do with the differing experiences, then.

 

[UpSkirtDistress]

.

So how about we take a step back and begin anew:

What gives you the perception that Socialism will steal of the rich's wealth?

Well for one the means of going about the redistribution of wealth, there is the progressive income tax which in the UK is 50% for those over 150k(35% about to be 39 in the US) this can be harmful to sub chapter S corperations (those small businesses that file their taxes with their personal) This takes money from producers. There is the increased capital gains tax which penalizes investments be it venture capital or retirees. Punitive death taxes/gift taxes punish wealth.

How is it that almost 50% of the workforce doesn't pay taxes,If all of the Obama tax provisions were enacted in 2009, the number of nonpayers would rise by about 16 million, to 63 million overall, or 44 percent of all tax returns. How are you not stealing from the rich? Granted you might not think it stealing but I say punishing wealth could be classified as such.

Do i detect a hint of copy and paste

Edit: Only messing with you its well researched.