Objections to Socialism

[Hum Dinger]

Although I do not remember the source, a good example of why socialism is a bad idea is that it only works as long as you can spend other peoples money, and when other peoples money runs out socialism fails.

That's a pretty weird statement. In a socialist society, everyone works so wealth is constantly generated by everyone. The wealth is distributed evenly. In a capitalist society, the people who are the most productive get only a tiny percentage of the wealth, while a tiny minoruty of unproductive people get the majority.

For example, the CEO of Goldman-Sachs recieved a 70 million dollar Christmas bonus. Do you really believe that he did that much productive work?

Your mixing up the concept of socialism with the American welfare state. The two are not related.

 

[Bern80]

Zoomie1980: “It's an economic system that runs counter to basic human nature.“

You voice a common fallacy Zoomie1980“. Basic Human nature is not all about selfishness and greed, deception and aggression, (The fundamental prerequisites of the Capitalist system.) Humans are social creatures by necessity. Those qualities however are detrimental to social cohesion, as is abundantly and clearly visible in the collapsing societies of bourgeois dictatorships around the World, including the U.K. and U.S.A.



Some may recognise the New Testament Biblical passage about the sower, from
Matthew 13:



1"The same day went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the sea side.
2And great multitudes were gathered together unto him, so that he went into a ship, and sat; and the whole multitude stood on the shore.
3And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;
4And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:
5Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:
6And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.
7And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:
8But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold. "

what this parable explicates is the effects an objective structure has on the emergent peoples within. All the corruption which is redolent in the primitive Capitalist system (the greed, the individualistic, self centred culture; the violent scramble for wealth, the exploitation and the coercion etc. is now transferred into the Human beings that develop inside it.

Any social system thereby defines the predominant behavioural qualities of a people.

It is not ‘human nature’ but ‘human nature under the conditions of a retarded socio-economic system’ which you observe Zoomie1980

It is you that is posting the fallacy for the cowardly attempt at making it convenient for your argument. Just because one states socialism goes against human nature does not mean they are stating human nature is to be greedy or selfish.

 

[Oddball]

In a socialist society, everyone works so wealth is constantly generated by everyone.

At gunpoint and behind barbed wire fences, if necessary.

The wealth is distributed evenly.

Here's where the socialist shows his rank ignorance....Wealth is EARNED, not distributed.

 

[Quatermass]

Dude... In response to your comment:

Riiiiiight.

And the less-than-upright human traits of selfishness and greed, deception and aggression would never ever apply to the socialist elites charged with herding the proletariat in the '"right direction"!!!

While any individual could be corrupted in any given social system, the Capitalist structure is 'intrinsically' corrupt and hierarchical. It is 'intrinsically' based around the employment of deception for reward, and on the premise of endless accumulation for a select group or individual. It is 'Intrinsically' and quite necessarily aggressive defending that group which enjoys this privilege, by any means possible.

History is essentially a mosaic of one ruling elite defending its ill gotten loot, with bodies of armed men not only against the expropriated hordes but against rival ruling elites, even in foreign nations.

This web site displays most saliently the pathetic mentality of the proletariat from America, their fundamental lack of class consciousness, their backward attitude in the political arena and their fundamentally amoral approach to every subject matter. No doubt this dismal situation is a result of such a powerful ruling class; unfettered by challenge, free to embark on an unbridled crusade of indoctrination.

Its apparent Dude, from your cynical tolerance of your innately iniquitous capitalist infrastructure that you don't object to these qualities being perpetuated in social relations, as long as somewhere, sometime, the ‘American Dream’; that capitalistic opportunity, may open itself to you, and one day you'll end up with big enough a portion of loot to escape the rat race. In the best traditions of individualism.

A common enough delusion.

 

[Oddball]

bullshit

lie

fake

pretend

blabber

condescend

No system created by imperfect men is any more or less intrinsically corrupt than the intrinsically imperfect humans who create them.

Your willingly obfuscational biullshit cannot change that.

You are an overlty malicious fraud, hiding behind excess verbocity.

Translation: BULLSHIT!!

 

[Quatermass]

By Bern80: It is you that is posting the fallacy for the cowardly attempt at making it convenient for your argument. Just because one states socialism goes against human nature does not mean they are stating human nature is to be greedy or selfish.

Bern80... I haven’t claimed Zoomie did state Socialism was contrary to human nature. It’s obvious however that is his stance. read Zoomie's posts in this debate. He / she is a self proclaimed parasite, thriving shamelessly from others misery through homelessness, and a supporter of social Darwinism:


Quotes by Zoomie:
post#29
"That's why I lurk around, waiting for $150,000 homes to go into foreclosure so I can scoop them up for $75,000 and rent them for $800/mo, sometimes back to the original owners! and then wait for the market to turn and sell them all for $150,000...... Social Darwinism in action!"
post#18
"Our basic instinct in self-preservation and self betterment and we expect to be the sole masters of that which we have earned."
&
"We, as a species value the worth of the individual far more than we do the collective."
&
"in times of shortage we will be more than happy to see our fellow man starve and die in order to feed ourselves"
post#58
"We are still selfish, self-preservationist beings at the core."

I could go on ad infinitum introducing you to contradictions of your comment Bern80, but that would be pointless. What is interesting though, is that when faced with a critique against the whole fundamental premiss of the capitalist system, you can only proffer weakling support for an insignificant commentator on the message board.

 

[Oddball]

Face it. Quatermasshole...You're an elitist asshole whose arguments naturally implode on themselves.

You've been smoked out...By nobody more than a middle class stoner like me.

Maybe you'll have better luck in Cuba.

 

[editec]

Trying to discuss socialism with many here is like trying to discuss archetecture with pigs.

 

[LOki]

Basic Human nature is not all about selfishness and greed, deception and aggression, . . .

But socialism is.

(The fundamental prerequisites of the Capitalist system.)

You voice a common lie regarding capitalism. Rational self-interest and the liberty to persue it are the fundamental prerequisites of the capitalist system. Selfishness and greed, insofar as they are not rational, have no real value in a capitalist system; and deception and aggression are fundamentally antithetical to capitalism (while being absloutely neccessary for socialism).

 

[LOki]

Although I do not remember the source, a good example of why socialism is a bad idea is that it only works as long as you can spend other peoples money, and when other peoples money runs out socialism fails.

That's a pretty weird statement. In a socialist society, everyone works so wealth is constantly generated by everyone.

Work does not equal wealth generation--it may be a means to wealth generation, but it's just not the same thing.

Example: Thieves often work very hard and take enormous risk for the money they steal; yet no matterh ow much they steal, no matter the means by which they steal it, they create no wealth what-so-ever.

The wealth is distributed evenly.

Hence, under socialism, it's distributed unjustly.

In a capitalist society, the people who are the most productive get only a tiny percentage of the wealth, . . .

Untrue.

. . . while a tiny minoruty of unproductive people get the majority.

Again, untrue.

For example, the CEO of Goldman-Sachs recieved a 70 million dollar Christmas bonus. Do you really believe that he did that much productive work?

Someone thinks so, is the point. If someone else can offer the same value to Goldman-Sachs for less, then Goldman-Sachs should be paying someone else less.

But I suspect that this is not the case.

Your mixing up the concept of socialism with the American welfare state. The two are not related.

Socialism and the American welfare state are entirely consitent with each other--socialism is by definition, and in actual practice, welfare statism.

 

[Agnapostate]

I might have time to deal with this drivel later in the day, but I'll at least address one absurd inaccuracy right now.

Socialism and the American welfare state are entirely consitent with each other--socialism is by definition, and in actual practice, welfare statism.

This is flagrantly inaccurate. Socialism necessitates the collective ownership of the means of production. Welfare state policies and related public good provisions facilitate macroeconomic stabilization and ensure the physical efficiency of the working class, and are thus more strongly opposed to socialism than more rightist policies are, since they're able to sustain the economic order that involves the private ownership of the means of production.

 

[editec]

Ag, you're posting in a place where self-proclaiming self-made multimillionaires have plenty of time to explain to us foolish people how foolish we are.

A place where people who lived in the military (the least free existance in America) are the only people who understand freedom.

A place where people whose paychecks come from the government are the only people who understand the economics of capitalism, too.

And you wonder why your posts aren't understood?!

Drunk drivers have the right of way on this highway, man.

 

[Oddball]

Trying to discuss socialism with many here is like trying to discuss archetecture with pigs.

More self-congratulation....How delightfully haughty and snobbish.

Now, professor, why don't you 'splain to us all why it is that socialists always exclude themselves from possessing the human frailties -like greed, envy, avarice- that they project upon everyone else who isn't a socialist??

 

[Bern80]

While any individual could be corrupted in any given social system, the Capitalist structure is 'intrinsically' corrupt and hierarchical. It is 'intrinsically' based around the employment of deception for reward, and on the premise of endless accumulation for a select group or individual. It is 'Intrinsically' and quite necessarily aggressive defending that group which enjoys this privilege, by any means possible.

WRONG. Those are possible deception is a tool that can be used in a capitilistic structure (as it could in socialism btw) but it is not intrinsic to capitalism. Capitalism is competition, that's it, and I don't need to deceive you to beat you.

Its apparent Dude, from your cynical tolerance of your innately iniquitous capitalist infrastructure that you don't object to these qualities being perpetuated in social relations, as long as somewhere, sometime, the ‘American Dream’; that capitalistic opportunity, may open itself to you, and one day you'll end up with big enough a portion of loot to escape the rat race. In the best traditions of individualism.

A common enough delusion.

Proponents of capitilism have a problem with people thinking they are entitled to something for nothing. THAT is what socialism fosters. The human nature aspect at work is really that people want to see tangible degrees of benefit for very degrees of effort. If I work harder than I worked before I should be rewarded more. Simple concept. That doesn't happen in socialism. Your effort is irrelevant. You will always get what some bereacracy has arbitrarily defined as your share regardless of the effort you put forth. Thus what is the point in working harder, if there is no more benefit to show for it? Most people aren't stupid and get this fairly fundamental concept, so they stop working harder and your left a simply medicore society because you are too afraid to take responsibility for your outcomes.

 

[Bern80]

Trying to discuss socialism with many here is like trying to discuss archetecture with pigs.

As I've said before everyone pretty much unserstands what one means when they say socialism. But to appease your anal retentativness, let's use the 'real' defintion.

Now, why do you see governemnt (especially ours) owning the means of production and distribution as a better alternative than capitilism?