Would Socialism really be that bad?

[Rukentuts]

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).

And it's a valid argument. We have people living off of unemployment for years collecting food stamps with subsidized rent just sitting around doing nothing all day.

[Magpai]

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.

Can I just say this is one of the best I've ever seen advocacy for the free market expressed? Thumbs up.

[Kasierith]

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.

Look where I'm from. I am aware of this

The system set them up for failure. Plenty of natural resources. Plenty of smart people. Plenty of land.

Yes, a massive number of arable land and available unfrozen natural resources to support the entire population. They didn't pull resources out of their satellite nations like mad for any reason whatsoever, did they. Being smart didn't matter half as much as having connections; they killed plenty of scientists for political reasons. Lots of land was also a negative factor; they were so spread out, that infrastructure was extremely difficult, and people were in villages far separate from important resources. Its hard to get electricity, gas, and water out into a remote village in the middle of Siberia.

Failed economic and political system. Thankfully those days are over.

Well the economy and political system still isn't perfect.... but its economy and political system a lot more than just "socialism."

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?

Because you can look at all the facts. It would just take a very, very long time to do, would likely be highly controversial, would be extremely difficult to understand, and still wouldn't have all the answers. But regardless, even looking at a portion of the total problems is better than "socialism did it."

[Rukentuts]

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?

The stock market is investing in companies (i.e. giving them your money and hoping they are a success with it).

The thing I love about the current economic system is that people whose skills are in demand are paid more. Anyone can "clean toilets", this is why they are paid so little. Not everyone can perform open heart surgery.

[meathead]

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...

lmfao first off socialism is much much better then capitalism.capitalism is the cause of all Americas problems.its corrupt,greedy, and is set up to take every cent you make.2nd of course al gore is worth millions,they all are,every last one of them.every person that takes part in the running of America is rich,they right the laws,they make the system and know how to work it.

America has brain washed 99% of its population into thinking socialism,universal health care,unions ect, are bad and that could not be farther from the truth.hell at one point not to long ago,rich fat cats made 10 year old kids work 16 hours days in coal mines for pennies a day,all do to the laws of capitalism.i could go on like this all day,America was founded by rich people wanting to get "richer".so they wrote laws and made the poor fight for them,and that still goes on to this day.its all about $$$$.

[Magpai]

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.

People don't work this way. Most of the people who advocate wealth redistribution in any fashion (welfare etc.) don't do it for the good of a "better tomorrow"; MOST (not all) just want money out of someone else's pocket. People are selfish. It's the truth and it's silly and naive to think otherwise.

Also, you CANNOT have a socialist country without infringing on people's individual rights because you will have to by definition enforce wealth distribution and other economic decisions. Seriously...

[gainesvilleg]

Which were, for the most part, de facto communist (military) dictatorships.

Which is basically the only possible socialist society because you need the military/police to compel people to work, as has been stated earlier. There needs to be incentive to get people to do certain jobs and if it isn't economic it must be some other incentive. Police force being the natural choice of your typical socialist society.

[Flappy]

I suggest reading "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. It's over 50 years old and still remains relevant to this very topic.

[nogard64]

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.

I'm just in shock there are people in this country who believe in socialism and think it can work? Its like all the sudden people started saying the Dark Ages weren't so bad, The Inquisition can work and should happen today, I guess its true what people say, when you don't study and learn form History you are doomed to repeat it.

SOCIALISM is an OLD OLD concept that has proved to not work, NOT one single instance of it has worked, not China, Not Russia, Not in Greece, not in France, not in any country.

You can not equalize wealth, its like asking everyone to play like Micheal Jordan, its the California nanny state concept of rewarding the losers.

And the really STRANGE thing I find about liberals and progressives is..... NO ONE is telling you, YOU CAN'T help the poor, like Warren Buffett GO AHEAD then if you think society needs to be more equal go down to QUEENS and give your car away and all your billions, You have guilt about how you earned your billions, I don't have that issue, stop trying to tax and take what I've earned and what i'm plan on earning. If you liberals really believe things are not fair GO AHEAD and do something about it, go give all your money and possessions away, BUT PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE leave everyone else out of it, Don't tell others what to believe and what they need to do with their money. THATS WHAT DOES WORK, SIMPLE AS THAT!

[Eliandal]

No it wouldn't. The only ones who say that are the greedy people who think that socialism = stalinist-like dictatorship and who would rather be...."semi-retired" at age 45 than actually work in an ethic manner...and who fail to realize that there are actually grave social problems that need fixing that go beyond the complaining hipster who wears a che guevara t-shirt and pretends to be very leftist

Are you seriously questioning my ethics? You don't know me from a hole in the ground. Didn't your teachers ever explain to you that generalizations ruin arguments even quicker than Wikipedia quotes?

I worked damn hard to get where I am today - putting myself through college, working multiple jobs and saving like a madman. I fully realize there are problems with our current system, however simply saying 'Socialism' will fix it is ridiculous.

[Magpai]

Absolutely, and the problem is that minorities feel entitled to it. They actually think we owe them something. It's all validated by the rhetoric of some Democratic politicians. A large majority of American blacks actually think that they are entitled to "reparations" for their ancestors being slaves 2 centuries ago.

Frankly, I'm very concerned at whats happening to the power of the average white voter. We are gradually becoming a minority and our vote will continue to be less and less relevant.

To be fair, there's plenty of white folks who get welfare too. And maybe I'm being overly cynical, but I think you're being generous about the cause of entitlement mentality: some non-whites may use reparations as a justification but even if that wasn't available to them they'd come up with any reason to get money out of other people's pockets for nothing.

And if they couldn't think of one, I'm sure the Democrats would feed them one, just like they feed them all their bullshit now because they're too cowardly to admit they purchase votes with our money.

[gainesvilleg]

lmfao first off socialism is much much better then capitalism.capitalism is the cause of all Americas problems.its corrupt,greedy, and is set up to take every cent you make.2nd of course al gore is worth millions,they all are,every last one of them.every person that takes part in the running of America is rich,they right the laws,they make the system and know how to work it.

America has brain washed 99% of its population into thinking socialism,universal health care,unions ect, are bad and that could not be farther from the truth.hell at one point not to long ago,rich fat cats made 10 year old kids work 16 hours days in coal mines for pennies a day,all do to the laws of capitalism.i could go on like this all day,America was founded by rich people wanting to get "richer".so they wrote laws and made the poor fight for them,and that still goes on to this day.its all about $$$$.

Write a book sounds great! Oh yea, Karl Marx already wrote it. Sounds great on paper though!

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

SOCIALISM is an OLD OLD concept that has proved to not work, NOT one single instance of it has worked, not China, Not Russia, Not in Greece, not in France, not in any country.

You can not equalize wealth,

Socialism isn't about making everybody be equally wealthy. It is about not letting the weakest members of society starve and die because they have no means to support themselves. And it does work. Germany is a socialist democracy that is currently keeping financing half of Europe. What doesn't work is incompetence and corruption in government, that is why Spain, Italy, Greece are going down the shitter. Not because of socialism. And guess what, I can think of other countries that have rampant corruption in government and have come close to defaulting recently. You want to guess which they are?

[meathead]

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?

who should earn more?the person cleaning toilets 16 hours a day because he is actually working.unlike the "rich guy" who gets his $ from his rich family.you do know that most wealthy "and im talking about the top% in wealth" do not even work.there $ is old $,and money makes money.so they sit around and get more wealthy.just look at pair hilton,why is she rich and famous?yeah shes hot and all but her $ come from her grandfather,and now that $ gets past down the line.she does nothing to contribute to the success of society.

there was a documentary on HBO a few years back about very rich family's and they kids when they hit 18.like the johnson and johnson family as an example.none of them work at all,their company is run by people they do not know.they sit around and spend $ and travel.one kid asked his dad what should he do with his life and his father answered," get a Hobie,i like to collect old maps".

also one thing about your "playing the market"comment".its not always who plays the market the best.you have to remember the people that make the laws of the land,also made/make the law of the stock market.you do not think they sit back and so all type of shady deals with one another?its the working class who gets screwed over not the rich.

[Rukentuts]

Socialism isn't about making everybody be equally wealthy. It is about not letting the weakest members of society starve and die because they have no means to support themselves. And it does work. Germany is a socialist democracy that is currently keeping financing half of Europe. What doesn't work is incompetence and corruption in government, that is why Spain, Italy, Greece are going down the shitter. Not because of socialism. And guess what, I can think of other countries that have rampant corruption in government and have come close to defaulting recently. You want to guess which they are?

So if society won't let you starve or be homeless, what's the point of working again? Currently the 'poor' in the USA get subsidies for necessities I have to pay full price for, simply because I committed the crime of working. In addition, I have to pay in taxes (25-30% of my income) because I decided to work.

See why so many people are mad about this?

[Alhoon]

The stock market is investing in companies (i.e. giving them your money and hoping they are a success with it).

The stock market is a problematic component because it moves money to people who don't work for the society.

The thing I love about the current economic system is that people whose skills are in demand are paid more. Anyone can "clean toilets", this is why they are paid so little. Not everyone can perform open heart surgery.

Not everyone can do a job that requires certain education, because to apply to that education, you'd need a considerable sum of money to begin with.

Besides, personally I don't have anything wrong with doctors having good salary, because their job really helps people and the society. But again, who earns more, a heart surgeon and a person who fiddles with money? And who should? Who contributes more?

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

So if society won't let you starve or be homeless, what's the point of working again?

To have more than the bare minimum to survive on? To have a nice house, a nice car, to be able to buy nice food more than once a week, to be able to choose the job you have and not have to put up with the part time minimum wage jobs that the job center organizes for you.

[Rukentuts]

To have more than the bare minimum to survive on? To have a nice house, a nice car, to be able to buy nice food more than once a week, to be able to choose the job you are given.

So who is going to pay for all this? I mean supporting the necessities of everyone would be quite a costly venture.

Oh wait, we'll just let those that work pay for their necessities themselves...and pay in taxes to support those that don't want to work.

[Flappy]

"Looters" confiscate others' earnings by force ("at the point of a gun") and include government officials, whose demands are backed by the implicit threat of force. Some officials are merely executing government policy, such as those who confiscate one state's seed grain to feed the starving citizens of another; others are exploiting those policies, such as the railroad regulator who illegally sells the railroad's supplies for his own profit. Both use force to take property from the people who produced or earned it.

"Moochers" demand others' earnings on behalf of the needy and those unable to earn themselves; however, they curse the producers who make that help possible and are jealous and resentful of the talented on whom they depend. They are ultimately as destructive as the looters — destroying the productive through guilt, and appealing to "moral right" while enabling the "lawful" looting performed by governments.

[Rukentuts]

"Moochers" demand others' earnings on behalf of the needy and those unable to earn themselves;

Yea, I'd say only a small percentage is 'unable'. The large portion is just unwilling. It's a helluva lot easier to just sit on their asses and collect unemployment.