The Fundamental Problem of Socialism

[henry quirk]

Me, I'm talkin' about 'the fundamental problem with socialism', as I see it, based on communitarian notions as they are and how they've played out in world so far.

[HexHammer]

The fundamental problem of socialism is the government forcibly taking money from one person to give to somebody else, an act a citizen would be thrown in jail for doing.

This is something I would expect from very small children or sickly narcissistic ritch people.

Taking from the ritch is how one builds a society, funds military, police, administration, science, research, schools, elders, roads, etc!

..the real problems is when completely incompetent leaders and corruption are wide spread.

[bobevenson]

No, the real problem is people with your point of view.

[prothero]

There are no unregulated markets. The real question is the extent and types of regulation that are present.

There are also no "countries" that do not have some form of government. The real question being the size, extent, and scope of governmental control and powers. Government is inherently inefficient, bureaucratic, regulatory and to some degree corrupt. Thus when the government sector becomes too large, the economy and the country suffer compared to countries which have a more open market system. The centrally planned economy versus the free market system economy experiment has been run multiple times now and the clear winner for economic growth is markets.

The real problem with "socialism" (communal ownership of the economy) is that it ignores the inherent competitiveness and acquisitiveness of human nature (and conversely the tendency of some to loaf while others work). Thus socialism tends to stifle the innovation, industry and creativity which are at the core of economic success.

Yes we need government, and governments have to levy taxes (of acquire income) to perform their necessary functions. When government becomes too large it tends to strangle the very resource it needs to function well. There is no social problem for which some well meaning intellectual or politician does not envision a new government agency or department as a solution. Government however cannot solve all social problems. Thus I think government should be limited to some reasonable size relative to the general economy (say 20, 30 or even 40%) and should set its priorities within those limits. Unchecked government has the tendency to grow larger, more intrusive and more powerful and eventually to stifle the soul of the people it purports to serve.

[henry quirk]

"There are no unregulated markets."

The question is: which is prefersble, the largely self-regulated market or the one regulated by technocrats and the like?

#

"Taking from the ritch is how one builds a society, funds military, police, administration, science, research, schools, elders, roads, etc!"

Sure, but that's not the issue. How the takin' happens, how takin' is controlled or regulated, that's the issue.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Taking from the ritch is how one builds a society, funds military, police, administration, science, research, schools, elders, roads, etc!

Not quite true. It's the ordinary person who carries all that, and pays the most taxes. Rich bastards pay little or no taxes.

[HexHammer]

Taking from the ritch is how one builds a society, funds military, police, administration, science, research, schools, elders, roads, etc!

Not quite true. It's the ordinary person who carries all that, and pays the most taxes. Rich bastards pay little or no taxes.

No, not quite true.
Surely depends on where you live, and how competent and corrupt your gov is. Here in Denmark the riches pay 60% and company tax is about 25%, can't really remember the exact figures.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Taking from the ritch is how one builds a society, funds military, police, administration, science, research, schools, elders, roads, etc!

Not quite true. It's the ordinary person who carries all that, and pays the most taxes. Rich bastards pay little or no taxes.

No, not quite true.
Surely depends on where you live, and how competent and corrupt your gov is. Here in Denmark the riches pay 60% and company tax is about 25%, can't really remember the exact figures.

On paper, but the rich have all kind of tricks to avoid tax, sending their money off-shore etc. I think it was Steve Jobs who boasted about paying no taxes. Denmark eh? That's pretty cool. Love your royal family--much better than the awful British one.

[HexHammer]

On paper, but the rich have all kind of tricks to avoid tax, sending their money off-shore etc. I think it was Steve Jobs who boasted about paying no taxes. Denmark eh? That's pretty cool. Love your royal family--much better than the awful British one.

Sure many evade tax, but that still doesn't change the fact that the tax money are used for what I stated in 1 of my previous post.

[prothero]

Not quite true. It's the ordinary person who carries all that, and pays the most taxes. Rich bastards pay little or no taxes.

In the U.S. anyway, that is not true. This is one of those frequently stated "facts" that bears little or no relationship to truth.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-of-e ... 1428674384
A simple google search would return numerous other sources.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Not quite true. It's the ordinary person who carries all that, and pays the most taxes. Rich bastards pay little or no taxes.

In the U.S. anyway, that is not true. This is one of those frequently stated "facts" that bears little or no relationship to truth.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-of-e ... 1428674384
A simple google search would return numerous other sources.

The Rich never declare income, so they never pay income tax. Profits are directed offshore, and in numerous and various financial products that never show income. Corporate entities avoid corporation tax. Google, Amazon, the big coffee houses, Apple .. all re-direct assets making more profits whose fair taxation would end austerity and national deficits world wide.

[mickthinks]

I'm talkin' about 'the fundamental problem with socialism'

But having someone in authority lay claim to your turds is not a problem you have ever faced or are ever likely to face, Henry. Can you describe a real grievance you have with socialism as you have seen it in action or heard it explained in a reliable source. Real life socialism, not the stuff of a fervid imagination.

[bobevenson]

Can you describe a real grievance you have with socialism as you have seen it in action?

Minimum wage is a real grievance that socialism has foisted upon mankind.

[xy.Now!]

Wake up, lefties: socialism is a lie; communism, too.
It's all about power for them; about being powerful, about ruling on others, about imposing your will: about being the top dog around. That's what your beloved Karl Marx wanted; that's what socialists want. Anyone seeing nobility or 'benevolence' as the driving forces behind these political movements (socialism, marxism, etc.) is either short-sighted, excessively naive (or young) or simply delusional.

That "equality" they promise you, and which they purport to you as their motto and even their war cry, is nothing but the promise of power, of strength, which you, on the other hand, cannot help but embrace: "I'm (We're) putting you at my (our) level, you rich brat; you hear me! You're not better than me... ". That's why you all losers feel so atracted to the idea (to marxism, socialism), yes: you like it, you crave for it, because it pictures you in a position you've never been before; the image of you stomping over those above you: over those who are, always were and will always be better than you; not just materially...


Socialism, communism are, at bottom, nothing but the lower instincts wanting to rule; revenge, envy, jelousy: corrosive feelings taking over. The lower castes taking over... In every society, the rise of socialism and communism is to be understood as a sign of its (society's) advanced state of moral decadence.

[henry quirk]

I could point to Venezuela...you could say that nightmare is less about socialism and more about bad players.

I could point to China (and it's adoption of market principles)...you could say melding capitalism with socialism shows a mixed economy works (just look at America, you could say).

I point to the U.S.S.R....you could, again, say that's more about the bad players than the philosophy.

I could point to Cuba...you could say that has more to do with the embargo than socialism.

I could point to the A.C.A. and tell you how this experiment hasn't helped, but only hurt, me...you could declare this as a failure of a mixed economy experiment, not a socialist one.

On your end, you could point to Scandinavia...I could say this just just another example of a mixed econony (and things aren't quite as glorious as claimed...just look at the unvarnished stats).

I'm thinkin' neither of us can dredge up irrefutable facts for or against socialism (or capitalism) or communitarianism or individualism.

But, even if either of us could, I'm thinkin' it wouldn't make much difference. For my part, I am an unrepentant self-director. I resent and resist any one who'd look to rein me.