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

Monopoly. That is your problem. While a libertarian society may seem nice at the start, It becomes pretty awful the moment a monopoly can take advantage over a utility. In an anarcho-capitalist society, for example, a company that built roads could easily dominate worldwide networks of tolls that charged, say, 20$ per hour on the road. This would include parking and everything. Since Theft would be illegal, the user has no option, unless nonviolent crime is permitted or enforcement is really low. In israel, for example, the police used to boot cars that parked in no-park zones, but everybody just put the spare tire and stole the boot. The gov lost so much money they had go back to regular fines

 

Communism and Socialism to me, will never work whilst the Human race rules the Earth. Communism could possibly work for one generation where jobs are already solid within peoples lives. But once the infant generation pass through to become young adults, why would they spend 7 years at university studying or law when you can go straight into work and reap near enough the same rewards throughout life. It's like asking an adolescent to clean his bedroom, then instantly following it up by saying 'If you don't, then i will don't worry.' - quite frankly ridiculous.
Eventually the economy will just crumble, and due to human nature corruptness will definitely arise from the nobility. Indeed communism does work wearily in countries like Cuba and Laos, but look at the main economic powers - USA, UK, and Russia all very democratic in today's society. China are doing well, but will surely crumble in few decades to come when trading turns sour around the world.

 

Society develops. Just as Marx says. He said a society would develop from Anarchy, to Capitalism, to Socialism, to Communism, to Utopian.

It was obvious that human society can't be utopian, so he thought communism was where we were at in society. But, really, we are at the stage of Capitalism. With this, over time people can become more giving and living as one unit. But, we aren't there yet. Forcing communism, and socialism on America's society now, is premature and will only slow down the process to become utopian in a matter of thousands to millions of years. (maybe even billions and trillions)

 

"The reason communism is a fallacy is simple: People cannot jointly own one another. The concept is fallacious. How can one man be a slave to another, when the other is a slave to the first? "

Okay Sythe, I'm not sure if Marx ever said this. You've replaced 'responsibility' with 'slavery'.

It IS every person's NATURAL DUTY to look out for the good of every individual on the planet.

I don't see norway or sweden CARPET BOMBING COUNTRIES IN THE NAME OF FREEDOM.

You've completely misunderstood the philosophy behind the reading you've done bro.

 

This argument really reminds me of the classic Hobbes/Locke debate, so I'll start with that. (I do not particularly support either side, but I'll argue the Hobbes side.)

Men by instinct are animalistic, and life without rules would consist of a whole lot of stealing and other unwanted activities. Therefore, we need some sort of government/ group that would keep us safe and protected from the "outside" world. This group would obviously need funding to pay the workers wages and for other expenses. Since it would be beneficial to everybody, taxes in this case would be fair. Therefore, one can argue that a government being formed is inevitable and necessary.

To address the point about monopolies: Although free market monopolies are rare, they do happen (In certain places). Take Monsanto, for instance. They control an incredibly large share of the genetically engineered seed market. Though not technically a full monopoly since there are other companies, Monsanto is so much bigger that it can do essentially anything a complete monopoly would do.

As an added point, take Singapore as an example. Although their government denies being socialist, their government does have many social characteristics. They also happen to enjoy a higher average standard of living than other countries in the same region.

Anyways, it's kind of late, so excuse any stupid points or mistakes I made. I might come back to argue the other side later

 

I didn't take these ideas from anybody else... they are my own. But now that you point out the evil people in the government, that does make sense.

Just some food for thought though:
Any government is better than none, even one with an evil dictator. Take the U.S. interfering with Afghanistan. All the U.S. did was step in, remove the government, and step back out. As a result, Afghanistan collapsed and a much stricter regime moved in. (The Taliban).
When you have an evil government, while people may not love it, people still fear it, and therefore obey it.

 

The Government is the name I give to the organization in control of a region. If there are no large criminal organizations, then there will be small ones, who aren't officially recognized (Gangs). People form groups for protection, that's just social nature, and if there's no way to have everybody get along under the same group, the different groups will fight for power.

The end of the state isn't the end of statism, it just puts the people that had previously lived under that state in political turmoil as others try to seize power.

 

Capitalism is just as crap.

 

How is Capitalism just as bad?

 

i think commu works it just hasnt been done to perfection you cant rule by pure force

 

I agree with what is said in the OP, Sythe. However, have we not passed the point of no return? how could it be possible to change how the whole planet operates?

I've been reading a lot of your posts here from time to time, I've grown an interest to Voluntarism, but there's a few questions left unanswered:

1.)If Socialism and Democracy was to fail globally (somehow) tomorrow, How could the world change for the good? at first, I would assume, their would be mass violence, which would eventually lead to some kind of all-out war, in its current climate, the richest would struggle for power in a non-government world.
2.)rather than failing, and instead there was a slow conversion, then how would be property rights, taxes, National Healthcare Services, Police, Army, etc. be handled? would they be privatized? If so, doesn't this mean that the richer pocket straight away and the poorer stay poor without being able to have even one kind of opportunity?

Today's Society, IMO, restricts the possibility of Voluntarism to become practice. For it to be remotely possible, Debts, Currency, natural resources, Property and land rights, the land itself, and the advances in technology, philosophy, science and literature would have to be reset, the world have to be refreshed, maybe from some kind of huge natural disaster, such as an ice age, or maybe a destructive force as nuclear winter.

Sorry if my views or how I've structured this post is irritating, I was trying to put forward my views the best I could.

 

I think this socialist type regime atm denies the success that Americans believe is "American Exceptionalism". Meanwhile, we get got in a stagnate and nothing "better" happens.

Just my naive .02

 

I share Karl's questions as I am critical of the idea of libertarianism, anarchy, voluntarism, or whatever you'd want to call it.

I do believe I have an answer for you second question though. For the answer, we can simply look at the democratization and change to capitalism Russia endured in the the past 20 years.

Let's make it clear that I know that the capitalism Russia was shooting for isn't quite libertarian, but demonstrates a significant jump in political and economic ideologies from communism to democracy and quasi-capitalism.

In an effort to privatize, the Russian government sold all its state owned assets to the highest bidder. Today, we know these multi-billionaires as oligarchs. These oligarchs were Soviet barons who had money when the USSR fell and were able to use it to take advantage of the privatization that was involved while becoming capitalist.

What we saw in Russia in the following years was a massive gap between the very rich and the very poor, and more importantly we saw the very rich become increasingly involved in politics, in matters of power over other people. Khodorkovsky is a perfect example of these oligarchs clamoring for power. An oligarch who picked up many of the USSR's oil institutions and turned it into Yukos, Khodorkovsky was not satisfied with simply being one of the richest men in a freer Russia. He began supporting and controlling political parties and clearly he would have gone very far because Putin took him as a threat. Putin is another story, however, a stupid, communist dog.

 

I know in British Columbia (Canada), that ICBC has a monopoly over automobile insurance. If you want to legally drive a car on the road, then you have to get insurance through ICBC. I'm pretty sure that ICBC is ran by the provincial government, but nevertheless, it does hold a monopoly in the insurance industry.

 

by the 4th word i stopped reading:laugh:

 

tl;dr but tbh Canada the socialist little brother of the states is doing a lot fucking better than that shithole to the south.

 

Socialism is in fact failing, as its objetive is to make an equal sociality (In summary) Why it fails? Because society would be a total mess up if it didnt fail. The main goal, as said before, of Socialism is to make an equal social class, without lower and higher class, just an extensive middle class. Its impossible to achieve this, as there will always be those who have control over the others. For example at a factory, Capitalists have control on the workers. And thats how it has to work. There will never be a society in which a person doesnt control someone.