• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Socialism Fails

ttwtt78640 said:
That can happen at any level. A good example are the many "safety net" programs (often shared between levels of government) which add public funds to private paychecks allowing the "job creator" to pay only a portion of their employees' income - the rest being added (or made unnecessary) by the government. It's far less expensive (i.e. much more profitable) for a "job creator" to pay a bit more taxes to give some (15%?) of their employees "safety net" subsidies than to pay all of one's employees enough for that not to be deemed necessary.
Click to expand...

Yep. Walmart and some other companies did that on a large scale.

I try to look at it from a pragmatic standpoint. Scaremongering with "socialism" and "central planning" strawmen seems disingenuous to me. I don't think anyone beyond a few freaks at the fringes wants anything but a mixed economy. The makeup of the mix is what we are constantly tweaking.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Once the government (regardless of form or level) gives itself a power then it is extremely unlikely to give it up. We now have a single-payer MIC and public education system - does that really 'control costs' or simply spread them over a larger base of taxpayers and/or public debt?
Click to expand...

Freedom means nothing without power. If I need a new car but I have no money or credit, what good is economic freedom to me? In that case I'd better hope the transit system is good. But wait a minute, transit systems are generally supported by taxpayer dollars to promote a common good that doesn't generate a profit...in other words, SOCIALISM!!
 
Lutherf said:
Two problems with Socialism:

1. It tends to rot from the bottom up. People tend to resist being plugged into one niche or another. They might tolerate it for a while but eventually they want a change and the only way to keep them in their niche is through force. People resist the use of force and things begin to rot from the bottom up as people exercise options outside the system to get what they want.

2. It tends to rot from the top down. Socialism requires ideological purity. That means that people who don't hold to that level of purity impede the goals of the system and must be done away with. Eventually those who resist ideological purity go from being an impediment to the plan to being a threat to the plan. The measures to mitigate that threat then become correspondingly more extreme.
Click to expand...

Excellent description and a very true one. We can see the seeds of demanding ideological purity already in things like adherence to the climate change mantra.
 
Lutherf said:
I suppose it hasn't occurred to you that Democratic Socialism is merely a stepping stone toward Authoritarian Socialism which, ultimately, is a stem toward outright Communism. The state constantly requires more and more authority to implement and ENFORCE their plans for a "better, healthier society".
Click to expand...

Okay, I'll bite.

What democratic socialist domino will go the way of Mao or Stalin next?
 
veritas1 said:
Phys251 showed me a definition of democratic socialism as entailing "social ownership of the means of production". That phrase should send any sane person running for the hills.
Click to expand...

SOSHALIZM IS COMING!! RUN FER YER LIVEZ!!!

 
Mach said:
And what do you think mixed economies means? It includes both.
The U.S. is a success because it's a mixed economy. It includes both.

The idea that wanting mixed markets, as we currently have, is an "overthrow of capitalism", is as dumb as it gets. Do you really mean that?
Click to expand...

The U.S. is not a mixed economy. It is very much Capitalist.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
We now have a single-payer MIC and public education system - does that really 'control costs' or simply spread them over a larger base of taxpayers and/or public debt?
Click to expand...

Both. But as he mentioned, there is a difference between our government controlling something, and an authoritarian regime. And there are countless ways we can institute government control. Social Security for example, seems to deliver what it is designed to deliver, we pay in, we get money out...it's not the end of the world, is it?

Our military doesn't get complaints from the right wing even though its a centrally planned enterprise that also fuels huge segments of private industry with its darling contracts and revolving lobbyist/public service nonsense.
Why is health care...something we all necessary want and need if we're of sound mind, so terrifyingly different? It's not.
 
Mach said:
It's called compassion. I pity the ignorant dumb ****ers in our society that continually make stupid choices based on ignorance and right wing propaganda.
Click to expand...

and I call Bull****. It is NOTHING but class envy. They have been successful, and they make too much money and we plan to redistribute it is all you've said.
 
Mach said:
Who is pushing for the entirety of the U.S. economy to be centrally planned? *crickets*
Click to expand...

Were the idea not appealing to the left, they wouldn't be giving AOC endless time on TV. She's become the face of the Dem party.
 
Phys251 said:
SOSHALIZM IS COMING!! RUN FER YER LIVEZ!!!
Click to expand...

Trivilaizing things doesn't change the dangers of these ideas. Rather than defend them, you attack others. I wonder why that is.
 
smallvoice said:
and I call Bull****. It is NOTHING but class envy. They have been successful, and they make too much money and we plan to redistribute it is all you've said.
Click to expand...

It's not bull****. I have no doubt I make probably 20x what you make, and I want to to see taxes adjusted to be even more progressive than they currently our, to help offset the incredible wage gains the wealthy have seen, vs the stagnant wages the middle class has seen. You think all those wealthy liberals in the cities are voting for liberals because they envy wealthy people living in cities?

Good lord.
 
smallvoice said:
and I call Bull****. It is NOTHING but class envy. They have been successful, and they make too much money and we plan to redistribute it is all you've said.
Click to expand...

I wonder if they are as anxious to redistribute the wealth of Tom Steyer, George Soros and Jeff Bezos.. After all, they are greedy capitalists, too.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Yep. Walmart and some other companies did that on a large scale.

I try to look at it from a pragmatic standpoint. Scaremongering with "socialism" and "central planning" strawmen seems disingenuous to me. I don't think anyone beyond a few freaks at the fringes wants anything but a mixed economy. The makeup of the mix is what we are constantly tweaking.
Click to expand...

The key thing is who is able (empowered?) to do that tweaking. Pretending that choosing among candidates funded (mostly) by the rich and powerful gives 'we the sheeple' the final say, when we may vote for or against at most 3 of the 535 in charge of that tweaking, is just kidding ourselves. Polling indicates very little public satisfaction with the tweaking done by our congress critters yet they enjoy a re-election rate of over 90% - that indicates a major problem, IMHO.
 
Mach said:
It's not bull****. I have no doubt I make probably 20x what you make, and I want to to see taxes adjusted to be even more progressive than they currently our, to help offset the incredible wage gains the wealthy have seen, vs the stagnant wages the middle class has seen. You think all those wealthy liberals in the cities are voting for liberals because they envy wealthy people living in cities?

Good lord.
Click to expand...

Taking money from the top doesn't grow the middle class. Only wealth creation does that and that requires robust capitalism.
 
veritas1 said:
Taking money from the top doesn't grow the middle class. Only wealth creation does that and that requires robust capitalism.
Click to expand...

The ultra-wealthy Republicans and corporations love you fighting for their ever-decreasing taxes, which will downstream be paid more by the middle class. Preach it brother.
If we can just keep middle class wages stagnant, that will grow middle class wages!! Brilliant.
 
Mach said:
It's not bull****. I have no doubt I make probably 20x what you make, and I want to to see taxes adjusted to be even more progressive than they currently our, to help offset the incredible wage gains the wealthy have seen, vs the stagnant wages the middle class has seen. You think all those wealthy liberals in the cities are voting for liberals because they envy wealthy people living in cities?

Good lord.
Click to expand...

Well isn't that high and mighty of you? You 'think' you make 20x what I do (which puts you in the .001 category, which is highly doubtful), yet you want to 'Adjust taxes' to take from those who make much less than you to fund YOUR cockamamie "Slightly Liberal" ideas? GFY, and get your hand out of all of our wallets. Write your own check to the IRS, and put your money where your mouth is. I figure to get you down to me, you'll need to divest yourself of upwards of $80K this year.
 
Mach said:
Both. But as he mentioned, there is a difference between our government controlling something, and an authoritarian regime. And there are countless ways we can institute government control. Social Security for example, seems to deliver what it is designed to deliver, we pay in, we get money out...it's not the end of the world, is it?

Our military doesn't get complaints from the right wing even though its a centrally planned enterprise that also fuels huge segments of private industry with its darling contracts and revolving lobbyist/public service nonsense.
Why is health care...something we all necessary want and need if we're of sound mind, so terrifyingly different? It's not.
Click to expand...

Why do "we" expect that medical care would be more efficiently managed by the federal government than the MIC or public education now is? Pointing out that governments of other countries do a god job should not make us forget what a substandard job our own governments are doing with 'cost control' of things currently under their total control.
 
veritas1 said:
Trivilaizing things doesn't change the dangers of these ideas. Rather than defend them, you attack others. I wonder why that is.
Click to expand...

Everything you have said in this thread is worthy of mocking. Including the above comment. :lol:

If you want that mocking to stop, maybe you could stop inciting it? Maybe you could admit that you were wrong from the get-go and actually educate yourselves on the differences between democratic and authoritarian socialism? You don't need a Ph.D. understanding here. A simple summary that even a child could be expected to understand will do.
 
Jetboogieman said:
I see you're using the Fox News method of dealing with any criticism of the American Capitalist system, which is to shout "Class Warfare".
Click to expand...

No, just observing class envy at its worst.
 
Phys251 said:
Everything you have said in this thread is worthy of mocking. Including the above comment. :lol:

If you want that mocking to stop, maybe you could stop inciting it? Maybe you could admit that you were wrong from the get-go and actually educate yourselves on the differences between democratic and authoritarian socialism? You don't need a Ph.D. understanding here. A simple summary that even a child could be expected to understand will do.
Click to expand...

Ok-- so what does "social ownership of the means of production" mean in actual practice?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom