Happy Atheist Forum

General => Politics => Topic started by: Pineapple on August 14, 2009, 12:51:25 AM

Title: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: Pineapple on August 14, 2009, 12:51:25 AM
All I hear from people is how socialism is "evil" and "terrible". I usually hear this from people that think Capitalism is THE BEST THING EVAAAA.

Can anyone explain the pros and cons of socialism for me please? I'm in the ninth grade and don't have quite a huge grasp on politics yet, but it seems like most of the people that completely shut it out don't really know what they're talking about.
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: Whitney on August 14, 2009, 02:31:00 AM
Someone I know recently posted the following on facebook:

QuoteSOCIALISM IS BAD

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the U.S. Department of Energy.

I then took a shower in the clean water provided by a municipal water utility.

After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC-regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like, using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

I watched this while eating my breakfast of U.S. Department of Agriculture-inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time, as regulated by the U.S. Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the U.S. Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank.

On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the U.S. Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and Fire Marshal’s inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.

And then I log on to the internet â€" which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration â€" and post on Freerepublic.com and Fox News forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can’t do anything right.

â€" (source unknown)
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: Pineapple on August 14, 2009, 02:55:09 AM
I don't think that person really knows what they're talking about. lol

I think they're more against large government, not socialism.

Which brings me back to the whole "Doesn't know what they're talking about" thing.
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: Whitney on August 14, 2009, 03:11:11 AM
Quote from: "Pineapple"I don't think that person really knows what they're talking about. lol

I think they're more against large government, not socialism.

Which brings me back to the whole "Doesn't know what they're talking about" thing.

It was meant to be sarcastic.
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: Pineapple on August 14, 2009, 03:16:10 AM
Quote from: "Whitney"
Quote from: "Pineapple"I don't think that person really knows what they're talking about. lol

I think they're more against large government, not socialism.

Which brings me back to the whole "Doesn't know what they're talking about" thing.

It was meant to be sarcastic.

Oh, it made me laugh, but I thought it was serious. I live in an area where there are a lot of people like that.
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: AlP on August 14, 2009, 03:22:44 AM
One of the things I found unusual when I moved to the US was the prevailing attitude towards socialism. For example, Obama being accused of socialism is something I often read here. I think it might have something to do with its association with communism and the cold war. Thought anyone? Anyway, socialism isn't all or nothing. A lot of Western European democratic countries have more socialist leanings than the US. Free health care is good. I really miss that. I liked my free university education. Actually it was better than free. The state gave me money to go to university. That has since changed unfortunately. But I got the best of both worlds. Free education in the UK then high income (at the expense of less fortunate people) in the US.  :yay:
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: Will on August 14, 2009, 09:47:54 PM
That's correct, calling someone a socialist is playing on now outdated cold war fears, a guilt by association fallacy. In fact, no governmental or economic system is inherently bad, not even an authoritarian dictatorship. People make a system good or bad.
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: skurry on August 14, 2009, 09:51:52 PM
Isn't socialism essentially communism? Communism is supposed to be power to the people, but it seems to me it's power to the government. They control every aspect of your life, essentially slavery. No one has any ambition to get ahead because everyone makes the same wages.

These are my perceptions, I don't actually know what I am talking about... too young for the Cold War.
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: MrWizard on August 14, 2009, 09:53:49 PM
The reason Socialism is bad, is because it does not work. Socialism requires there be no people in power who have their own agendas.

We as a species are far to young for the Star Trek-like Socialist society.
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: curiosityandthecat on August 14, 2009, 09:56:27 PM
Well, duh, I know why socialism is bad: because I've heard people use the words "socialism" and "Obama" in the same sentence and he's the devil, so it must be bad!  I mean, if you're socialist it means you're communist and if you're communist it means you want to destroy America and kill babies and be Russian or Chinese or something, right?

 ;) There's a number of reasons why Communism never works in the real world (ever heard the phrase "Communism and roommates"?), the most detrimental of which being that it is inherently opposed to a universal aspect of human nature: greed. Communism is, at its core, an economic model. It's when it's used as a social control mechanism that it gets a bad name. Read up on some Marxism and you'll see. It's actually not such a bad thing; people just screw it up.
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: Tanker on August 14, 2009, 11:09:05 PM
There is nothing inheretly wrong with socialism, in fact I believe many of the ideals of socialism to be supior to capitolism. The problem with achieving any idal is that people are not ideal. Without ideal people complete socialism will breakdown. Having socalist princaple will not really harm a strong democracy in fact a meshing of the two can be a better system ie;unions. Most people In the U.S don't really understand how any form of communism really works. Most have this inherited fear and disgust of communism left over from the cold war. a systemof government cannot be bad or good it's people however can and they will dictate how the system will work.
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: Tom62 on August 15, 2009, 07:41:36 AM
Socialism has its good and bad points. The same counts for capitalism. It is the right mixture of both systems that would work out best for us. For example: socialism tends to overprotect people, while capitalism tends to do the exact opposite. If we move our systems a bit more to the middle then we could have a society that could take proper care of the poor, the helpless and the sick; that respects the environment; where people have a decent income, retirement and can rely on an affordable healthcare system, without reducing the individual rights of every person or creating huge state-run conglomerates.
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: Heretical Rants on August 15, 2009, 08:26:27 AM
I would not want to live in a socialist society.  There would be no hopes or dreams, no higher aspirations: hard work is not rewarded.  You wouldn't own anything, even yourself.

Everyone is a slave to society.

This is even without greedy dictators/whatever.

The main argument I hear:
In all of the Communist states I know of, those in power abused that power.  If you take away private property, then someone needs to manage the public property to keep the looters out... but those who take on that responsibility are also looters.  Socialism/communism doesn't work because people are greedy.

I don't like this argument because the system is bad, even if it somehow had benevolent leadership.


The milder forms of 'socialism' currently in the west are infinitely better.  ((Forced charity from which most people benefit)^1000000)/dx) < (slave driving)^-1000000.
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: Tom62 on August 15, 2009, 01:27:04 PM
That reminds me of a very old joke.

Q: What is the difference between capitalism and socialism?
A: Capitalism make social mistakes. Socialism however makes capital mistakes.
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: Ninteen45 on August 15, 2009, 03:21:22 PM
*Rimshot*

Anyway, The main proper complaint I've heard is that the waiting is "Too long, a mean, ya seen dem english teef, dey have ta wait fa six months for a dentist, a dun't want no teef like dem."

Honestly I think is may mess up such a country like USA with their population and current money problems.

Wait and see...
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: PipeBox on August 15, 2009, 04:25:14 PM
I'm not really familiar with socialism as a fiscal philosophy, but if universal health care is indeed socialist, then most of the first world is at least part socialist.  But then, we have medicare and medicaid and social security here, so, uhh, add us.

Methinks government is a balancing act of a lot of different ways of doing things.  We took a democracy and then put one man at the top of it.  We are capitalists who fund grants, homeless shelters, and government-run monopolies (postal service, anyone?).  The only thing I think I can say is that there is still improvement to be made.  Much improvement.  In the mean time, the media gets to invoke fear on demand by crudely labeling any system we didn't grow up with using words that stand in opposition to the fine labels we attach to ourselves.  It hurts progress, but I guess it keeps us from doing anything stupid with any great speed.

Meh, if I thought it was workable, there'd not be a government, but that's a hyper-ideal utopia.  We obviously need laws enforced on, moderation with, and protection from ourselves.
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: AlP on August 15, 2009, 04:32:04 PM
Quote from: "PipeBox"We are capitalists who fund grants, homeless shelters, and government-run monopolies (postal service, anyone?).
You missed the US military. They get more funding than the postal service and the postal service doesn't deliver in Iraq or Afghanistan. =)
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: Heretical Rants on August 15, 2009, 10:38:31 PM
Quote from: "Tom62"A: Capitalism makes social mistakes. Socialism, however, makes capital AND social mistakes.
FTFY
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: PipeBox on August 16, 2009, 02:13:12 PM
Hey, HR, how socialist does a country have to become to be bad?  I ask because we clearly have some socialist elements as is.  Are we too socialist now?
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: SSY on August 17, 2009, 10:41:03 AM
I don't like socialism because I think everyone deserves the wages merited by their labour. Socialism's insatiable demand for cash tends to strip people of their earnings, which I believe is both morally wrong, and completely unworkable as a practical system of government.
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: Heretical Rants on August 17, 2009, 11:04:56 AM
Quote from: "PipeBox"Hey, HR, how socialist does a country have to become to be bad?  I ask because we clearly have some socialist elements as is.  Are we too socialist now?
I use this inequality when I'm trying to tell myself that it's OK:
(Forced charity from which most people benefit/dx) < (slavery)

Definitions:
Some of our socialist elements=forced charity that benefits most people
Some of our socialist elements benefit no one, but that is topic for a different discussion.

Pure socialism=slavery
dx=the infinitesimal
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: jbeukema on August 17, 2009, 01:00:48 PM
Quote from: "Pineapple"All I hear from people is how socialism is "evil" and "terrible". I usually hear this from people that think Capitalism is THE BEST THING EVAAAA.

Can anyone explain the pros and cons of socialism for me please? I'm in the ninth grade and don't have quite a huge grasp on politics yet, but it seems like most of the people that completely shut it out don't really know what they're talking about.


Socialism is good.. in theory..


It's Man that's the problem...
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: jbeukema on August 17, 2009, 01:06:24 PM
Quote from: "MrWizard"The reason Socialism is bad, is because it does not work.


As opposed to what, Democracy?  :hmm:

I see one common problem with all these system... they all involve the most dangerous virus on Earth... humanity...

communism works, but only if the groups small enough and it's really an oligarchy in which  the masses are kept, through appeasement or fear, from chalenging authority...

Conclusion: no hope so long as the nature of Man remains unchanged  :shake:
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: AlP on August 17, 2009, 08:53:14 PM
Quote from: "jbeukema"Conclusion: no hope so long as the nature of Man remains unchanged  :shake:
Despite our nature, we've managed to persist somehow. The things we hope for are I think fixed by our upbringing and our society. When someone is smart enough to see themselves apart from their society, they can see that hope is an illusion. Ignorance is bliss =).
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: jbeukema on August 18, 2009, 01:33:35 AM
Quote from: "AlP"
Quote from: "jbeukema"Conclusion: no hope so long as the nature of Man remains unchanged  :raised:

Despite its nature, HIV does remarkably well until all potential hosts are dead  :pop:
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: AlP on August 18, 2009, 01:41:49 AM
To be honest I don't care. What are your values?
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: jbeukema on August 18, 2009, 01:48:34 AM
Quote from: "AlP"To be honest I don't care. What are your values?
Values? I got phi... I think I fucked up though, because a^2+b^2 has never equaled phi before  :hmm: ... and I got 42 for the last question. You?
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: AlP on August 18, 2009, 01:58:23 AM
Please explain.
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: Tanker on August 18, 2009, 02:27:44 AM
Quote from: "AlP"Please explain.
Hes being faciesious the "value" he got was Pi ie; 3.14, he made a math joke. 42 is a reference to the Hitchhiker Guide To the Galaxy.
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: AlP on August 18, 2009, 02:31:13 AM
Yeah I got the 42 thing. It's one of my favorite series. But I couldn't work it into the math?
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: jbeukema on August 18, 2009, 04:59:20 AM
Quote from: "Tanker"
Quote from: "AlP"Please explain.
Hes being faciesious the "value" he got was Pi ie; 3.14...



[url="http]
Pi[/url]....[url="http]Phi[/url]

Edit::
sdfgklbnsdlkgjjkodf!!!!!!

Which blasted bbcode standard do you use here? I can't get these damned hyperlinks to work  :hissyfit:
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: Tanker on August 18, 2009, 05:39:37 AM
Quote from: "jbeukema"
Quote from: "Tanker"
Quote from: "AlP"Please explain.
Hes being faciesious the "value" he got was Pi ie; 3.14...



[url="http]
Pi[/url]....[url="http]Phi[/url]

Edit::
sdfgklbnsdlkgjjkodf!!!!!!

Which blasted bbcode standard do you use here? I can't get these damned hyperlinks to work  :hissyfit:

Reguardless it was a math joke
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: AlP on August 18, 2009, 06:00:35 AM
Quote from: "jbeukema"Which blasted bbcode standard do you use here? I can't get these damned hyperlinks to work  :hissyfit:
There are instructions linked on the post page. I assume you mean the constant pi, i.e. the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. But phi is ambiguous to me. Do you mean the golden ratio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio)? And where does a^2 + b^2 come in? Does that express some relationship between pi and phi?
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: Tom62 on August 18, 2009, 06:20:03 AM
Quote from: "jbeukema"[url="http]
Pi[/url]....[url="http]Phi[/url]

Edit::
sdfgklbnsdlkgjjkodf!!!!!!

Which blasted bbcode standard do you use here? I can't get these damned hyperlinks to work  :hissyfit:

You almost got it right. To make it work, just remove the quotes (") around the url

Pi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi)
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: jbeukema on August 18, 2009, 04:20:52 PM
Quote from: "Tom62"
Quote from: "jbeukema"[url="http]
Pi[/url]....[url="http]Phi[/url]

Edit::
sdfgklbnsdlkgjjkodf!!!!!!

Which blasted bbcode standard do you use here? I can't get these damned hyperlinks to work  :hissyfit:
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: jbeukema on August 18, 2009, 04:22:00 PM
Quote from: "AlP"
Quote from: "jbeukema"And where does a^2 + b^2 come in? Does that express some relationship between pi and phi?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem)
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: Brizz on August 22, 2009, 01:00:09 AM
Haha...there was a time I did not know what the words "socialism" and "capitalism" meant.

Just know that socialism is bad, capitalism is good. Evidence?

 Canada and Australia are better than Cuba and North Korea.
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: Recusant on August 22, 2009, 12:55:32 PM
Quote from: "Brizz"Just know that socialism is bad, capitalism is good.

Greetings and welcome, Brizz.

Your statement reminded me of something I've heard before:  "Four legs bad, two legs good!" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm)

Nice, simple, and dubious.  There are aspects of each that are desirable.   For my money, the Swedes (http://www.forbes.com/global/2001/0319/034.html) appear to be nearest to getting it right; they have the benefits of socialism, but are learning to encourage those aspects of capitalism that are (it seems) indispensible for a healthy society.
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: Brizz on August 22, 2009, 03:45:57 PM
If I am working my ass off, I should not have the same wage as some idiot lying on his couch. Fuck that. If someone wants to steal my money they have to try it face to face.
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: AlP on August 22, 2009, 08:08:35 PM
Quote from: "Recusant"For my money, the Swedes (http://www.forbes.com/global/2001/0319/034.html) appear to be nearest to getting it right; they have the benefits of socialism, but are learning to encourage those aspects of capitalism that are (it seems) indispensible for a healthy society.
Well my favorite socialist party is the British Labour party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)), the one currently in power in the UK and the one that has been in power on and off since the early 20th century. I wonder why the media is going so crazy with the "US is becoming Sweden" idea. Maybe because many Americans don't know much about Sweden? "The US is becoming the UK" doesn't stir up nearly enough fear I suppose.

Edit: improved grammar and added link.
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: Brizz on August 23, 2009, 01:37:00 AM
Quote from: "AlP"Well my favorite socialist party is the British Labour party,
:crazy:
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: Ninteen45 on August 25, 2009, 07:08:53 PM
Labour used to be good, but it is to corrupt nowadays.

Every week I hear some Labour Cabinet MP backstabbing or ruining another one.

Hell, even the secret plot to overthrow brown was opened up in it's first day! Those politicians are sneeky Snitches!
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: buttercupbaby on August 26, 2009, 12:42:10 AM
We could never turn into a socialist society.  The rich will always find ways to stay that way and the poor are the poor. The danger I see is the obliteration of the middle class.
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: Arctonyx on August 26, 2009, 09:00:33 PM
Quote from: "MrWizard"The reason Socialism is bad, is because it does not work. Socialism requires there be no people in power who have their own agendas.

We as a species are far to young for the Star Trek-like Socialist society.

It also doesn't work because value is relative. And unless you can make your entire populace think that value is constant, then they're going to feel they've been treated unfairly. Although I do agree, we are too young as a species to get there, because part of what makes value relative is market supply & demand, as in star trek they can effectively produce whatever they need at no cost, making value irrelevant. And a socialist society possible. I wouldn't say a socialist society is bad, it's just that in our current situation it is not possible to achieve without people sacrificing what they can't afford to sacrifice. Capitalism and Democracy aren't perfect, but they are some of the best systems we have, with what we, as a species, are currently capable of.
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: Whitney on August 27, 2009, 06:24:12 AM
via twitter:

Quote from: "@residualechourl=http://twitter.com/residualecho]http://twitter.com/residualecho[/url] "]@HappyAtheist #Atheist Why is socialism bad? http://bit.ly/19Bj5o (http://bit.ly/19Bj5o) Is it? Question arguments from authority: http://tinyurl.com/ceqaue (http://tinyurl.com/ceqaue)

QuoteWhy Socialism?
by Albert Einstein

This essay was originally published in the first issue of Monthly Review (May 1949).

Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is.

Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history hasâ€"as is well knownâ€"been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior.

But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called "the predatory phase" of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.

Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals andâ€"if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorousâ€"are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.

For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society.

Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supra-national organization would offer protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: "Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?"

I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?

It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas.

Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept "society" means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon societyâ€"in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existenceâ€"that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is "society" which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word “society.”

It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolishedâ€"just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human being which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.

Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society. Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.

If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly-centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The timeâ€"which, looking back, seems so idyllicâ€"is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption.

I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.

The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective laborâ€"not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of productionâ€"that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goodsâ€"may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.

For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call “workers” all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of productionâ€"although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. Insofar as the labor contract is “free,” what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists' requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the “free labor contract” for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from “pure” capitalism.

Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers' goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?

Clarity about the aims and problems of socialism is of greatest significance in our age of transition. Since, under present circumstances, free and unhindered discussion of these problems has come under a powerful taboo, I consider the foundation of this magazine to be an important public service.

Source:  http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einstein.php (http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einstein.php)
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: -43- on August 31, 2009, 06:30:03 AM
Einstein, he's a great political philosopher to the plebs.
I'm a miniarchist, so I detest government, Socialism is a giant lumbering inefficient mess.
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: Brizz on August 31, 2009, 03:25:48 PM
Quote from: "-43-"Socialism is a giant lumbering inefficient mess.

But....capitalism is evil! lol
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: KayLP87 on March 28, 2010, 05:34:04 PM
Quote from: "-43-"Einstein, he's a great political philosopher to the plebs.
I'm a miniarchist, so I detest government, Socialism is a giant lumbering inefficient mess.

Yah its so bad, Capitalism is the best. It is the system that forced by Dad to give up on his dream of being a teacher because after his 2 bouts with Hodgkin's Dieses he was so in debt because of medical bills that he could not return to college, he had to work full time. It is the same system that because he does not have a college degree he has to work nights stocking shelves at a local supermarket to pay bill's. A job, because of his health, that he will not be able to work much longer, and he cannot yet afford to retire. He cannot find any other jobs that pay what he is getting right now, that would require less physical labor. If my dad had been born just 50 miles North of here, in Canada he probably would be living a much more comfortable life.  :shake:
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: Spatiality on March 29, 2010, 09:54:18 PM
Honestly, I do find the majority of the free American people to be incompetent. Smarter people are waiting to have children and are establishing balanced lives. Where as uneducated people have a many more children teaching them bad life skills at home which bleeds into our education system. Socialism shouldn't be about taking away freedom and creating a conformist society. It should be associated with teaching tolerance to all, providing a stable country, and eliminating violence. I think America could be better if they stop letting alcohol and fire arms in the hands of mentally unstable people that keep the media running in circles. Maybe then we can advance in science. China is getting ahead of the world, but then again they had a 4000 years head start!
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: Minkyaman on April 16, 2010, 06:52:52 PM
Went to the library one day and decided to check out books on socialism, communism, and marxism.  It was kinda nice, ya know, being able to wander into an institution and get books on subjects that I wanted to read about.  If only socialism weren't so evil and bad it might work right.

After the extensive research and years of thinking the same way, I concluded the only form of government that is best in its purest form is communism.  Now knowing nothing is capable of being truly pure, I amended my hypothesis that communism really only works in small groups.  I was able to test it using MMO's.  Now people may laugh but the thing is MMO's can be used to study social interactions in a limited role.  An example in my own experience is when I played Star Wars Galaxies, which had a truly capitalistic economy where the best 'crafters' made the most money and you could set up shops and your name got around the server as making the best gear or food or equipment.  My guild was a little smaller than most, numbering between 10-20 people, and we decided to use communism to run the guild, where no money was exchanged between us and we shared everything.  Our leader was the leader because someone had to have the title but we ran it as a whole community.

Now you may ask how it worked out.  Very well actually.  We became one of the most powerful guilds on the server bringing in more resources through our 'farms' than even the best crafters.  Now this may not be entirely applicable to the real world but it gives you an idea as to how a communistic or socialistic society would work.  Everyone has a job that they like to do and move the community together as a whole to benefit everyone.  As it was once said by John Adams 'If we do not lay out ourselves in the service of mankind whom should we serve?'

Now after my ramblings, knowing full well that communism really can't work until we age more as a civilized society, we have to mix forms of government and economic systems.  Capitalism will not work on its own.  Socialism will not work on its own.  Democracy will not work on its own.  Balancing the 3 into a new form of government is the trick.  The government must pass regulations upon corporations to make sure they do the right thing.  As of now, if it were purely up to the corporations, the middle class would disappear and we would be back in a feudalistic society where you have a select few people whom are rich and the majority of the population whom are poor.  Applying the same principles to an earlier argument, that also stifles creativity and the want to advance as a society.

I personally have nothing against most corporations, but they need to be regulated, as does the government.  That is why we theoretically have a system of checks and balances, even though your 2 party system tries to ruin that.  As Obama said in his State of the Union address, it is time for both Republicans and Democrats to stop trying to push their individual agendas and do what is best for our country.  If that means making use of everything we have available to us and mixing government and economic models then so be it.  

The only thing I ask, especially from this board since everyone here asked the question as to why, is to not take the media propaganda that socialism is EVIL as is communism, but to do the research yourself, use the socialistic entity of the public library that we have and read books on the inherent principles of each.  Do research and understand each thing before knowing jumping to any conclusion.

Now that my rambling is done......carry on =)
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: Sheeplauncher on April 24, 2010, 12:40:03 AM
Its interesting how people decry socialism. I agree it leads to big government which is very bad but its even funnier how most claim that capitalism has failed. In the USA we haven't had free market capitalism in a very very very long time. Its been corporatism for awhile now and claiming capitalism is the problem is not correct. The more governments regulate the markets the more prices go up. The fact that we have a central bank compounds the problem because it can mess with the market so much that  we shouldn't really even be calling ourselves capitalists.
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: Davin on April 24, 2010, 04:00:43 AM
I think the problems of taking care of a society cannot be solved by a magic pill: pure capitalism is bad, pure socialism is bad... but mix the two and you can have people working their way up while making sure the bottom doesn't fall out.
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: Sophus on November 10, 2010, 05:08:12 AM
Did anyone else catch Lawrence O'Donnell's explanation of why we're all socialists (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/40100812#40100812) tonight? Thoughts? Opinions? It makes sense to me.
Title:
Post by: hunterman317 on November 10, 2010, 09:23:05 PM
Three reasons.
1. People aren't encouraged to work.
2. Money keeps going in a circle, making it easier for politicians to steal from.
3. It causes decay. The government is so large and expected to do so much that no one can organize it or keep track of it.

Now if you're talking about progressivism (coined from Fox News), there's nothing wrong with that. Since this is a capitalist country, odds are that is what you're referring to. In fact, if you believe in socialism, there's nothing wrong with that either. I just hope you're elected president.
Title: Re: Why is socialism bad?
Post by: Lermontov on November 14, 2010, 09:45:48 PM
Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Well, duh, I know why socialism is bad: because I've heard people use the words "socialism" and "Obama" in the same sentence and he's the devil, so it must be bad!  I mean, if you're socialist it means you're communist and if you're communist it means you want to destroy America and kill babies and be Russian or Chinese or something, right?

 ;) There's a number of reasons why Communism never works in the real world (ever heard the phrase "Communism and roommates"?), the most detrimental of which being that it is inherently opposed to a universal aspect of human nature: greed. Communism is, at its core, an economic model. It's when it's used as a social control mechanism that it gets a bad name. Read up on some Marxism and you'll see. It's actually not such a bad thing; people just screw it up.

Thats the nail getting hit on the head. Except that part about greed being a 'universal aspect of human nature': Thinking like that is another symptom of the Cold War (Check http://science.howstuffworks.com/game-theory5.htm). Nonetheless its true that in essence Communism is a economic model, but one that does rely on some assumptions about human nature. Not least of all 'alienation' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_alienation#Significance_in_Marx.27s_thought) which is actually a very similar idea to socialist thought ('common ownership of the means of labour' was only removed from the manifesto of the Labour party in Britian in the 1990's, and only then because Tony Blair was as much a centrist-conservative as his opponents). Its the tendency of any far left/right party to endorse big government - political spectrum is circular, not linear - and I'd hate socialism to get a bad name becuase of that.

To really understand socialism I think it needs to be seperated from that tradition of Communist, lefty slamming media thats especially rife in America. Socialism essentially means the adoption of a consitent perspective with which to approach political issues I think, one which has solidarity and empathy at heart; you're either born that way or not.

Rich.