Objections to Socialism

[Agnapostate]

I'd like to conduct a little experiment here.

State a few.

 

[manifold]

I'll need to know what definition of Socialism you're referring to before I can determine if I have any objections and what they might be.

 

[Agnapostate]

The collective ownership of the means of production.

 

[manifold]

The collective ownership of the means of production.

Who gets to decide how the means are allocated and how the products are distributed?

 

[Zoomie1980]

I'd like to conduct a little experiment here.

State a few.

It's an economic system that runs counter to basic human nature.

 

[Agnapostate]

Who gets to decide how the means are allocated and how the products are distributed?

It depends on the variety of socialism, but in a libertarian setting, it would be through direct democratic governance in community assemblies and workers' councils.

It's an economic system that runs counter to basic human nature.

On what basis do you make this claim? Could you elaborate?

 

[mightypeon]

It may create a "class" of "democratic diceders" that end up actually owning the means of production. If this class of "democratic deciders" is the same as the politicians, we would soon get a dangerous concentration of political and economic power.

 

[Old Rocks]

It may create a "class" of "democratic diceders" that end up actually owning the means of production. If this class of "democratic deciders" is the same as the politicians, we would soon get a dangerous concentration of political and economic power.

Kind of like what we have today.

 

[editec]

I'd like to conduct a little experiment here.

State a few.

Centralized planning of an entire economy generally turns out badly.

If the central planners make a mistake it's often a real disaster.

Capitalist non centralized planning spreads our the investments such that while some things fail, others thrive.

Centralized planning ends up badly for societies for the same reason that huge asset inequities leads to problems for society.

The end game for unregulated capitalism is capital monopoly.

The end game for socialist society is socialist monopoly.

Neither pure capitalism, nor pure socialism are therefore, I think, very good systems.

 

[Old Rocks]

Centralized planning of an entire economy generally turns out badly.

If the central planners make a mistake it's often a real disaster.

Capitalist non centralized planning spreads our the investments such that while some things fail, others thrive.

Centralized planning ends up badly for societies for the same reason that huge asset inequities leads to problems for society.

The end game for unregulated capitalism is capital monopoly.

The end game for socialist society is socialist monopoly.

Neither pure capitalism, nor pure socialism are therefore, I think, very good systems.

LOL. A terrible thing that you suggest there, Editec. Pragmatism does not please either side. Much easier to see all the world in black and white.

 

[editec]

LOL. A terrible thing that you suggest there, Editec. Pragmatism does not please either side. Much easier to see all the world in black and white.

A pox on both their ignorant houses, then, OR.

Idealogues in government have a consistent record for taking an essentially decent idea and then doing it to death.

Thinking that one can decide which system to use, and then sticking to that system even when conditions have changed and that system is now detremental to the people is the hallmark behavior of idealogues of every strip.

The rpoblem of government is BAD government

The problem with capitalism is BAD capitalism.

duh!

 

[Ravi]

Pure socialism could never work. Societies cannot survive without the poor. If everyone was guaranteed an education, food, and shelter, the result would not be a loss of creative motivation, as some people suggest. It would result in no one willing to collect the trash, clean the hotel rooms, or bus the tables. The vast majority of people would pursue more stimulating work.

 

[Care4all]

It's an economic system that runs counter to basic human nature.

basic human nature as in PRIDE, GREED, DESIRE, COVETING thy neighbor's goods?



yeah, you are probably right.....

Care

 

[Care4all]

Pure socialism could never work. Societies cannot survive without the poor. If everyone was guaranteed an education, food, and shelter, the result would not be a loss of creative motivation, as some people suggest. It would result in no one willing to collect the trash, clean the hotel rooms, or bus the tables. The vast majority of people would pursue more stimulating work.

servants will always have work....whether they get paid for being someone's servant is what changes....slaves or not slaves type thing.... imo

 

[midcan5]

If one believes the thinking surrounding the economic milieu we live in, we are already socialists as most of us own stock, which is owning the means of production etc. The 401K has created a new world of ???? I haven't quite figured out a way to describe it? This women is interesting.

401(k) Foe Teresa Ghilarducci, the Most Dangerous Woman in America - Capital Commerce (usnews.com)

add these

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1864139,00.html?iid=fb_share
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2117260/posts

 

[editec]

If one believes the thinking surrounding the economic milieu we live in, we are already socialists as most of us own stock, which is owning the means of production etc. The 401K has created a new world of ???? I haven't quite figured out a way to describe it? This women is interesting.

Socialism isn't workers owning some stock (although damned few of us own enough stock to make much difference to the way things work) socialism is when the people, though their government, control the means of production completely.

 

[LOki]

I'd like to conduct a little experiment here.

State a few.

The principles of socialism are incompatible and repugnant to the Principle of Self Ownership.

 

[Zoomie1980]

It depends on the variety of socialism, but in a libertarian setting, it would be through direct democratic governance in community assemblies and workers' councils.



On what basis do you make this claim? Could you elaborate?

Our basic instinct in self-preservation and self betterment and we expect to be the sole masters of that which we have earned. We are charitable, but we, as individuals make the the decision as to who we give to, how much, and when, not a "committee". We, as a species value the worth of the individual far more than we do the collective. We are not bees in hive. We value the individual records in sports far more than the team records.

Liberalism always believes the false notion that humankind has evolved far more than we actually have. When in times of shortage we will be more than happy to see our fellow man starve and die in order to feed ourselves and our immediate families. We see that behavior in famine prone regions all the time.

There are other major problems with equal outcome based systems. They destroy initiative, incentive, and effort. If I get nothing more for achieving more, I will chose not to bother.

And who decides what the resource distribution is? The "intellectual elite"? "Councils of workers" are a joke because most workers lack the education, intelligence, or training to even remotely understand economic issues on a macro scale.

Socialism doesn't scale at all. It only marginally works in small, ethnically homogenous societies that are already wealthy to begin with as in Denmark, Sweden, Norway and break down in larger more diverse societies with wide ranging social differences and economic ranges (Soviet Union, and now Germany and France).

The REALITY of the human condition and the core of our nature is that at the end of the day, you are entitled to ONLY what you can TAKE and what you can KEEP. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Dr Grump]

Our basic instinct in self-preservation and self betterment and we expect to be the sole masters of that which we have earned. We are charitable, but we, as individuals make the the decision as to who we give to, how much, and when, not a "committee". We, as a species value the worth of the individual far more than we do the collective. We are not bees in hive. We value the individual records in sports far more than the team records.

Liberalism always believes the false notion that humankind has evolved far more than we actually have. When in times of shortage we will be more than happy to see our fellow man starve and die in order to feed ourselves and our immediate families. We see that behavior in famine prone regions all the time.

There are other major problems with equal outcome based systems. They destroy initiative, incentive, and effort. If I get nothing more for achieving more, I will chose not to bother.

And who decides what the resource distribution is? The "intellectual elite"? "Councils of workers" are a joke because most workers lack the education, intelligence, or training to even remotely understand economic issues on a macro scale.

Socialism doesn't scale at all. It only marginally works in small, ethnically homogenous societies that are already wealthy to begin with as in Denmark, Sweden, Norway and break down in larger more diverse societies with wide ranging social differences and economic ranges (Soviet Union, and now Germany and France).

The REALITY of the human condition and the core of our nature is that at the end of the day, you are entitled to ONLY what you can TAKE and what you can KEEP. Nothing more, nothing less.

You first sentence makes sense if it was 10,000BC. We have gone beyond that. Personally, I put team and individual efforts on an equal platform depending on the sport.

Where collectivism loses the way is when liberal zealots start being silly. Bit like conservative zealots who would, given liberty, take, take, take....

I like a mixture of capitalism and liberalism.

Wanna see capitalism unchecked? look at the US economy now. Great advertisement for the folly of pure capitalism and greed..

 

[manifold]

Wanna see capitalism unchecked? look at the US economy now. Great advertisement for the folly of pure capitalism and greed..

Considering the fact that the US economy hasn't been pure capitalism for well over a century, this statement makes you look pretty ignorant.

Just sayin...