Why do you think that Socialism is so bad?

You know it isn't hard to google it, that's what I do whenever I see a new word or term that I don't understand..
Multiocracy is the idea of a system where people agree that different groups should be able to do their own thing. So instead of obsessive consensus building or simply ignoring the monority, different groups are allowed to try their own approaches.

 

I "Binged" it.....and got nothing. Link me.

You're still laboring under an assumption that "different groups" won't ultimately encounter the same intractable problems as any other socioeconomic construct that relies on some form of democratic decision making / problem resolution process.

The smallest socioeconomic collective is a "marriage" between two people.....which ends in divorce about 50% of the time.....and the most prevalent cause is disagreements over allocation of resources and assets.

That, and that alone...in my opinion.... basically destroys any argument that suggests some harmonious "workers paradise" collective is achievable.

 

Of course, I wasn't talking about the "socialism" of primitive hunter-gatherer societies, and even then there was competition and conflict between different groups and tribes over land and resources.

What I'm talking about is the Socialism that emerged during the French Revolution beginning with individuals such as François-Noël Babeuf and then later expanded by the likes of Karl Marx, et al.

 

I choose other because it is UnAmerican , it does not promote equality, socialists always have elites, It may share some but human nature is to steal it for yourself, Cuba is out of poverty ??? There is no burden on the wealthy after their wealth is stolen, so it has been my experience the Universal healthcare costs mucho dollars, now I like some social things like public utilities and the water company , state owned roads and things like that but I really do not need The State involved in every aspect of my life .

 

WHat an absurd thread, where are the choices of:

Breeds corruption
Disincentivizes innovation
Disincentivizes hard work
Is not sustainable
Is morally wrong

- - - Updated - - -

You mean like the USSR?
Or the old Eastern Europe?

 

So fragmented conflict ridden socialism is your ideal?

 

People can never be equal, there will always be some that are stronger and some that are smarter. The are many socialist leaning policies that I agree with and many that I don't, the intentions of socialism are very good however it is impractical. I will never be comfortable knowing that neurosurgeons are being paid the same as the menial jobs. There will be no motivation for the next generation to become important professions like doctors, engineers and scientists. Socialism starts with many promises that sound good to the ears of the majority, but corruption will manifest creating a totalitarian regime.

 

doctors became doctors before they were well paid, vast money/wealth is not the major driver for most people, people for the most part when they have the option to do so choose occupations that they enjoy or interests them...

and we shouldn't disparage menial jobs or those that do them, even menial jobs are essential to our society and many of us wouldn't do them because they are difficult and/or dirty...even menial jobs deserve a respectable living wage...

 

Although for some doctors, it is a factor, there could be a possibility of an under supply. There are many professions that are very boring and the main motivations are money related (e.g. Accountants), their starting salaries are very good but they have career progression and doctors also have career progression. It would also be a huge step to assume doctor will be happy to be paid meagerly because money is not their motivation, not all doctors enjoy their profession.

I'm not disparaging menial jobs I do think they are essential to our society, I just disagree that they should have equal income to jobs that require qualifications. I also believe menial jobs deserve a respectable wage, which is why I agree with the increase of the minimum wage.

 

just my personal experience most people I know choose they careers based on their interests becoming wealthy wasn't their first consideration...and what is boring is very subjective, Mrs wyly is an accountant and loves her job and so several other of my friends, I don't share that interest...not that there aren't people who don't come to hate their jobs, career choices don't always meet expectations...

I agree for the most part but there menial jobs many of us wouldn't do for any amount of money...

- - - Updated - - -

just my personal experience most people I know choose they careers based on their interests becoming wealthy wasn't their first consideration...and what is boring is very subjective, Mrs wyly is an accountant and loves her job and so several other of my friends, I don't share that interest...not that there aren't people who don't come to hate their jobs, career choices don't always meet expectations...

I agree for the most part but there menial jobs many of us wouldn't do for any amount of money...

 

That is true which is why trying to ensure equality of results is an invalid proposition. At the sametime we need to ensure equality of opportunity in our society but that isn't happening. When we look at the "poor" they are typically minorities and women and it is well documented that discrimination against minorities and women is widespread in America. Our greatest goal as a society in the United States is to address the racism and gender discrimination as it results in denial of equality of opportunity that results in poverty. We don't and shouldn't be addressing equality of results but instead eliminating the discrimination that denies equality of opportunity.

 

However, that can all be achieved with affirmative action, United Stated shouldn't resort to socialism

 

Some people think socialism isn't bad.

Case of relativity here.

If you're the beneficiary of socialistic policies, then socialism is a great thing.

If you're individualistic, as deemed by the Enlightenment (possible oxymoron) then ya don't like it.

As an aside: Does Hillary's dancing and wavering make you more sick or less sick than her husband's? (Bubba)

 

The 25% of the European Parliament is composed by Socialists, and Socialist governments exist [The French President is Socialist, just to say] so I find it difficult to see them as "bad" [from my Italian perspective].

But modern Socialists are actually representatives of the Democrat Socialism [the Socialism which accepts the market and private property]. In other words they are the root of European Socialdemocracy.

Real Socialism exists, I guess, only in North Korea. In China they have created a "market Socialism" [a monster, I know, but that's it] and in Vietnam they are forgetting the red flag ...

So, why is Socialism [the original "strong" one] wrong?
In my opinion because it denied the human nature which is competitive, possessive, selective, exclusive ... human in a word.

Capitalism has never been theorized, it's not an ideology, it's a natural social / economical evolution ...

 

I'm a rare consevative breed. I'm classifed as a "left wing conserative". I support conservative ideals in all areas except economically, which is where I'm more of a dem. I believe in wealth redistribution, but also more programs for the poor. I also love individual rights.

Communism is evil though as the "public right" is huge, and there's few individual rights.

 

The main reason would be that Socialism is a system that has not, cannot and will not work. It is a system which exists only in the minds of its supporters.

 

Socialism is bad in as far as it is dogmatic.
Any dogma is bad, whether it's Christian dogma, Nazi dogma or Republican dogma.
There isn't a hard fast path to what's best, it all has to be thought out, there are no hard fast answers.
When someone tells you, "This is what works all the time" you can pretty much ignore them with confidence, because they really don't add much value to the process.

Does socialism work ? from time to time it's far superior to the alternative, I can't think of a market economy that defeated a socialist economy in a war, ever .... it might have happened once, but it was pretty obscure and there had to be some serious other factors involved.

 

Some believe in a lot of socialism, some believe in a limited amount, and some want all socialism stopped. Rational people will usually pick the center choice, never forget SS and Medicare are both socialism, so most even those that whine about programs such as food Stamps or Welfare have no problem with either of those two programs. Yes people do pay into those two programs but if you live long enough you will draw more than you ever put in in so that arguement is weak at best.

 

If we are going to polarize capitalism and socialism and allow no intermediate space between them, which is not the reality of actual politics, I would consider myself as far left as someone can be without abandoning capitalism entirely, or as "far right socialist," if that makes sense. However, there is not a huge amount of policies that separate me from democratic socialism. The same cannot be said about Marxism, and I disagree with many aspects of it. The single largest thing separating me from socialism is that I do not support the abolition of private property rights. There are a couple of others you could nitpick with and say I differ from socialism about: those would be a universal minimum income, a 100% inheritance tax, and a few others. But it should be of note that I do not describe myself as a capitalist or a socialist; more of a social democrat, at least before Tony Blair's Third Way movement took it to hell.

This is the best analysis of capitalism and the two-party system I have read in a long time.

 

WHen you make a poll, please give valid choices, not just political claptrap to make a point. None of the answers you gave is an answer an intelligent person would ever choose.

Why is socialism bad? Well, it's not bad at some levels. For example, to pay for police or schools. However, as a model for economics it doesn't work, because once you get past the point of everybody in the system knowing each other, abuses begin. Some (not all) people slack off if they think they can live off of others. Socialism messes up the motivation in economies.

 

I'd argue socialism isn't a viable economic model at all, it's a luxury a healthy economy can afford a little of — like cheeseburgers. A little bit of junk food makes life more pleasant and we can certainly live with it. Too much will kill you.




​

 

If it's not freely chosen by consent of the people participating,
it doesn't matter if it's socialism, capitalism or the best solution in the world,
but it can't be imposed by outside authority or it causes conflict and rejection.

That is true of any law, any religion, even Christianity which people hail but must be accepted freely on faith or it's false.

All the best programs in the world work by free will in keeping with human nature and conscience.
Anything that has to be "imposed" involves some conflict of interest that needs to be resolved or it causes problems.
That's just human nature.

 

Don't forget the Military which is currently a form of welfare.

 

Really, never served have ya.

 

Yes but what relevance does that have to the central question. The current level of military spending is hundreds of Billions more than what is required to defend this Nation. Much of this money is not going to the troops but is for corporate welfare programs.

In 2000 spending was 300 Billion. Now at over 1 Trillion we are no more well defended. Even granting 3% inflation spending should be no more than 450 Billion. That's 550 minimum (per year) that could be going towards useful things like building an economy suited for the 21st century rather than spending it on obsolete technology for preparing for a fantasy war that does not exist.