Why Socialism Failed

[Jadow]

This is a huge article, so I'm just posting the first section. If you aren't familiar with the works of Mises, Hayek, or Rothbard, you should be.

I am very familiar with the work of Misses Hayak.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v234/...12/ta14/salmab06a52215b74b0abf1c9f.gif


here is more of her work http://img18.imagevenue.com/img.php?ima...ayek_UBPressConference06_122_497lo.jpg

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: BrownTown

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit


Heh, for a failed ideology there sure seems to be a lot of people in this country scared to death of it.

Well, we'll all get to see just how bad socialism can be if Hillary Clinton gets elected president and the Democrats are willing to back her healthcare policies.

Any health care is better then no health care and that's the way the industry is headed unless something changes.

 

[Enig101]

Capitalism may be stronger than socialism, but does that make it better? I have little interest in economics on anything other than a personal scale, but socialism always seemed more compassionate to me. Obviously there are shortcomings with regard to human greed, but it's a question of weighing the pros and the cons.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Socialism is a broad ideology but that doesn't justify what it advocates. The goal of socialist ideals is to help those in need and there's nothing wrong with that. I take issue with how people are 'helped'.

Take an example of a poor man on the street; if he begs and one day makes $100, the incentive is to go back to the same spot everyday in hopes for a similar result. These are the wrong incentives for a nation to give, let alone create massive state run programs with similar effects.

Similarly when I pay over half my wages in taxes, and my money is donated to those in need (social programs) there is a disincentive to donate to private charity or volunteer. This is why you see the most tax independent nations with the highest charitable donation rate; Canada and Europe are taxed much more and donate far less than the US. The same thing with retirement and healthcare; people are less likely to take care of themselves and save for retirement if they think the nanny state will look after them or they will be entitled to stop working just because.

The culture of entitlement is largely what is wrong with the socialist view. Mind you...it's also what is wrong with stuck up rich kids (OP sounds like one)...

1) Is the rate of Private Donations and/or Volunteerism really a comparable statistic amongst the Societies you mention? What about the Result, aka how many helped, compared between the Higher Private involvement system and the Higher Public involvement system?

The problem with primarily relying on Private Charity is that there are great inconsistencies between Charities and between Locales. IOW, you can have very effective charities, but you can also have very ineffective(even Fraudulent) Charities. You can also have Geographical Areas where Private Charity doesn't cover or covers far less than in other Geographical Areas(somewhat true in Public Charity as well). It also suffers from inconsistent Funding as those who give may not consistently support any given Charity.

Public Charity exists due to the past failure of Private Charity to deal with major issues. Public Charity is much better at providing consistency and always be sufficiently Funded(and often more Efficient with the Funds received).

2) Whenever Healthcare is discussed and Health Demographics get thrown into the Discussion, those with the less Public Healthcare system begin arguing that the people in their(US) Society don't care about their Health as much and is the reason for that Demographic difference. So I think some kind of Proof of "not caring for themselves" is required before you can make the claim you have.

 

[zephyrprime]

You guys areguing about the definition of socialism are just arguing semantics. It's easy to understand how people can get confused by the exact meaning of the words "socialism" and "communism" because their definitions have changed with the times so I don't think anyone should be dissing the other for failing to use a particular definition.

I will add my own explantion of the terms to help people out:

Communism (original meaning) : everyone lives on communes. No private property.
Communism (marx era meaning) : everyone lives on communes or in industrial collectives. Owners own the means of production. Private property of only little things. Very minimal government.
Communism (modern meaning) : Whatever the USSR is, that's communist. Never mind that the acronyn USSR expands into united soviet SOCIALIST republic. This meaning of the word communism is basically just a mistake. The Soviets thought that they would be able attain true communism by passing through socialism first (as per Marx's suggestion) but that never happened.

Socialism (original meaning) : Communism
Socialism (marx era) : Central planning. Government controls what jub you have, where you work, etc.
Socialism (nowadays): Lots of welfare. In the modern down world, socialism just means wealth redistribution in particular ways. Basically, just a really watered down form of marx era socialism

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
You guys areguing about the definition of socialism are just arguing semantics. It's easy to understand how people can get confused by the exact meaning of the words "socialism" and "communism" because their definitions have changed with the times so I don't think anyone should be dissing the other for failing to use a particular definition.

I will add my own explantion of the terms to help people out:

Communism (original meaning) : everyone lives on communes. No private property.
Communism (marx era meaning) : everyone lives on communes or in industrial collectives. Owners own the means of production. Private property of only little things. Very minimal government.
Communism (modern meaning) : Whatever the USSR is, that's communist. Never mind that the acronyn USSR expands into united soviet SOCIALIST republic. This meaning of the word communism is basically just a mistake. The Soviets thought that they would be able attain true communism by passing through socialism first (as per Marx's suggestion) but that never happened.

Socialism (original meaning) : Communism
Socialism (marx era) : Central planning. Government controls what jub you have, where you work, etc.
Socialism (nowadays): Lots of welfare. In the modern down world, socialism just means wealth redistribution in particular ways. Basically, just a really watered down form of marx era socialism

Pretty much agree.

What I hate, as mentioned in my first post, is that some people use the same term, but at the same time use whatever definition they feel like at the particular time using that word. 1 person is using 1 definition, the other a different definition. Next convo they both are using even other(that they didn't use previously) definitions. While others see the word "Socialist" and always think of a particular definition that everyone is against, but they are aghast.

It's so confusing and frustrating.

 

[Stunt]

In my opinion private charity is far more effective than public charity as the private charities are devoted to a cause and money tends to go directly to those in need. Public charity full of overpaid beurocrats with no incentive and tend to give cash handouts instead of personal assistance. Before you start making claims of efficiency and helping those in need; do you actually think all our social programs (account for half of gdp) is making less people poor year after year? How many less people are in poverty because of our public institutions? Some data on this would be extremely interesting.

I can admit my healthcare point was weak and difficult to prove, but the retirement issue remains strong and many people will rely on CPP and OAS assuming this will be enough to live on for the rest of their lives. Retirement is not an entitlement but a goal and these types of social programs are a huge disincentive.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeh, I'm sure, that by now the nordic countries look like Mogadishu, given that their system has "failed"....

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: Jadow
This is a huge article, so I'm just posting the first section. If you aren't familiar with the works of Mises, Hayek, or Rothbard, you should be.

I am very familiar with the work of Misses Hayak.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v234/...12/ta14/salmab06a52215b74b0abf1c9f.gif


here is more of her work http://img18.imagevenue.com/img.php?ima...ayek_UBPressConference06_122_497lo.jpg

That has to be the longest animated gif in history.

 

[IronWing]

I thought socialism failed because it has been relentlessly attacked by capitalists every time it has attempted. See the Pinochet thread for one example.

 

[Rainsford]

I'm not saying I support "socialism", but I find something slightly flawed about the logic against it presented in this thread.

For one thing, arguing that socialism is "failed" and citing Eastern European countries as an example is hardly conclusive evidence, many Eastern European countries are doing no better with capitalism, and if Russia can't manage either capitalism and democracy, how can they be used as a benchmark for socialism?

Secondly, socialism is not an on/off thing, there are obviously degrees, and I don't think an argument against taking it to the extremes is an argument against all possible socialist ideas. Would an effective argument against capitalism assume a system with NO controls at all? Stunt (correctly, IMHO) argues that handouts are an example of why socialism is bad, but programs that take that money and use it to provide job training are arguably much better, but I wouldn't say they are less socialist.

But the real problem is that arguments of capitalism vs socialism always tend to assume that the goal is economic prosperity for the individual. While I'd argue that this is a fine motivation, and one I share, I don't think you can judge socialism on those terms...it doesn't claim to do that.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think when the Buddha died he left a rice bowl. I doubt Jesus had even that. It doesn't take much to have everything and cause capitalism to collapse.

Capitalism is need conditioning which puts your nose to the wheel. Somebody once said, tune in, turn on, drop out. That sure got snuffed fast.

 

[MAW1082]

If it is the distinction between socialism and capitalism that determines whether or not a country's people are prosperous and free, why then are so many capitalist country's people also impoverished and shackled.

 

[Jadow]

one thing to consider, all the socialist contries in Europe can afford to have all these programs, because their freedom is defended by the US Armed Forces, who is paid for by the US Taxpayer.

Basically, the US Taxpayer has to pay for world stability and freedom.

We should start charging a peace fee to every nation we protect.

If they don't pay, then we will not intervene if someone punks their a55. I have a feeling all the countries around Germany would pay the fee!

 

[MAW1082]

Originally posted by: Jadow
one thing to consider, all the socialist contries in Europe can afford to have all these programs, because their freedom is defended by the US Armed Forces, who is paid for by the US Taxpayer.

Basically, the US Taxpayer has to pay for world stability and freedom.

We should start charging a peace fee to every nation we protect.

If they don't pay, then we will not intervene if someone punks their a55. I have a feeling all the countries around Germany would pay the fee!

Yeah, I agree.

BILL TO IRAQ - XXXX Billion - Immediately
A collection agency will be contacting you immediately. Failure to pay will result in prosecution.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Jadow
one thing to consider, all the socialist contries in Europe can afford to have all these programs, because their freedom is defended by the US Armed Forces, who is paid for by the US Taxpayer.

Basically, the US Taxpayer has to pay for world stability and freedom.

We should start charging a peace fee to every nation we protect.

If they don't pay, then we will not intervene if someone punks their a55. I have a feeling all the countries around Germany would pay the fee!

That's just stupid. The various European countries are STILL among the top military spenders in the world, and who exactly are we "protecting" them from at this point anyways?

 

[Jadow]

China

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Jadow
China

China is going to invade Europe? I'm sure that's news to both sides. Not only does China NOT have the capability to face off against the entire European Union, but a quick look at a map will tell you that China is not exactly a next-door neighbor, they would need substantial mechanization that they don't have to even ATTEMPT such a campaign.

 

[Jadow]

If I was in charge of China, I would find a way to invade europe.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Enig101
Capitalism may be stronger than socialism, but does that make it better? I have little interest in economics on anything other than a personal scale, but socialism always seemed more compassionate to me. Obviously there are shortcomings with regard to human greed, but it's a question of weighing the pros and the cons.

Yes, btw there is nothing compassionate about forcing people to toil for the state

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Enig101
Capitalism may be stronger than socialism, but does that make it better? I have little interest in economics on anything other than a personal scale, but socialism always seemed more compassionate to me. Obviously there are shortcomings with regard to human greed, but it's a question of weighing the pros and the cons.

Yes, btw there is nothing compassionate about forcing people to toil for the state

Much better to toil for the rich.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Enig101
Capitalism may be stronger than socialism, but does that make it better? I have little interest in economics on anything other than a personal scale, but socialism always seemed more compassionate to me. Obviously there are shortcomings with regard to human greed, but it's a question of weighing the pros and the cons.

Yes, btw there is nothing compassionate about forcing people to toil for the state

Much better to toil for the rich.

You have a choice to toil in a free market capital system. Not so under the banner of socialism.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Enig101
Capitalism may be stronger than socialism, but does that make it better? I have little interest in economics on anything other than a personal scale, but socialism always seemed more compassionate to me. Obviously there are shortcomings with regard to human greed, but it's a question of weighing the pros and the cons.

Yes, btw there is nothing compassionate about forcing people to toil for the state

Much better to toil for the rich.

You have a choice to toil in a free market capital system. Not so under the banner of socialism.

In the Free Market Capital systems we have, yes. In a pure version, not necessarily, aka we haven't tried to find out.

 

[Blackjack2000]

Originally posted by: Genx87

You have a choice to toil in a free market capital system. Not so under the banner of socialism.

Oh really? What choice does a laborer have in capitalism? You can toil for the rich or you can starve. Only the most cynical observer would call that a choice.

It requires willfull ignorance to not see what is happening to labor in this country, with the two tiered economy that has emerged.

Note that successful industries in the United States are government planned industries: Pharmaceutical (goverment grants for basic research)
Technology (military spending)
Agriculture (farm subsidies)

Also, whoever gave the examples of Cuba, North Korea, and Vietnam should win some sort of prize for rediculous reasoning. Those are three countries almost completely destroyed by the United States economically, militarily, or both. The scale of destruction in Vietnam alone is incredible.

The healthcare question is a joke. We would spend less on healthcare if it was nationalized. The 10-15% overhead that insurance companies cost us would be gone. Basically everyone wants it (including businesses) except for the powerfull insurance industry.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Socialism failed? Hmm, that's funny, why is it that the socialist countries have the highest standards of living and some of the best health care, and keep out of needless wars.

I think you are mistaking socialism with communism, but then if you are going to be so liberal in throwing that term around communist china owns our ass, so you would be wrong again.

Cube, N korea, Vietnam have high standards of living?
Oh you mean the Mixed economies of Western Europe? That is now your example of socialism working?

kk

The Scandinavian countries(Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland) have high standards of living.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_development_index
Norway, Sweden, and even Canada are rated higher on the Human Development Index.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/docs/rankorderguide.html
You can also look up information at the CIA World Factbook about these countries.

Norway: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/no.html
Sweden: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sw.html