• 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

veritas1 said:
A good article detailing why the Soviet system failed and why any similar system will fail. As he says, the problem isn't the jockey but the horse.



Why Socialism Fails | Hoover Institution
Click to expand...

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.
 
Phys251 said:
Repeating your same lies over and over again does not make then true. You have no clue what the hell you're talking about, you certainly don't even know what democratic socialism is despite a definition being clearly provided for you so that you could read it. Maybe reading comprehension is where you struggle the most?
Click to expand...

What was it that Reagan said? Something like--
A socialist is a person who reads Marx.
A communist is a person who understands Marx.
This is what is happening here.

For example, what does "social ownership" of the means of production actually mean in practice?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Mixed economies appear to work best. One fault of that mix to beware of is socializing costs while privatizing profits (which is often called 'crony capitalism').
Click to expand...

Gorbachev failed because he went straight to crony-capitalism. Oligarch Rule.
 
Phys251 said:
Could the article be any more obvious that it doesn't have the slightest clue about the difference between authoritarian socialism and democratic socialism? This isn't rocket science. This is a distinction that a child can learn.
Click to expand...

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".
 
Phys251 said:
Repeating your same lies over and over again does not make then true. You have no clue what the hell you're talking about, you certainly don't even know what democratic socialism is despite a definition being clearly provided for you so that you could read it. Maybe reading comprehension is where you struggle the most?
Click to expand...

What the hell do you think "social ownership of the means of production" means? If there is social ownership then there is NOT private ownership and if there is no private ownership, there is no capitalism. So, as I stated, you favor the overthrow of capitalism. No thanks.
 
veritas1 said:
Norway, Sweden and Denmark are capitalist countries despite what the left says. .
Click to expand...

Just like the U.S., they are mixed economies. And their government is quite different too. Nothing like what you're claiming.
 
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...

Exactly. Anyone with even the thinnest knowledge of history would understand this. Now we can see the fruits of the left having run the education system for 60 years.
 
veritas1 said:
The alternatives are not better. The answer isn't to scrap capitalism but to unleash it to its full potential. If government has gotten involved to "rig" it, why would we want them even more involved, regardless of what you want to call it?
Click to expand...

The involvement of the government has come largely at the behest of the masters of capital. One big example: Notice who got bailed out when the house of cards came down in 2009? The same clowns that put the house up. Who got blamed? Mostly little guys. What made that mess possible were a bunch of rule tweaks requested by big banking firms like AIG and Goldman. That wasn't a right/left thing. It started under Reagan and steadily grew 'til it broke.
 
veritas1 said:
So, you think the government should run the entire healthcare system? How about the energy industry? Once they get those, where will it stop?
Click to expand...
What do these irrelevant questions have to do with the bull**** article and your incorrect characterization of economies around the world?

History should tell you. BTW, Hannity and Rush are rich for the same reason that liberals with TV shows are rich, which is that they live in a free market capitalist system. What we need is MORE capitalism, more freedom, more businesses, more commerce, and more wealth creation because by doing that, you lift up the greatest number. Only a wealthy country can help its poor citizens. A poor one cannot and socialism will inevitably lead to making us poorer.
Click to expand...

What does this nutter nonsense have to do with your weak article, and non-defense of it? Just more dodging? More freedom, lol, more capitalism...oh brother.
 
Lutherf said:
I suppose it hasn't occurred to you that Democratic Socialism is merely a stepping stone toward Authoritarian Socialism
Click to expand...
So Sweden is about to literally become Communist! The sky is falling! :lamo
 
Mach said:
Just like the U.S., they are mixed economies. And their government is quite different too. Nothing like what you're claiming.
Click to expand...

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.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
At what level does it become "central planning"?

Country? State? City? Street? Household? "central planning" is a strawman.
Click to expand...

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.
 
veritas1 said:
What the hell do you think "social ownership of the means of production" means? If there is social ownership then there is NOT private ownership and if there is no private ownership, there is no capitalism. So, as I stated, you favor the overthrow of capitalism. No thanks.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Mach said:
What do these irrelevant questions have to do with the bull**** article and your incorrect characterization of economies around the world?



What does this nutter nonsense have to do with your weak article, and non-defense of it? Just more dodging? More freedom, lol, more capitalism...oh brother.
Click to expand...

My comments had to do with the failures of central planning. It was others who started bringing up other economies. Oh, and it was you who brought up irrelevant nonsense like Rush and Hannity. Then you get upset because I respond to it. I'm dodging nothing. The facts are simple. Centrally planned economies fail and they fail disastrously. So, why would anyone want them?
 
Phys251 said:
Could the article be any more obvious that it doesn't have the slightest clue about the difference between authoritarian socialism and democratic socialism? This isn't rocket science. This is a distinction that a child can learn.
Click to expand...

There is no difference in Nanny States.
 
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...

It's more accurate what Thatcher said-- The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
 
veritas1 said:
My comments had to do with the failures of central planning. It was others who started bringing up other economies. Oh, and it was you who brought up irrelevant nonsense like Rush and Hannity. Then you get upset because I respond to it. I'm dodging nothing. The facts are simple. Centrally planned economies fail and they fail disastrously. So, why would anyone want them?
Click to expand...

Who is pushing for the entirety of the U.S. economy to be centrally planned? *crickets*
 
Jetboogieman said:
Its propaganda for people who think giving corporations a blank cheque to pollute, to screw over consumers and in the case of healthcare to provide as little care as possible for the highest price = Freedom.

All so stockholders and fat cats get whats theirs.

Republican voters have been brainwashed into believing that "pro-business" in the Republican context will lead them to prosperity, but all it is, the blank cheque of "deregulation" actually ends up hurting them in the end and they'll never realize it.

Meanwhile the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Click to expand...

Do I detect class envy?
 
Phys251 said:
So Sweden is about to literally become Communist! The sky is falling! :lamo
Click to expand...

Only so much slippery slope fallacy one can take in the morning, it's just too much this thread.
 
Last edited:
Phys251 said:
Could the article be any more obvious that it doesn't have the slightest clue about the difference between authoritarian socialism and democratic socialism? This isn't rocket science. This is a distinction that a child can learn.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Mach said:
You guys and your fake news, fake information, fake debating, fake absolutist bull****. When will it end?
Click to expand...

Nothing fake from us, but "it will stop" when you folks stop trying to take us left.
 
smallvoice said:
Do I detect class envy?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

You aren't addressing what I posted. Social ownership of the means of production is a loaded phrase. It means no private ownership of just about everything. Government has a role to play in a capitalist system as when they broke up the railroad, oil and steel monopolies but they should NEVER own the means of production.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom