• 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:
No it doesn't but I see there's no sense beating a dead horse. The one thing we do not want to move toward is LESS capitalism.
Click to expand...

Do you understand what it means to move toward or away from something? Do you understand why things are the way they are now? The closer you get to laissez faire the more you will experience the problems that came with it that led to where we are today.
 
veritas1 said:
What the hell am I supposed to respond to? Here's your original post to me:

Oh for ****s sake that is the most ignorant thing I have read in some time. Every country on earth engages in some level of “central planning”. Socialism is not defined as “central planning”. Many countries far more socialist than the US are doing quite well with their central planning and have not failed. Learn your ****ing history and what words mean before trying to lecture anyone.

Notice the bolded part. You contradicted yourself by saying that socialism is not defined as central planning and then saying that countries much more socialist than the US are doing well with their central planning. So, which is it?

I was also given a definition of "democratic socialism" by your buddy Phys251 that says it entails "social ownership of the means of production" I asked him to define that and he cannot. I asked you and you cannot. Most all of what you've said to me are personal attacks and the little that has any relevance is convoluted. When you have something substantive, let me know. Defining the above term would be a good start.
Click to expand...

You defined socialism as central planning, not I. I simply extrapolated from there, mentioning that countries that do much more central planning than us are doing just fine, which stands in contrast to your claim in the thread title.
 
Mach said:
Create lasting wealth - whose goal is that? Democrats are typically talking about providing health care and higher incomes via fixing taxes on the ultra-wealthy/corporations, and regulating health insurance/corporations to curb some of the worst results.

How do you know an increase in incomes for the middle class would not result in statically on average higher education and better jobs, leading to more sustainable wealth? You're just parroting right wing nonsense.
You do realize right wing propaganda on this is pushed by the wealthy/corporations, don't you?

What does $1M do for a multi-millionaire? Goes into investments/stocks.
What about $1M spread out over 1000 people? Goes back into the economy which drives business and lets them afford greater quality of life, education, etc. (a better investment in our society).

It's so obvious.
Click to expand...

It's got nothing to do with propaganda. The fact is that the vast majority of people have NO savings. Money given to them will be spent and while that may be good for others, it doesn't build personal wealth for them. I really don't care of we tax the wealthy some more but that is not going to solve the problem. I also wonder what percentage of the tax burden the upper 20% are supposed to carry. It's 87% now. The reason that so many people pay nothing is because they have no wealth or a means or plan of getting any. The only ways to build personal wealth are:

1. Education. You train yourself for a career or, if you already have a job, you strive to move to the next level of whatever it is you do. Take classes and do what's necessary to make yourself more valuable to employers, whether your own or others. Now, while having a job is required for the necessities of life, you cannot build much wealth staying in the same job forever. You also will never do it if you cannot mange to save anything. This is why having a robust business environment is so important. More companies means more jobs, more growth and more opportunities for people to improve their lot.

2. Own a business. Of course, this involves risk and expense but it is the surest way to independence. And it doesn't have to be General Motors, it can be anything, a Taco stand or an internet business, something which puts you in control of your own future rather than having it in the hands of your employers. It's the people who take chances who get the biggest rewards. Sure, not everyone can own a business but it is the surest way to wealth if you manage to do it.

I also cannot emphasize enough that savings are crucial. Without some, you are at the mercy of others at all times as well as one emergency away from disaster. The number of people we have with no savings is startling. It matters little how much money you hand to people if they're simply going to spend it.
 
Redress said:
You defined socialism as central planning, not I. I simply extrapolated from there, mentioning that countries that do much more central planning than us are doing just fine, which stands in contrast to your claim in the thread title.
Click to expand...

And I pointed out two things; first that Sweden, Denmark, Norway, etc. are capitalist countries and that using them as comparisons to the US is like comparing apples to lawnmowers. Secondly, as I said, I was informed that what liberals favor is "democratic socialism" but nobody can define its core tenets. As for central planning, it is a primary characteristic of any socialist system. Without it, you can't have socialism, "democratic" or otherwise.
 
devildavid said:
Do you understand what it means to move toward or away from something? Do you understand why things are the way they are now? The closer you get to laissez faire the more you will experience the problems that came with it that led to where we are today.
Click to expand...

Laissez faire is a museum exhibit now. Talking about it serves no purpose. It also has nothing to do with where we are now. One can create a vibrant and growing capitalist economy without going back to laissez faire. It's silly to suggest otherwise.
 
veritas1 said:
There is no difference other than the name attached to it. Central planning is central planning...
Click to expand...



OK right there you show in a brilliant light that you know absolutely NOTHING about socialism.


You think that a centrally planned economy is a feature of ALL kinds of socialism !


Go away and do some studying before you spout anymore of your nonsense.
 
Rich2018 said:
OK right there you show in a brilliant light that you know absolutely NOTHING about socialism.


You think that a centrally planned economy is a feature of ALL kinds of socialism !


Go away and do some studying before you spout anymore of your nonsense.
Click to expand...

Central planning is a feature of all socialist systems. They may vary in how much they have but it is a necessary component. What do you think Medicare for all or having the government run the energy industry are? It's central planning, plain and simple. Without some type of central planning you cannot have socialism. This requires no studying. It's self evident.
 
Rich2018 said:
I said you know NOTHING about socialism

QED.

Thank you for confirming that in no uncertain terms.
Click to expand...

And none of you guys can tell me what your idea of "democratic socialism" entails. I wonder why that is.
 
veritas1 said:
And none of you guys can tell me what your idea of "democratic socialism" entails. I wonder why that is.
Click to expand...

Universal healthcare and a more progressive tax rate for the rich to reduce the wealth gap. It already exists in most European countries and Canada. And you're already admitted that these are not socialist countries.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
Universal healthcare and a more progressive tax rate for the rich to reduce the wealth gap. It already exists in most European countries and Canada. And you're already admitted that these are not socialist countries.
Click to expand...

Taxing the rich won't reduce the wealth gap. The rich will keep making money and the people without any real wealth will keep spending what they have. As for universal healthcare, it will make our care worse and its cost will be absolutely enormous.
 
veritas1 said:
Taxing the rich won't reduce the wealth gap. The rich will keep making money and the people without any real wealth will keep spending what they have. As for universal healthcare, it will make our care worse and its cost will be absolutely enormous.
Click to expand...

I'm a pragmatist. I believe that ideas need to be tested. Universal healthcare has been tested in Canada and Europe. It's been overwhelmingly successful. None of those countries want to return to our broken system.

I've given you empirical evidence that universal healthcare will make things better. What is the empirical basis for your claim that it will make thing worse?
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
I'm a pragmatist. I believe that ideas need to be tested. Universal healthcare has been tested in Canada and Europe. It's been overwhelmingly successful. None of those countries want to return to our broken system.

I've given you empirical evidence that universal healthcare will make things better. What is the empirical basis for your claim that it will make thing worse?
Click to expand...

I have a very good friend in Canada and he says the system killed his mother. While the doctors and administrators debated whether his own private specialist could be brought in, his mother died. It's fine for the sniffles but don't count on it to save you from anything serious. Would you rather go to a private clinic or the VA? That tells you what you need to know.
 
Mach said:
How do you know we don't need more of it? Or less of it? We needed more of it years back, we've needed more as our economy and knowledge has grown, what magical fairy whispered into your ear this absolutist "we don't need MORE!" nonsense to you? Hannity? Rush? You do know they are rich celebrities as a result of telling you bull**** right?
Click to expand...

I don't believe anyone had to be told that less government is better government. Citizens should have as much freedom in their decision making as possible -- even if those decisions are poor. The government shouldn't be involved in lifestyle choices, picking winners and losers in the economy, or mandating how I spend my money. I can do that on my own. Government should be doing only those things I can't do for myself.
 
dorsai said:
I don't believe anyone had to be told that less government is better government.
Click to expand...
To follow that most stupid of arguments, you'd end with no government...total anarchy. Then some dumb-**** libertarians would create rules, and viola, back to government.

Why are libertarian arguments such simplified baby-like nonsense? Was it that you took Ayn Rand's work as gospel? Rand had some really good work around reason/axioms as related to her "objectivity" notion. But the rest was poorly developed hoo-ha. I've read them all, loved it at the time, but you do realize the extension of it is absurd right? And Ayn thought libertarians were morons?

Citizens should have as much freedom in their decision making as possible -- even if those decisions are poor. The government shouldn't be involved in lifestyle choices, picking winners and losers in the economy, or mandating how I spend my money. I can do that on my own. Government should be doing only those things I can't do for myself.
Click to expand...
blah, blah, blah, ignoring every example of how money and power shape decisions, shape choices, shape outcomes. Just too simple to take seriously.

Government is a tool. That's right dorsai, a ****ing tool. You can build interstate roads connecting a nation for commerce, or you can try to pass laws that put church back into government, and have religion be the law of the land. You can use it for good, and bad, stupid, or smart, freedom, or anti-freedom. As though this has to be explained...to and adult?!? We use government to control our miilitary to protect national security...but it's so evil you can't use it to protect consumers or people from untested medications, or to ensure we have an educated populace who can even understand why you're so wrong?

Good lord.
 
veritas1 said:
I have a very good friend in Canada and he says the system killed his mother. While the doctors and administrators debated whether his own private specialist could be brought in, his mother died. It's fine for the sniffles but don't count on it to save you from anything serious. Would you rather go to a private clinic or the VA? That tells you what you need to know.
Click to expand...

Sounds awful. Should I accept your anecdotal second hand story or the 86% of Canadians? You know how hard it is to get 86% of people to agree about anything?


A new poll conducted by the Toronto-based Nanos Research points to overwhelming support — 86.2 percent — for strengthening public health care rather than expanding for-profit services.

“With more than 8 in 10 Canadians supporting public solutions to make public health care stronger, there is compelling evidence that Canadians across all demographics would prefer a public over a for-profit health care system,” said Nik Nanos, president of Nanos Research.
Click to expand...

New poll shows Canadians overwhelmingly support public health care – Healthcare-NOW!
 
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...

Democratic socialism does not exist. It's a mythical fantasy, which unfortunately many Americans now think is a reality in other countries.

In any kind of socialism, there is no private ownership. You cannot start your own business. That is because all "means of production" must be owned by the "people." And the "people," of course, are the government that the people elected.

Without private ownership and free markets, an economic system cannot function.

Countries so admired by "democratic socialists," such as Sweden, are as capitalist as we are. But they have high taxes and generous social programs. That is not socialism.

Maybe they should find a new name for the Scandinavian economic systems.
 
veritas1 said:
There is no difference other than the name attached to it. Central planning is central planning and the left has become enamored of it to a great degree. This is a discussion of the economics of it. The totalitarianism is a necessary adjunct to force people to comply, whether the plans are failing or not.
Click to expand...

That's correct. Socialism was supposed to be utopia, not a totalitarian nightmare. However, people don't just hand over their businesses and homes and farms to the "people."

But these systems are inherently totalitarian because they require central planning. Central planning DOES NOT WORK. It might seem to work for a while but it eventually fails.

Communist revolutionaries are rich after winning the revolution, because of all the wealth and land they have taken from the former rulers and owners. So that money lets them industrialize and look impressive for a while. But not for very long, because the system inevitably runs down.

This failure has happened in every socialist/communist attempt so far.
 
Phys251 said:
And there it is. A point-blank admission that you have no clue what you're talking about.

Let me help you. There is a massive difference between the authoritarian socialism of the USSR and China (which has become more capitalist) and the democratic socialism of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, etc. Notice how the article completely left out any mention of the latter examples? It's as if you and the article writer don't want us to experience more wealth parity, less poverty, more education parity, a greener economy, a healthcare system that doesn't bankrupt people when they get sick, and other such horrible things. Makes one wonder why you don't want that.
Click to expand...

Norway, Sweden, Denmark, etc., are wealthy capitalist countries. They were able to provide for their citizens because of their wealth, which came from capitalism.
 
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...

Prosperity depends on private business. There must be regulations, but they should not strangle business. There has to be a balance.

It is not one way or the opposite. Isn't this obvious?
 
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...

The USSR was a Communist dictatorship which is hardly an example of socialist ideology. Socialism is like Social Security and Medicare, 2 of the most successful and popular programs in our Govt. and we will NEVER let them "fail".
 
Phys251 said:
:lamo

Democratic socialism - Wikipedia

Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production[1] with an emphasis on self-management and democratic management of economic institutions within a market or some form of decentralized planned socialist economy.[2]​

Like I said. No clue from you. :lol:
Click to expand...

You cannot have political democracy with social ownership of the means of production. If people cannot own businesses, farms, shops, etc., there can be no democracy. If the central government owns everything, it has all the power. It does not have to represent or care about the people.

If government is not balanced by private enterprises, then the government does whatever it wants.


And that whole "means of production" idea comes from early capitalism, referring mostly to factories.

What if your "means of production" is your computer? You would not be allowed to own it. What can possibly be meant by "means of production" now anyway? Is a restaurant a means of production? Would you be allowed to own one in a socialist system? What if anything would you be allowed to own?

People are satisfied with such confusing definitions of socialism. It is frightening. Because we could end up in the same horrific socialist nightmare all over again. Having learned nothing at all from the past.
 
Last edited:
Good4Nothin said:
Norway, Sweden, Denmark, etc., are wealthy capitalist countries. They were able to provide for their citizens because of their wealth, which came from capitalism.
Click to expand...

And the way they provide for their citizens is socialism. It is not mutually exclusive of capitalism. They actually fit quite well together with one mitigating the others major faults.
 
Good4Nothin said:
Prosperity depends on private business. There must be regulations, but they should not strangle business. There has to be a balance.

It is not one way or the opposite. Isn't this obvious?
Click to expand...

I think that’s a perfectly reasonable position.

But Republicans, bought and paid for by the corporations use the battle cry of “deregulation” in order to allow the worst excesses capitalism has to offer and it actively harms their constituents who seem blissfully unaware they’re being had.

That isn’t to say democrats don’t have their fair share of misgivings in this area, but Republicans take it to the next level.
 
iguanaman said:
And the way they provide for their citizens is socialism. It is not mutually exclusive of capitalism. They actually fit quite well together with one mitigating the others major faults.
Click to expand...

All of the advanced societies have economic systems that combine capitalism with social programs. That is not socialism. It is called a mixed economy.

Socialism is defined as an economic system where there is no private ownership. Everything is owned and controlled by the "people," and that means the central government.

Socialism has never worked, has always resulted in poverty and tyranny and corruption, and mass murder.

A society that has social security and medicare, etc., is NOT socialist if people are allowed to own anything.

When people are not allowed to own anything, and the central government owns everything, the people become slaves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom