Is Socialism really that bad?
- Alchemist1984
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 3
- Joined: August 18th, 2016, 10:13 am
Is Socialism really that bad?
As time progresses, less monarchies/dictatorships are established and are replaced by democracies. This is very beneficial to the people in the reign, but sooner or later, the middle/lower class become frustrated over their lack of representation or become envious of the upper class’s success and feel that their government is rigged towards providing to the upper class(which is mostly the case). All of this is just natural human behavior and thoughts, when someone does nothing more than you did and achieves greater success(mainly addressing wealth inequality). This causes the middle/lower class to want to reform the government into a socialism or something comparable to a socialism, where everyone is treated “equally”. Of course not all socialisms are created that way, some are created out the greed of rulers. Which whom want to deceive their citizens into thinking they will be treated fairly and equally.
From the philosophical point of view, socialism has it’s pros and cons. Idealistically through a socialistic government, everyone is treated equally and given the amount of money everyone thinks their occupation deserves. This allows for no envy since everyone is given the same opportunities through their government’s programs. But since everyone is created and given everything the same as everyone else, this allows for no creative work and little progress in a society. If one doctor is more trained and more professional than the other, they deserve more pay for the service, but in a socialism this is not the case, which prevents anybody from being progressive and creative since it will not have any added benefits.
From a statistical point of view, socialism is terrible in the long run (3+ years), ruining economies and businesses all throughout the country. Let’s take Venezuela for example; for over fifteen years Venezuela has been a socialistic society, which seemed to have great benefits at first. In the first three years, unemployment went down and income and spending increased which boosted their economy. This is mostly due to the fact that before the ”socialist revolution”, Venezuela was one of the wealthiest countries in South America, allowing more money to be put into the government at the beginning of the reformed government. But after fifteen years and many elections, their economy has grown to be the worst in the world, and it has come to the point where there is no more food or toilet paper left on the shelves. Major companies have left Venezuela, such as Coca-Cola, and the unemployment rate is one of the highest in the world. There are many more examples of socialism failing economically, such as Greece, Cuba, and many many more.
Socialism overall allows for no growth and little variation in the market and society. Putting too much power into a centralized government is an open gateway for corruption and an economic disaster. Hopefully in the next few years, Venezuela and countries alike will look around them and see how they should take a stand and change their government into a fair and justice system.
Comment and start a discussion if below you agree or disagree with me
- Above us only sky
- Posts: 361
- Joined: February 12th, 2012, 9:03 am
Re: Is Socialism really that bad?
It explained the root cause of many economical problems. In my opinion, it is good analysis.
In this video, that professor said socialism can replace capitalism, do you agree with it?
- Ormond
- Posts: 932
- Joined: December 30th, 2015, 8:14 pm
Re: Is Socialism really that bad?
- Above us only sky
- Posts: 361
- Joined: February 12th, 2012, 9:03 am
Re: Is Socialism really that bad?
Ormond wrote:I like Bernie Sanders style "socialism". His plan is to restrict the extremes at both ends of the economy, but allow competition to remain in the vast middle. The danger of capitalism is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, which over time creates an unstable society. And then we wind up with communists or fascists.
Then why Hillary, not Bernie, was selected as the candidate? Is it because the top 1% wants to sabotage socialism?
- Surface-tension
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 4
- Joined: August 25th, 2014, 12:01 pm
Re: Is Socialism really that bad?
No, I think it's because Bernie didn't get the votes. I don't understand your point.Above us only sky wrote:Ormond wrote:I like Bernie Sanders style "socialism". His plan is to restrict the extremes at both ends of the economy, but allow competition to remain in the vast middle. The danger of capitalism is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, which over time creates an unstable society. And then we wind up with communists or fascists.
Then why Hillary, not Bernie, was selected as the candidate? Is it because the top 1% wants to sabotage socialism?
-
- Posts: 541
- Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 9:52 am
Re: Is Socialism really that bad?
As such, I'm not convinced the author really knows what socialism is.
I am, however, fascinated by some of the reasoning:
But since everyone is created and given everything the same as everyone else, this allows for no creative work and little progress in a society. If one doctor is more trained and more professional than the other, they deserve more pay for the service, but in a socialism this is not the case, which prevents anybody from being progressive and creative since it will not have any added benefits.
It's a very weird understanding of how and why people do things. Are we really to believe that, without a vast differential in pay, doctors will simply have no reason to be better at their work? That Corporate executives need to be paid 373 times what their workers earn, or else they'll just wander around listlessly before going back to bed? That creativity depends on being well paid (have you seen what professional artists earn?).
If it helps, I live in a country with a National Helath Service, organised on more socialist lines than anything Venezsuela could dream of, where the healthcare actually works rather well.
- 99MQTA
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 2
- Joined: June 2nd, 2016, 7:46 pm
Re: Is Socialism really that bad?
Thanks for turning me on to this video. I've written a review of it and will be publishing it in pieces over the next few days.Above us only sky wrote: This is a video worth watching.
It explained the root cause of many economical problems. In my opinion, it is good analysis.
In this video, that professor said socialism can replace capitalism, do you agree with it?
I can't post a URL here but if you are interested, google search "99morequestionsthananswers"
-
- Posts: 1500
- Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
- Location: California, US
Re: Is Socialism really that bad?
The best example of pure capitalism today is Communist (in name only) China. No safety net. Get sick and you won't get treated unless you or your family has money. It's working for the moment because the family structure there is so strong. There are still a lot of people dying because they can't afford a doctor's care.
The best system is probably "Democratic socialism", which is really capitalism with a safety net. More Western democracies have some version of that.
-- Updated August 25th, 2016, 6:35 pm to add the following --
The top 1% aren't a huge voting block. Hillary was selected because the voting Democrats thought she would make a better president, or at least had a better chance of beating the Republican nominee. By the way, Bernie was never a Democrat before (an Independent for many years) and only joined the Democratic party to run for President - and most Americans don't like the idea of a "socialist" as president - even though to be fair his ideas aren't that extreme.Above us only sky wrote: Then why Hillary, not Bernie, was selected as the candidate? Is it because the top 1% wants to sabotage socialism?
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7980
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Is Socialism really that bad?
Great post. As an aside, there are many different aspects to life (and government) and as stated almost none of them do not have an aspect of "socialism" or shared responsibility. If you ask different "experts" you will not get a single answer to the question: how many socialistic pieces of a system have to exist to make the whole government meet the definition of Socialist?Wilson wrote:The answer is that pure socialism is an awful system, and pure laissez-faire capitalism is an awful system. Pure socialism is bad because it reduces innovation and hard work, and the examples of where it was tried were colossal economic failures - Russia, East Germany, today's Venezuela. Pure capitalism is bad because it's soulless - there's no safety net and no state-mandated compassion for those who don't succeed.
The best example of pure capitalism today is Communist (in name only) China. No safety net. Get sick and you won't get treated unless you or your family has money. It's working for the moment because the family structure there is so strong. There are still a lot of people dying because they can't afford a doctor's care.
The best system is probably "Democratic socialism", which is really capitalism with a safety net. More Western democracies have some version of that.
-- Updated August 25th, 2016, 6:35 pm to add the following --
The top 1% aren't a huge voting block. Hillary was selected because the voting Democrats thought she would make a better president, or at least had a better chance of beating the Republican nominee. By the way, Bernie was never a Democrat before (an Independent for many years) and only joined the Democratic party to run for President - and most Americans don't like the idea of a "socialist" as president - even though to be fair his ideas aren't that extreme.Above us only sky wrote: Then why Hillary, not Bernie, was selected as the candidate? Is it because the top 1% wants to sabotage socialism?
- Felix
- Posts: 3117
- Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am
Re: Is Socialism really that bad?
No but their money is.... especially since the Citizens United law which ruled that political contributions are a form of free speech.The top 1% aren't a huge voting block.
-
- Posts: 1500
- Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
- Location: California, US
Re: Is Socialism really that bad?
I think money in politics is effective in local races, maybe in state races, but not nationally. The Koch brothers couldn't boost Mitt Romney to the presidency.Felix wrote:No but their money is.... especially since the Citizens United law which ruled that political contributions are a form of free speech.The top 1% aren't a huge voting block.
Of course I'd also love to see the next Supreme Court put restrictions back on political donations.
The point is, we're talking about the Democratic primary process, and I don't think the 1% had much effect on the results other than their puny voting numbers.
- Felix
- Posts: 3117
- Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am
Re: Is Socialism really that bad?
I doubt that anyone could, LOL ... but they've now decided their money would be better spent on buying congressman, that worked fairly well in the last mid-term elections.Wilson: The Koch brothers couldn't boost Mitt Romney to the presidency.
.Of course I'd also love to see the next Supreme Court put restrictions back on political donations.
Donald Trump has indicated he is for the Citizens United and related laws, and would repeal environmental laws too. He is definitely a Koch brothers kind of candidate. Heck, maybe they are backing him financially, he won't release his tax returns so who knows who his financial backers are. By all accounts, he's nowhere near as financially independent as he claims to be.
-
- Posts: 2116
- Joined: March 28th, 2014, 3:13 am
Re: Is Socialism really that bad?
I don't know about the US but there is an Indian IT company named Infosys which has incorporated a mix of socialism and capitalism which has resulted in janitors and drivers becoming millionaires. Since it is the largest IT company in India, hopefully they will inspire others to follow in their footsteps. I think as the rich understand that distribution of wealth has long term benefits, this problem of the divide might gradually go away. Of course it might just be wishful thinking on my part.Ormond wrote:I like Bernie Sanders style "socialism". His plan is to restrict the extremes at both ends of the economy, but allow competition to remain in the vast middle. The danger of capitalism is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, which over time creates an unstable society. And then we wind up with communists or fascists.
-
- Posts: 3364
- Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm
Re: Is Socialism really that bad?
Jefferson is speaking of freedom as a societal goal. But is it really worth the aggravation if socialism isn't really that bad? Equality is the modern progressive societal goal and what can assure equality better than secular slavery? Slavery would eliminate arguments. Government would make decisions for you. There would be no reason to bother with thought. Your government would think for you. What could be better?
To make matters worse, freedom requires the voluntary adoption of the obligations making rights possible. Otherwise government will give its slaves their rights. You might believe that rights come before obligations but it is the opposite. This idea of voluntary obligations coming before rights is very annoying. It shouldn’t be surprising that many would choose equality in slavery rather than suffer the indignities of the voluntary obligations necessary for rights in a free society. Simone Weil explains the relationship between obligations and rights.
This raises the obvious question if freedom is worth the aggravation of promoting voluntary obligations as opposed to the joys of arguing over rights and visions of equality. I know much of what I read about here in the U.S. concerns women’s rights, gay rights, minority rights, and a whole slew of other rights. I never read about the voluntary obligations of women, gays, minorities and others. It is too insulting to even consider such an idea. My guess is that our species without the help of grace is incapable of the collective attitude necessary to make freedom possible. As a result free societies will devolve into more rigid forms of secular slavery revealing the flaws in socialism. They will force the next revolution. Then the cycle will begin again“The notion of obligations comes before that of rights, which is subordinate and relative to the former. A right is not effectual by itself, but only in relation to the obligation to which it corresponds, the effective exercise of a right springing not from the individual who possesses it, but from other men who consider themselves as being under a certain obligation towards him. Recognition of an obligation makes it effectual. An obligation which goes unrecognized by anybody loses none of the full force of its existence. A right which goes unrecognized by anybody is not worth very much.
It makes nonsense to say that men have, on the one hand, rights, and on the other hand, obligations. Such words only express differences in point of view. The actual relationship between the two is as between object and subject. A man, considered in isolation, only has duties, amongst which are certain duties towards himself. Other men, seen from his point of view, only have rights. He, in his turn, has rights, when seen from the point of view of other men, who recognize that they have obligations towards him. A man left alone in the universe would have no rights whatever, but he would have obligations….” - Simone Weil, “The Need for Roots”
-
- Posts: 2181
- Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am
Re: Is Socialism really that bad?
There are various political analyses and theories, and a variety of manifestations of how this plays out in practice from the very local to the global level, but essentially Lefties tend to be more drawn to policies promoting Fairness, and Righties towards Freedom. Both are strong natural human impulses, and our individual attitudes will be shaped by our experiences and culture.
I'm more drawn to Fairness, so I naturally look more favourably on the analyses and solutions offered by the Left. I'm easily convinced by them . Others on the Right do the same . But obviously they're wrong
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023