Why Socialism (and Communism) Fails and why our society is being destroyed

[Shredderbeam]

Elements of socialism create a better society.
Im an activist for a political party and we have the ideology of Nationalism. We wish to be removed from a Unino that we never wanted to be a party of. The far left is extremely in favour of this idea - and so are ourselv es who are centre-left. I will never vote for any party claiming to be any way towards the right because they are after a preseving nationalism of another country - to support the union. Every single one of them will not help my country. They will do their best to help a country south of our border

This is part of the reason I am for a social democratic party

1). What elements of socialism create a better society?
2). Even if elements of socialism did create a better society, you're presuming that individuals are morally responsible for doing everything they can to make society better (even at a cost to themselves) as long as the overall benefit goes up. Why do you presume that? What objective moral code do you have to say that individuals are morally responsible for each other?

 

[Memos]

I think it's better to take aspects from different philosophies, as most of them don't work alone.

 

[wowhamba]

I think it's better to take aspects from different philosophies, as most of them don't work alone.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/middle-ground.html

 

[Petethemerch]

I am middle class and strongly beleive in conservative views, the UK is way overtaxed also.. 40% tax when you over 60k per annum, and i dont get any funding for university from the government .

I liked your post and agreed with it all the way .

 

[99 cooking]

Communism wouldn't work because people with crappy jobs
( I.E. Factory work, farmers ) are working their asses off, while some doctor sits there and does next to nothing. Is that fair to the farmers? Hell no.
They will take notice to that sooner or later, and since they are getting paid equally then why work?
Why work your ass off when you can sit around and make just the same as any lawyer or doctor?
No one would work as hard if their paycheck wasn't affected by it.

 

[Shin]

Communism wouldn't work because people with crappy jobs
( I.E. Factory work, farmers ) are working their asses off, while some doctor sits there and does next to nothing. Is that fair to the farmers? Hell no.
They will take notice to that sooner or later, and since they are getting paid equally then why work?
Why work your ass off when you can sit around and make just the same as any lawyer or doctor?
No one would work as hard if their paycheck wasn't affected by it.

And what about all of those who do not have a job.
Do you know how high the unemployed rate is in just the US?

-The word "rate" is hyperlinked to CNN.

 

[wowhamba]

Communism wouldn't work because people with crappy jobs
( I.E. Factory work, farmers ) are working their asses off, while some doctor sits there and does next to nothing. Is that fair to the farmers? Hell no.
They will take notice to that sooner or later, and since they are getting paid equally then why work?
Why work your ass off when you can sit around and make just the same as any lawyer or doctor?
No one would work as hard if their paycheck wasn't affected by it.

No, read the first post thoroughly about communism and you'd see why communism doesn't work, not just because people with 'crappy jobs'. Take China for instant, there are very rich business men and there are also very poor farmers. You have a wrong idea about communism.

 

[Kris Halata]

Revamping this up, I really enjoyed reading ALL of these posts as I have been thinking about this kind of stuff for a while now in Government Class. Haha.

But in seriousness, Libertarianism and Capitalism are the key free 'governments'. Oxymoron..free government..please..

Example: Law; Freedom of Speech, without it, we have the freedom of speech. We have laws that grant freedom, but only take another right we have as humans away.

 

[Tgump]

Revamping this up, I really enjoyed reading ALL of these posts as I have been thinking about this kind of stuff for a while now in Government Class. Haha.

But in seriousness, Libertarianism and Capitalism are the key free 'governments'. Oxymoron..free government..please..

Example: Law; Freedom of Speech, without it, we have the freedom of speech. We have laws that grant freedom, but only take another right we have as humans away.

Capitalism is effectively free market, not freedom as far as civil rights go.

Socialism uses tax dollars into public programs: Education, subways, homeless shelters, etc. While this doesn't restrict anyone from opening their own homeless shelters, the government effectively puts smaller competitors out of business as their have a virtually unlimited source of funds. Hence the name free market capitalism.

 

Capitalism is effectively free market, not freedom as far as civil rights go.

Civil rights are incumbent upon private property rights -- what you would call economic freedom.

What is freedom of speech but the freedom to own a printing press, and distribute newspapers printed by your equipment on your paper to anyone who is willing to pay?

In fact, in libertarian theory there is no right that is not derived from a private property right. Ultimately all negative human rights are derived from the self-ownership principle -- that each animate intelligent being owns the inalienable property of their own physical body.

So a free-market, or state-less capitalism, includes in it the civil liberties.

Socialism uses tax dollars into public programs: Education, subways, homeless shelters, etc. While this doesn't restrict anyone from opening their own homeless shelters, the government effectively puts smaller competitors out of business as their have a virtually unlimited source of funds. Hence the name free market capitalism.

Real full-socialism involves government planning of every aspect of economic and therefore private life. The government chooses where you live, your job, your school, how many kids you can have, what healthcare you get, what food you eat, and ultimately everything you can and can't do and can and can't have.

Partial socialism, or state-capitalism, as we have now involves a large government with central planning which constantly interferes with a hampered market.

It is not that government forces out smaller competitors, in many cases, it is that the government will not allow other people to compete with it. In the case of banking and insurance, they are controlled government monopolies with many branch companies, but one controlling agent.

In the case of education and healthcare, this disallowing of real competetion causes the price to ever incease and the quality to ever decrease, as the people receiving funds to provide the services have no incentive to serve the customer. When they stuff up, they get more money. When they do a good job, their funding gets cut.

In other instances, such as water and transportation, the government has already made the consumer's purchase for them. The tax money is extracted in payment for these services, wether they are used or not. This makes it impossible to compete effectively, because almost no one will buy a service they've already paid for once.

If $50 a year of my taxes have already gone toward funding a road, then I am going to be naturally unwilling to pay an additional $50 to use an alternate competeting form of transport, like a private rail. This is because the government has effectively made my consumer decision for me. It has reached into my pocket, taken my $50 and told me that I am going to buy their transport service wether I like it or not!

And the last point I wanted to make is about state charity -- homeless shelters and the like.

If the government puts 100 million dollars a year toward homeless shelter programs, many people will see this as a net good for the economy. But what they do not see is the diversion of capital from the more productive parts of the economy.

If I have an operating budget for the week of $1000 dollars, to run my small business. And out of that $1000 I have to pay my workers, buy equipment, pay my shop's rent, and so on. Then I will be working in economic confines, and I may only have two or three low-wage employees.

Now say the government comes along with its tax to help the homeless, and takes $100 every week off me. Now I only have $900 to spend. I may have to let one of my workers go, or I may not be able to hire anymore. Or I may just be forced to pay them less and get worse quality work in exchange.

In other words, the government tax has taken real value out of the real economy and diverted it toward these homeless shelters. How many jobs were lost, and how many will now never be created? Who knows... that part is never visible to the public.

But it gets worse when you consider that the $100 per week would have been more productive in my hands. Not only would it have perhaps allowed me to employ an additional worker, but that in turn would allow me to make more profit, which would allow me to invest back into the business in better equipment and so on, increasing my business's productivity.

Ultimately taxation can kill small and medium business, or greatly hamper it. Absolute tax (total tax) levels over about 10% begin to have a seriously bad effect on the real economy and the standard of living of its members.

Leave the charity to the charities, and the business to the businesses, and confine government to its actual role -- if it really has one -- of protecting the people from aggression, and you will have a much more propserous society.

 

[thequestionmark]

Pure capitalism leads to 3 fundamental issues.

1. Underproduction of public goods - sometimes producing public goods cannot possibly be profitable - schools, roads, water/telephone to far away places.

2. Given the chance, oligopoly/monopolies will form - strong tendency for business to combine in order to undercut smaller business. We are NOT in an atomistic market. So prices to abuse the consumer, and lower production costs of bigger businesses...

3. Negative effects of business - IE, what prevents business to dump pollution in the river to save money?

 

[The Fat Controller]

In the UK, about 80% of professionals' (rich) kids go to university, while only 20% of manual workers' (poor) children do. This is when primary and secondary schooling is compulsory.

So just as one example, if you privatize the education system, make it entirely voluntary and base funding on (regressive) fees, you get a fair proportion of the population turned into proles with nary a primary school education. That's the future Sythe and the other libertarians seem to be striving for

 

[Tgump]

So just as one example, if you privatize the education system, make it entirely voluntary and base funding on (regressive) fees, you get a fair proportion of the population turned into proles with nary a primary school education. That's the future Sythe and the other libertarians seem to be striving for

If you privatize the education system, you have private schools popping up - lots of them - with competitive prices. This causes prices to go down, which in turn makes it possible to get a better education at cheaper prices. True, some may not attend at all, but those are the people who would've not paid attention in school anyways and end up just feeding off the public wallet.

 

[Shredderbeam]

1. Underproduction of public goods - sometimes producing public goods cannot possibly be profitable - schools, roads, water/telephone to far away places.

What on Earth makes you think that those things cannot be profitable?

2. Given the chance, oligopoly/monopolies will form - strong tendency for business to combine in order to undercut smaller business. We are NOT in an atomistic market. So prices to abuse the consumer, and lower production costs of bigger businesses...

In an laissez-faire style economy, monopolies cannot form.

High prices do not abuse the customer. The customer chooses to purchase the product offered.

3. Negative effects of business - IE, what prevents business to dump pollution in the river to save money?

It's generally against most businesses self-interest to allow dramatic pollution.

In any case, there's nothing wrong with polluting a river unless it directly harms people - in which case those harmed may take it up with the company.

In the UK, about 80% of professionals' (rich) kids go to university, while only 20% of manual workers' (poor) children do. This is when primary and secondary schooling is compulsory.

So just as one example, if you privatize the education system, make it entirely voluntary and base funding on (regressive) fees, you get a fair proportion of the population turned into proles with nary a primary school education. That's the future Sythe and the other libertarians seem to be striving for

You think that if the entire playing field were changed, the nature of the schooling system would remain the same? In such a situation, the high demand for education would drive prices down. It wouldn't be very difficult to get into a reasonably good school for a reasonable price.

 

[thequestionmark]

What on Earth makes you think that those things cannot be profitable?

What's below are NOT my words, but a good explanation of why public goods may be be under produced.

A public good has the feature that the marginal cost of an additional individual enjoying it is zero. Examples include an army, street lighting, radio signals or information. If there is an army defending one person in a country, a street lamp for one person, a radio signal for one person, then it is with no extra cost that two or more people use the service. For information, whose character as a public good was emphasised by Joseph Stiglitz, an old aphorism of philosopher Bertrand Russell holds true,

"If I have one apple and you have one apple and we exchange apples, we both have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange ideas, then we both have two."

The problem of the public good is that if people can use the good or service at the same time and cannot be excluded from its use (which with a cost they sometimes can, e.g. encoding a Wifi signal with a password) then people can "free-ride" on its use. Consumers will not be contributing to the costs of production. Because producers cannot recoup enough expenses, there will be an underproduction of public goods. There is therefore a role for state intervention. The government through taxation can get all people to contribute.

In an laissez-faire style economy, monopolies cannot form.

Why? We are not an atomistic market, therefore the tendency to profit more (and reduce production costs) will cause clumping in the market, which develops into monopolies/oligopolies. Some products are just destined for such: IE airplane production. Only someone who can offer a very high investment can make airplanes, thus you won't have many airplane producers.

Sure, consumers "choose" their price in an atomistic market. This however is not such a utopia.

It's generally against most businesses self-interest to allow dramatic pollution.

This is true. Generally, self-interest will drive for a reduction in negative externalities. However, frequently, profit is the greater of the self-interests. And WHO's going to take it up with the company? You can't just run in commando style. There's needs to be something in between.

 

[Shredderbeam]

What's below are NOT my words, but a good explanation of why public goods may be be under produced.

A public good has the feature that the marginal cost of an additional individual enjoying it is zero. Examples include an army, street lighting, radio signals or information. If there is an army defending one person in a country, a street lamp for one person, a radio signal for one person, then it is with no extra cost that two or more people use the service. For information, whose character as a public good was emphasised by Joseph Stiglitz, an old aphorism of philosopher Bertrand Russell holds true,

"If I have one apple and you have one apple and we exchange apples, we both have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange ideas, then we both have two."

The problem of the public good is that if people can use the good or service at the same time and cannot be excluded from its use (which with a cost they sometimes can, e.g. encoding a Wifi signal with a password) then people can "free-ride" on its use. Consumers will not be contributing to the costs of production. Because producers cannot recoup enough expenses, there will be an underproduction of public goods. There is therefore a role for state intervention. The government through taxation can get all people to contribute.

The cost is not the same between one person using a water supply and 100 million people using the same water supply. Much more funding is needed for piping, filtering, etc.

In any case, I didn't consent to the taxation.

Why? We are not an atomistic market, therefore the tendency to profit more (and reduce production costs) will cause clumping in the market, which develops into monopolies/oligopolies. Some products are just destined for such: IE airplane production. Only someone who can offer a very high investment can make airplanes, thus you won't have many airplane producers.

In a truly laissez-faire market, there are no intellectual property rights. It is extremely difficult for a large corporation to form.

Also, if an entire market, say, the automobile industry, becomes fully controlled by a single corporation, there is nothing wrong with that unless that corporation begins to charge unreasonably high prices. If such a thing happens, then doubtless some entrepreneur comes along with a little capital and a good idea and is vastly more successful than the corporation. That is competition.

Sure, consumers "choose" their price in an atomistic market. This however is not such a utopia.

Generally, consumers are not forced by a corporation to purchase a commodity against their will. They choose to buy it, either because they want it, or they need it. They willingly fork over their own money for the product, and in doing so, agree to the exchange.

This is true. Generally, self-interest will drive for a reduction in negative externalities. However, frequently, profit is the greater of the self-interests. And WHO's going to take it up with the company? You can't just run in commando style. There's needs to be something in between.

If a company harms you with its pollutants, you can treat it just as you might treat a man who punches you in the face. You can try to bring them to a private court, or if they refuse, run down to the local media outlet who would very probably appreciate your story of the "big corporation hurting the little guy".

 

In the UK, about 80% of professionals' (rich) kids go to university, while only 20% of manual workers' (poor) children do. This is when primary and secondary schooling is compulsory.

You realize the British government offers low interest loans to all full time university students, particularly those directly continuing from high school.

Your statistic, if anything, shows that people of intellectual genetic stock go on to become intellectuals, while common folk remain unsurprisingly common, despite socialist wealth redistribution and compulsory education.

So just as one example, if you privatize the education system, make it entirely voluntary and base funding on (regressive) fees, you get a fair proportion of the population turned into proles with nary a primary school education. That's the future Sythe and the other libertarians seem to be striving for

When you are born you know nothing. The human brain is absolutely devoid of all comprehension, recognition, and understanding. It takes as much as five full years of constant exposure to culture and environment to be able to recognize and express desires and needs in a meaningful way.

Every human on the planet will learn a spoken language regardless of the wealth, status, intent, or quality of the parent. Many will go on to learn to read and write, naturally, with or without the help of formal tuition.

Education is a process of life that we all undertake from our first breath to our last. It is not a fixed product or service that can be delivered like a package in a predetermined way. It is different for every person, and indeed must be individually selected by every person.

Socialists would have us believe that twelve years of compulsory state planned formal education is the ONLY way to learn anything. And that therefore anyone who opposes this twelve years of modern slavery is against education, against children, and against learning.

I submit to you, having traversed the public education system of Australia, that 50% of the children in attendance would have faired better with just three years of formal schooling in mathematics and literacy, without the need for any middle or higher education; That learning a trade would have been a much more productive and happy use of their time and childhood, and that the wasted years of their lives constitute lost income and forced dependence at the hands of the state.

Socialists have this absurd idea that education can only happen in the walls of a school. That it is some magical force which must be ushered down from the heavens to enlighten the youth. This is similar to the manner in which previous religions have approached education. No one dares to state the obvious: that homework in and of itself is a disproof of the need for compulsory education. If the child can learn at home, without teacher or tutor, then what exactly is the problem?

1. Most education is not formal.
2. Everyone learns a spoken language informally, so everyone can learn a written language informally too.
3. The public education system is of poor quality and has poor standards.
4. The public education system costs an excessively high amount in comparison to what a free-market system would cost.
5. Compulsory education is slavery, and twelve years (6 - 17) work without pay is child slavery.

 

[thequestionmark]

The cost is not the same between one person using a water supply and 100 million people using the same water supply. Much more funding is needed for piping, filtering, etc.

Oh come on Shredder, you don't have to win every battle. My point is simple: Sure it's not going to be the SAME, but public goods have a costly infrastructure. The logic in the previous argument stands.

TIn any case, I didn't consent to the taxation.

Start your own country then...

In a truly laissez-faire market, there are no intellectual property rights. It is extremely difficult for a large corporation to form.

Why do you advocate for something that you know won't form? There's utopia then there's reality. And since when were you advocating against intellectual property rights?

IAlso, if an entire market, say, the automobile industry, becomes fully controlled by a single corporation, there is nothing wrong with that unless that corporation begins to charge unreasonably high prices. If such a thing happens, then doubtless some entrepreneur comes along with a little capital and a good idea and is vastly more successful than the corporation. That is competition.

Monopolies will only form when none such are present. IE: Operating systems. Sure, now's there's Windows, Mac, Linux even - but there shouldn't be any pretense of who actually dominates the market. Single corporations WILL FORM, and oftentimes if you're American like me.. you'll wonder what happened to them? The government breaks them apart like Bell Labs etc....

Generally, consumers are not forced by a corporation to purchase a commodity against their will. They choose to buy it, either because they want it, or they need it. They willingly fork over their own money for the product, and in doing so, agree to the exchange.

Prices are controlled on two dimensions. Supply and demand. Consumers control demand, but if supply can be controlled, I'd say the supply is the greater factor.

If a company harms you with its pollutants, you can treat it just as you might treat a man who punches you in the face. You can try to bring them to a private court, or if they refuse, run down to the local media outlet who would very probably appreciate your story of the "big corporation hurting the little guy".

It turns out that life really isn't that simple. How do you know who's doing it? How do you know how much? Who has the authority to investigate?

 

[Shredderbeam]

Oh come on Shredder, you don't have to win every battle. My point is simple: Sure it's not going to be the SAME, but public goods have a costly infrastructure. The logic in the previous argument stands.

I will reply to all arguments.

Public infrastructure isn't really that expensive. It's nothing that couldn't be supplied by the free market.

Start your own country then...

A gang of criminals takes over your neighborhood, and demands safety money. By your own logic, you should not protest, you should not fight back, you should move out and start your own neighborhood.

Why do you advocate for something that you know won't form? There's utopia then there's reality.

How do you suppose that such a society would come to be without people such as myself constantly arguing with others, and convincing them?

And since when were you advocating against intellectual property rights?

I have always been.

Monopolies will only form when none such are present. IE: Operating systems. Sure, now's there's Windows, Mac, Linux even - but there shouldn't be any pretense of who actually dominates the market. Single corporations WILL FORM, and oftentimes if you're American like me.. you'll wonder what happened to them? The government breaks them apart like Bell Labs etc....

Microsoft's dominance over the market is allowed by the intellectual property laws. If such laws were scrapped, they would lose their majority extremely quickly.

Prices are controlled on two dimensions. Supply and demand. Consumers control demand, but if supply can be controlled, I'd say the supply is the greater factor.

Supply and demand are not separate - they are very closely linked. It is demand that drives supply. If there is a huge demand for gasoline, then there is a huge incentive for people to search for oil and refine it. If one man controls the entire supply of a noncritical resource, and charges exorbitant prices, people will not resign themselves to the situation and simply purchase the resource, they will either stay away from it, or get it from the black market.

It turns out that life really isn't that simple. How do you know who's doing it? How do you know how much? Who has the authority to investigate?

How do you know who's doing it with the presence of a militarized group of criminals nearby? It turns out that it's really not that difficult to see who's pouring pollutants into the river, or smog into the sky, or sewage onto the streets.

 

[thequestionmark]

Public infrastructure isn't really that expensive.

Who are you to know or say how expensive it truly is? What evidence? I've taken a variety of college-level business classes - the price certainly isn't trivial.

Let's try another example. Protection. We have a military - private contracting for such a need would not be profitable.

In economics, a public good is a good that is non-rivaled and non-excludable. This means, respectively, that consumption of the good by one individual does not reduce availability of the good for consumption by others; and that no one can be effectively excluded from using the good. No particular good matches this exact definition. It doesn't mean that there aren't products closer to this concept than the private good.

gang of criminals takes over your neighborhood, and demands safety money. By your own logic, you should not protest, you should not fight back, you should move out and start your own neighborhood.

You can't fight the hand that feeds you, unless you chose not to be fed.

How do you suppose that such a society would come to be without people such as myself constantly arguing with others, and convincing them?

Your right. It won't. Your non-funded army would be crushed by any other countries' tax-funded military.

Supply and demand are not separate - they are very closely linked. It is demand that drives supply. If there is a huge demand for gasoline, then there is a huge incentive for people to search for oil and refine it. If one man controls the entire supply of a noncritical resource, and charges exorbitant prices, people will not resign themselves to the situation and simply purchase the resource, they will either stay away from it, or get it from the black market.

Once again, that is utopian. The reality is we are NOT in an atomistic market, so both can be manipulated with some independence.

How do you know who's doing it with the presence of a militarized group of criminals nearby? It turns out that it's really not that difficult to see who's pouring pollutants into the river, or smog into the sky, or sewage onto the streets.

Not all negative externalities of business can be seen or touched. Even the ones you can see/touch aren't easy to regulate.