Would Socialism really be that bad?

[slikvik]

because... because your face thats why!!

[Rosse88]

Well I would add that while this is one of the tamer discussions on this topic i have seen, here are my thoughts on a few things.

1. The United States, as its part of a larger global system would fall apart under a purely capitalistic or socialist system. Rather a 70/30 mix is probably reasonable (other way around is China and they have some issues going on).

2. Tax rates from previous eras is a bad idea. That era generated the great tax evasion underground. We still don't know where all the tax money went as it never came back, lol. I can attest for this as my family hid ours as well. Nothing is more frustrating then looking at a rich person who's accounts say they're poor heh. And if you actually TALK to a few wealthy people (not the news like FOX or CNN or MSNBC but person to person) you will notice most don't mind paying more taxes. They just need to be reasonable and not spent on the dumbest things in existence. The answer is a more responsible government.

3. As was mentioned before, pay scale discrepancies are rampant. But that is a multi-layered issue. It really comes down to who is actually valuable in a company and who isn't. From there, you make wages competitive and cut others to make it work. And before it comes up, janitors make decent money in mid to large companies because they take out the trash. Trash that contains documents and shreds. IE, things that can destroy you. So basically, I think people need to become more realistic about what they are actually worth. When that happens, with a little elbow grease, the costs of items should go down a tad to match changes (elbow grease indicates keeping accountants and greed inline).

[gainesvilleg]

If there are rich people in America. Then there HAS to be poor people..everyone cannot be rich the math on it is impossible. Someonone HAS to take the fall. If socialism were here at least we would all be equal. Imagine a world where people did not fight over money. Where the income gap from the rich and poor was not so wide.

Look around at the Occupy protests. People are growing restless at the system. They are upset, angry and frustrated. How much longer can we keep this up?

Greed is a terrible sin. While money is important it shouldn't be driving factor in our lifes. Imagine a world without the big corporate types with their Super Pac's..they are refusing to pay more in taxes yet donate 100 million to Mitt?..does that sound logical?...we will continue to be divided as a nation as long as the income gap is there. In order to be rich, there must be poor.

I don't want to live in a world where they deny people food stamps so they can send 100 million in aid to middle east. Where they don't help the very poor yet give the very rich all the benefits. The work just becomes another forum of being almost slave like to the system.

Capatilism has already proven its superiority over Socialism. By the end of the Cold War, even the homeless in America ate better than the middle class in the Soviet Union. What your analysis neglects to say is under Socialism everybody is poor (except the "wise" rulers) while under Capitalism even the poor have an average of 3 TV's per household...

[Kasierith]

Capatilism has already proven its superiority over Socialism. By the end of the Cold War, even the homeless in America ate better than the middle class in the Soviet Union. What your analysis neglects to say is under Socialism everybody is poor (except the "wise" rulers) while under Capitalism even the poor have an average of 3 TV's per household...

Yes, because the absolute only factor in.... anything in the Cold War was capitalism vs socialism.

[IronJohn]

Well of course they immigrate to a moderately better place since they come from shitty countries, go figure. My point was that people in Europe dont feel that US could offer them anything substantial compared to what they can achieve in their own countries and that is in itself proof that socialistic policies do not smolder the drive to succeed, otherwise they would just immigrate to US.

You're mostly just painting dreams the same way that any idiologists do whitout actual practical assurance. My proposal has been proven to work effectivily in scandinavia so it does not matter wether you reject my argument or not.

Poverty does not lead to criminal behavior? Lol, best line of the day. Yes, obviosly its much better when they live in boxes or start gang wars instead of having a solid foundation incase they might want to start pursue success.

Edit: Also, im not advocating "Socialism" in itself, only some socialistic policies.

I have lived in several countries in my long life and I still like it here the best because of the almost limitless opportunity for success. Some of the places I lived would be considered very poor and yet the people were very hard working and honest, we obviously see the world quite differently from each other. I would still like to see your data that poverty leads to criminal behaviour. My parents lived through the Great Depression and they knew what it was like to be poor, they passed that experience along to me, my brother and my sister. Maybe my life has been unusually blessed because my personal experience shows that being poor does not lead to criminal behaviour.

Oh, and I am a third generation immigrant so my ideas were formed from personal experience and are not an ideologists dream. My grandparents came here because turn-of-the-century Europe was not a bastion of opportunity.

[gainesvilleg]

Yes, because the absolute only factor in.... anything in the Cold War was capitalism vs socialism.

It's a data point. Not many (as in NONE) data points that show socialism has defeated capitalism.

But if you want to ignore history, then there is no analysis you can accept and it will just be a religious type screaming match. I won't partake but I thought socialism was pretty universally dismissed as a failure. Even the Democrat party in USA has abandoned most of it. For example even Al Gore is now worth around $100 million with his green energy investments...

[Kasierith]

It's a data point. Not many (as in NONE) data points that show socialism has defeated capitalism.

But if you want to ignore history, then there is no analysis you can accept and it will just be a religious type screaming match. I won't partake but I though socialism was pretty universally dismissed as a failure. Even the Democrat party in USA has abandoned most of it.

If you wish to be ignorant of the multitude of factors in the Cold War, from the resource availability that led to differing relationships with satellite nations/European allies, the influence of China, the absolutely massive economic disparity when the war started, the climate difference, the effects of oppression, and a hundred other things building up that had nothing to do with socialism vs capitalism, be my guest.

The cold war was not socialism vs capitalism, although that was one point of propaganda. It was the US and its allies vs the Soviets and their satellite nations.

[Orlong]

If there are rich people in America. Then there HAS to be poor people..everyone cannot be rich the math on it is impossible. Someonone HAS to take the fall. If socialism were here at least we would all be equal. Imagine a world where people did not fight over money. Where the income gap from the rich and poor was not so wide.

Look around at the Occupy protests. People are growing restless at the system. They are upset, angry and frustrated. How much longer can we keep this up?

Greed is a terrible sin. While money is important it shouldn't be driving factor in our lifes. Imagine a world without the big corporate types with their Super Pac's..they are refusing to pay more in taxes yet donate 100 million to Mitt?..does that sound logical?...we will continue to be divided as a nation as long as the income gap is there. In order to be rich, there must be poor.

I don't want to live in a world where they deny people food stamps so they can send 100 million in aid to middle east. Where they don't help the very poor yet give the very rich all the benefits. The work just becomes another forum of being almost slave like to the system.

Without an incentive for some people to get rich the world would be a place of mediocrity. Think anyone wants to become a doctor just so he can make the same as a garbage man? Also without rich people there would be no people with enough money to start businesses to give people jobs. Also why would anyone want to bust their ass to accomplish anything if you could get the same stuff from sitting on your ass and doing nothing since we all would have the same money

[gainesvilleg]

If you wish to be ignorant of the multitude of factors in the Cold War, from the resource availability that led to differing relationships with satellite nations/European allies, the influence of China, the absolutely massive economic disparity when the war started, the climate difference, the effects of oppression, and a hundred other things building up that had nothing to do with socialism vs capitalism, be my guest.

The cold war was not socialism vs capitalism, although that was one point of propaganda. It was the US and its allies vs the Soviets and their satellite nations.

LOL. Yes, it was US and its capitalistic allies and the Soviets and their socialist satellites. Some of those other factors you listed are directly related to those philosophies. Socialism is an oppressive system by its very nature, where the elite rulers decide on the allocation of resources. Corruption goes unchecked and the added inefficiencies in the economy create additional scarcity.

Of course this "experiment" was not in a lab with only the two factors of socialism versus capitalism, but they were major driving factors. I wonder how you would have argued the case if the Soviet Union didn't utterly collapse in abject poverty to end the cold war? You would have seen it as a case of socialism succeeding no doubt. Well, fact is it failed.

[Kasierith]

LOL. Yes, it was US and its capitalistic allies and the Soviets and their socialist satellites. All those other factors are directly related to those philosophies. Socialism is a oppressive system by its very nature, where the elite rulers decide on the allocation of resources. Corruption goes unchecked and the added inefficiencies in the economy create additional scarcity.

And of course this "experiment" was not in a lab with only the two factors of socialism versus capitialism, but they were major driving factors. I wonder how you would have argued the case if the Soviet Union didn't utterly collapse in abject poverty to end the cold war.

I'd probably argue that there were a multitude of factors involved and that saying that this was "proof" that socialism was bad is the very definition of an uncontrolled experiment. Besides, the Soviets were more of an oligarchic dictatorship masquerading as a socialist country.

[Magpai]

Remove financial inequality and you remove economic incentive. Remove economic incentive and your economy collapses.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

And once there are no rich people, who pays for it?

There were extremely rich people in the US when the top tax bracket was at 90% about 40 years ago.

---------- Post added 2012-07-14 at 04:34 AM ----------

Capatilism has already proven its superiority over Socialism. By the end of the Cold War, even the homeless in America ate better than the middle class in the Soviet Union. What your analysis neglects to say is under Socialism everybody is poor (except the "wise" rulers) while under Capitalism even the poor have an average of 3 TV's per household...

For the last effing time, SOCIALISM IS NOT THE SAME AS COMMUNISM!

[Magpai]

Remove financial inequality and you remove economic incentive. Remove economic incentive and your economy collapses.

Edit: Unless you use government force to compel people to continue to perform in the economy. Enjoy your militarized violent dictatorship.

---------- Post added 2012-07-14 at 02:35 AM ----------

There were extremely rich people in the US when the top tax bracket was at 90% about 40 years ago.

---------- Post added 2012-07-14 at 04:34 AM ----------



For the last effing time, SOCIALISM IS NOT THE SAME AS COMMUNISM!

USSR = Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

[Kivimetsan]

Yeah it could.

Would it be ethical? No. I don't see how everyone being poor and miserable is a positive thing.

Only thing that works is free market anarcho capitalism. Sure it sounds cut throat, but the corporations have no power because they cannot gain it through government (government is a medium to which the rich gain power, through lobbying, etc).

The beautiful thing about anarcho capitalism is that if you try harder than everyone else, you will be rewarded. Everyone says that massive amounts of wealth is unethical and it should be shared. I don't see how it is ethical to strip the highest achievers of society of there property to enrich the people who have achieved nothing.

Everyone will be free, no one will tell you what to do, you get to keep your property. Its the only fair system.

And once again... Corporations will be subject to the will of society. They will have no power, because no one will engage with unethical power hungry monopolistic corporations.

Winners will win and losers will lose.

Liberty only exist in this system. Everything else is authoritarian.

[gainesvilleg]

I'd probably argue that there were a multitude of factors involved and that saying that this was "proof" that socialism was bad is the very definition of an uncontrolled experiment. Besides, the Soviets were more of an oligarchic dictatorship masquerading as a socialist country.

Having met a number of Russians and eastern Europeans (my family was originally from Poland for instance) I know how smart and resourceful the people are there. The system set them up for failure. Plenty of natural resources. Plenty of smart people. Plenty of land. Failed economic and political system. Thankfully those days are over.

Sure I'm simplifying, but what else can you do. If everything is so complex you can't make any assumptions based on the past then why even discuss it? Or even hypothesize what is best?

[IronJohn]

Your analogy is flawed. Its better to think of wealth as matter: it cannot be created or destroyed, just moved around. If it seems like you are getting rich in America, then it is at the expense of another nation or nations. Your logic says that if all people just applied themselves and worked hard, they too can become wealthy. Sounds great. But what would happen?

Here is an example: lets say that everybody in the world started earning 500k a year. Inflation would skyrocket. No one would do the mundane jobs. Economies would collapse. The logic just doesn't work. The logic doesn't work on the other end of the scale with Communism(at least not with our current economic system)

There has to be a difference between incomes. The point is the difference needs to shrink so we have less poverty and more middle class. Shrinking the gap is the best scenario for all.

If you think that the definition for the term wealth means money or income then I can see how you think that wealth is a zero sum game, but there is a richness in the term that has nothing to do with money.

From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...tionary/wealth

Definition of WEALTH

1 obsolete: weal, welfare
2 : abundance of valuable material possessions or resources
3 : abundant supply : profusion
4 a: all property that has a money value or an exchangeable value
b: all material objects that have economic utility; especially: the stock of useful goods having economic value in existence at any one time <national wealth>


If wealth was a zero sum we would all be sharing the same wealth that was in existence at the dawn of man, there would be no more or no less. We would not be able to even imagine the world we live in now let alone actually live in it.

Inflation of a monetary system is a different discussion and ironically has nothing to do with wealth.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

Edit: Unless you use government force to compel people to continue to perform in the economy. Enjoy your militarized violent dictatorship.

---------- Post added 2012-07-14 at 02:35 AM ----------



USSR = Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

Which were, for the most part, de facto communist (military) dictatorships. The full name for North Korea is The People's Republic of North Korea. Would you say that NK is a country run by the people of that country? The Democratic Republic of Congo was a military dictatorship for many years. The name of a country or collection of countries does not have to have any bearing on how it is actually run.

[Pat1234]

Socialism can be great. A unified body of citizens working together to build a better tomorrow, as long as it doesn't infringe on individual rights and the pursuit of happiness. The problem is America is a really big and diverse nation, and many people view socialism as giving minorities a free ride when a lot of us work hard for the things we have (that's argument number 1). The individual citizen barely has any say in what the federal government does, how they spend their money, and add to the fact the our debt exceeds our GDP many people are screaming for less government. People bring up states rights, they want more control of what happens in their own state rather than having some brown guy in office mandate what they do. In order for socialism to work you need unity, and America is a very diverse nation which breeds division. We are a lot more racially diverse than Europe or a place where socialism works like in the Nordic countries. The world is pretty much every man for himself here, that's the way it works. Anyone that works hard and gets some form of education can make a decent living for themselves here in the states, there really is no need for a nanny state.

[Christan]

people coming from old money would lose that money,
ingenious people with good new idea's and technologies wouldn't bother working as hard (why work your butt off day in day out developing something, but your life never improves?)
i mean, that same person can just go for a low stress job and live just a little bit worse off, but no stress in their lives at all.
(not all people who enjoy their job completely, are also REALLY good at it)
this would mean people who DON'T enjoy their jobs, but are seriously amazing at it, would just say "screw this i can just flip burgers and live just as well"

i mean, there are seriously inherent flaws in the system.

communism would be better if there was literally an utter lack of corruption / leader believed utterly in human rights.

but who cares, i'm not political at all, i vote based off which of the candidates are more believable / which one lies less.

i'm a decent judge of character, and i've dealt with liars my entire life, it doesn't matter what their stances are in political debates, unless it is inhumane(my definition / opinion of inhumane) as long as they aren't outright lying, or throwing blame at another candidate.

i don't like either of the candidates this time... both of them are lying and saying "ohh he's outsourcing to other countries" and so on.
i could care less about outsourcing, but blaming other people to try and make them look worse than yourself is childish.

we don't need a child as a president

[Alhoon]

if you try harder than everyone else, you will be rewarded

In capitalism, the one who "wins" is the person who can manipulate the market and "play money" the best. Who do you think earns more: a person who cleans toilets 16 hours a day or a person who fiddles with his stock portfolio that he got from being born to a rich parents? Who do you think SHOULD earn more? Who do you think contributes more to the success of the society?