Why Does Everyone Look Down on Socialism?

[Trumpetplayer]

Most people, especially in the USA, where I heed from, seem very paranoid of socialism and communism. Many people believe that the government should be as minimal as possible and should be controlled by the citizens of the country. Sadly, some citizens aren't intelligent enough to run an international superpower, on both parties. In my opinion, and excuse the ramblings of the fairly intelligent (I don't consider myself wise, when I think of that, I see an old Asian man with a fumanchu sitting on a mountain top), and if you've read this far, thanks, the government should control most aspects of the country, including transportation, banking, power, education, etc. So what do you think a government should be ran like?

[tasminsmith]

I think people are paranoid of communism are the reasonably well off because they have the most to lose from being treated equally while most poor people are in favour of it im not stereo typing just that's what I think and personally I think a dictatorship isn't that bad as long as they aren't psycho like democracy is crap they argue all the time coalition (carn't spell it) is baad hate it

[Vlerchan]

It's a case of:

most people not understanding what socialism and communism entails.
most people having grown up during a time where there country was engaged in cold-conflict with a perceived socialist and communist foe and this being reflected in both education and the media.
You can be guaranteed that most people won't be able to define socialism or communism in the Marxist sense of the terms.

[Trumpetplayer]

It's a case of:

most people not understanding what socialism and communism entails.
most people having grown up during a time where there country was engaged in cold-conflict with a perceived socialist and communist foe and this being reflected in both education and the media.
You can be guaranteed that most people won't be able to define socialism or communism in the Marxist sense of the terms.
The only thing is, this is people that are our age, teenagers. Everything else I agree with you on.

[Babs]

dictatorship

Communism/socialism =/= dictatorship.

[SethfromMI]

I have a theory: it is because people associate communism with countries like Russia, North Korea, etc and who wants to be a part of any of that? the actual concepts of communism are not all necessarily bad (though I don't agree with all of it) but we just have seen too many countries , at least claiming to use it, and their countries are in such dire or corrupt states we are afraid to also use it.

that is just one theory

[Miserabilia]

Most people, especially in the USA, where I heed from, seem very paranoid of socialism and communism. Many people believe that the government should be as minimal as possible and should be controlled by the citizens of the country. Sadly, some citizens aren't intelligent enough to run an international superpower,

what you're describing isn't really democratic socialism

[dirtyboxer55]

Communism/socialism =/= dictatorship.

there is a connotation of dictatorship to communism though since almost all communist countries became dictatorships. when people hear communism they will mostly think of the ussr or north korea, both were(are) totalitarian. not saying youre wrong but just saying many see them as synonymous

[Arkansasguy]

Most people, especially in the USA, where I heed from, seem very paranoid of socialism and communism. Many people believe that the government should be as minimal as possible and should be controlled by the citizens of the country. Sadly, some citizens aren't intelligent enough to run an international superpower, on both parties. In my opinion, and excuse the ramblings of the fairly intelligent (I don't consider myself wise, when I think of that, I see an old Asian man with a fumanchu sitting on a mountain top), and if you've read this far, thanks, the government should control most aspects of the country, including transportation, banking, power, education, etc. So what do you think a government should be ran like?

People dislike Communism and socialism because they turn countries into political and moral potholes.

[Hyper]

It's a case of:

most people not understanding what socialism and communism entails.
most people having grown up during a time where there country was engaged in cold-conflict with a perceived socialist and communist foe and this being reflected in both education and the media.
You can be guaranteed that most people won't be able to define socialism or communism in the Marxist sense of the terms.

This. The reason it goes on is that it's passed on by the parents.

To me as an outsider it seems that absolutely everything in America that isn't in line with the ultra-right winged/capitalist views is immediately labeled as socialist and socialism = communism and communism = bad bad in America.

Or so the train of thought seems to go.

[Deactivated]

I'd have to agree with Vlerchan, especially when it comes to the first point. While I don't know too much on politics, I have gotten a bit more interested in them as of lately, especially when it comes to left-wing ideologies.

Socialism, by definition, is a political and economic system in which the workers own the means of production, and there is far more economic equality. In this society, products are made to benefit humanity/society, instead of make profit. Many people, however, and led to believe that it can mean other things, such as a large government and what have you.

In my opinion, I think socialism and communism have a bad reputation because of previous attempts of achieving such societies, especially communism. These attempts were done in the way of authoritarian socialism; a socialist party taking state power of a given region and, thus, forcing socialism/communism onto the country. This resulted in oppression of the workers, not the power of the workers. If these attempts were done the opposite way, and the workers fought for a socialist/communist society, then there's a chance it could have worked.

Now obviously, there are people on this forum who know far more about socialism and communism than I do, so I'm up for debate on this. :D

[CharlieHorse]

Communism/socialism =/= dictatorship.

This exactly. ^


Thank you Berry ^_^

[CRH99]

I think people are paranoid of communism are the reasonably well off because they have the most to lose from being treated equally while most poor people are in favour of it im not stereo typing just that's what I think and personally I think a dictatorship isn't that bad as long as they aren't psycho like democracy is crap they argue all the time coalition (carn't spell it) is baad hate it

well you see, if you have a dictator, it only takes a little bit of time for them to go psycho. power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely. It has been proven over and over again throughout history, it just isn't possible, like an accurate communist society.

[Vlerchan]

well you see, if you have a dictator, it only takes a little bit of time for them to go psycho[1]. power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely. It has been proven over and over again throughout history, it just isn't possible, like an accurate communist society.
Socialism doesn't necessarily entail a dictatorship, just so you know.

Though, in your defence, the OP does imply he's a supporter of authoritarian state socialism.

[Microcosm]

The concept of socialism seems quite good on the surface, but to me it seems very conservative. No one really evolves in a communist system. People aren't really motivated to create anything because they don't really gain much from their work. Capitalism does provide a system in which those who are willing to learn and create and evolve are rewarded; thus, new ideas and breakthroughs arise.

[Vlerchan]

People aren't really motivated to create anything because they don't really gain much from their work.
Satisfaction from doing something they enjoy.
Satisfaction from the idea of helping others.
Popular recognition.
Etc.

I'm one of the most market-orientated regulars here and I still find it genuinely saddening that people require some form of monetary incentive in order to do something good.

Though, I do find that the view this is required tends to be a more or less uniquely American position.

Capitalism does provide a system in which those who are willing to learn and create and evolve are rewarded; thus, new ideas and breakthroughs arise.
The USSR put the first satellite in space and both the first man and woman in space.

That's innovation of the likes that had never been seen before.

Now, in general, the levels of innovation in the USSR were quite poor, but that had more to do with how research and development (etc.) was structured (not to mention the lack of an industrial culture there, abilities to import talent from outside the USSR, etc.), than innovation being something antithetical to socialism. Which, I'll also add, offered differentiated wages, to the extent that it's inequality was higher than the US under Stalin, and as high as the Nordic states rates post-Stalin.

[BlackestSorcery]

In America, we live in a state of personal benefit. Few people care about others, too many people want to be on top - which is impossible if everyone is equal or has access to the same resources. Corporations would be no more, rich people would not be able to afford fondu, ugly mansions that are mostly uninhabited would be no more, all hell would break lose.
Common ownership!
A true democracy! America is not a true democracy, more of a representative democracy. This is both good and bad, since some issues are better not left in the hands of the people, but a select representatives with good heads on there shoulders. Imagine what would have happened if slavery was left in the hands of the people; it would have never been abolished. Or gay rights. Never!
But, the government isn't always doing what they need to be doing. Thus, we have petitions and riots, too ends of a spectrum of public disapproval.
But, people are so afraid of socialism because it would eradicate the things they like, like privilege, and monetary advancement.

It's really a matter of people fearing that which has never happened to them. Besides, look at what happens to most communist and socialist country - never works that well.
Correct me if I say anything wrong :)

[sunnieseason]

Most people, especially in the USA, where I heed from, seem very paranoid of socialism and communism. Many people believe that the government should be as minimal as possible and should be controlled by the citizens of the country. Sadly, some citizens aren't intelligent enough to run an international superpower, on both parties. In my opinion, and excuse the ramblings of the fairly intelligent (I don't consider myself wise, when I think of that, I see an old Asian man with a fumanchu sitting on a mountain top), and if you've read this far, thanks, the government should control most aspects of the country, including transportation, banking, power, education, etc. So what do you think a government should be ran like?

I think that people fear socialism primarily for its history...socialist revolutions always come with lots of death, murders, and imprisonment. It's estimate that over 200 million people lost their lives in the 20th century over collectivist governments from the Nazis to the Soviets and more.

Socialism is a bad ideology because it ignores human nature. Humans are motivated by incentives and by unpredictable preferences. Socialism and other totalitarian ideologies seeks to make everyone equal, while ignoring the incentive problem. How do you motivate people when there is no such thing as competition and reward? Usually that means that violence is the only way that equality can be enforced.

The natural way for humans is the free exchange of goods, services, and ideas. Anything else is unnatural, and must be enforced by violence or the threat of violence. Not everyone is born with equal abilities, so there is no way to trulley be equal. Socialists don't get that, so again their policies don't work because those with high abilities are having to work hard to support those with no abilities. It becomes unjust, so either the people with abilities give up working, or they end up having to be forced to work.

[Vermilion]

I like fascism no I'm not a racist I only like the idea cos it's seems to work and benefit the county in my opinion. Think about it if the nazi weren't racist and didn't start a war how do you think they would off done ?

[Vlerchan]

[...] socialist revolutions always come with lots of death, murders, and imprisonment.
You'll find that revolutions in general tend to be characterised by this sort of thing.

I can cite historical accounts of all the disgusting things capitalists did attempting to remove feudalism.

It's estimate that over 200 million people lost their lives in the 20th century over collectivist governments from the Nazis to the Soviets and more.
It's estimated that more people have lost their lives from the devastation wrought by capitalists (in pursuit of profit). I'm talking famines, colonialism, imperialism, the trans-Atlantic slave trade, European conflicts of the 1800s, WWI, etc., and I'm being kind and not counting the fascists in alongside the capitalists, which I probably should be doing since I consider such movements an attempt to consolidate private ownership of the means of production.

But, Vlerchan, that's the state?! That sort of apolagism works for Socialists too. Let's ignore Somalia though.

Socialism is a bad ideology because it ignores human nature.
From where did you derive human nature?

Humans are motivated by incentives and by unpredictable preferences.
You'll need to explained how either of these things are ignored within socialists regimes.

Socialism and other totalitarian ideologies seeks to make everyone equal, while ignoring the incentive problem.
No socialist countries have attempted to actualise equality of outcome. But I'll allow Lenin to refute you:

Mr. Tugan repeats the old trick of the reactionaries: first to misinterpret socialism by making it out to be an absurdity, and then to triumphantly refute the absurdity! When we say that experience and reason prove that men are not equal, we mean by equality, equality in abilities or similarity in physical strength and mental ability.

It goes without saying that in this respect men are not equal. No sensible person and no socialist forgets this. But this kind of equality has nothing whatever to do with socialism. If Mr. Tugan is quite unable to think, he is at least able to read; were lie to Lake the well-known work of one of the founders of scientific socialism, Frederick Engels, directed against Duhring, he would find there a special section explaining the absurdity of imagining that economic equality means anything else than the abolition of classes. But when professors set out to refute socialism, one never knows what to wonder at most—their stupidity, their ignorance, or their unscrupulousness.

Vladimer Lenin (1914) A Liberal Professor on Equality (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/mar/11.htm).

The natural way for humans is the free exchange of goods, services, and ideas.
The first human societies were communist.

Anything else is unnatural, and must be enforced by violence or the threat of violence.
Like private-property, an unnatural construction of man.

Of course, we're all pretending here that the initiation of violence is an inherent bad, which I don't believe anyway.

Socialists don't get that, so again their policies don't work because those with high abilities are having to work hard to support those with no abilities.
It's more like you don't get socialism.

[Uniquemind]

They look down on it because in it's extreme form socialism didn't end up correcting amoral behavior in society.

It effectively robbed the basic citizen of their freedoms and resources were not distributed equally.

Freedoms were lost and humans were still leveraging and manipulating other humans and amorality continued.

That's why it is looked down upon.

[Ridonks_CB]

I also think that the US just isn't the country to give up competition. It really does annoy me though how the US has butt into every other countries' business in wanting to be a communist -_-

[Syrum]

Well.. To start out. There is some problems with all political ideals. Socialism is bad in some ways good in other. For example, socialized medicine can be good. The problem with socialism is good until greed gets involved. I come from ex-USSR, and as much as the USSR did good, many soviet leaders did bad. Many bad things done. Very few truly socialist countries have worked.

[Uniquemind]

Well.. To start out. There is some problems with all political ideals. Socialism is bad in some ways good in other. For example, socialized medicine can be good. The problem with socialism is good until greed gets involved. I come from ex-USSR, and as much as the USSR did good, many soviet leaders did bad. Many bad things done. Very few truly socialist countries have worked.

All of the character traits and behaviors that many faiths call sins (greed, lust, gluttony, bearing false witness)

No matter where you are all of those behaviors wreak havoc in any society, maybe the hurt from those things isn't felt right away, but it can build up and throw humanity and any country into a world of hurt much like the 1920's Great Depression or 2008 Great Recession.



In this context wars start over conflicts over political and social ideologies and through competition over earthly resources and you keep end up having wars.

[Syrum]

Let's compare. Would you rather live in 1970's USSR, or 1970 America. I think most would choose. Don't get me wrong. I love my country, but my country suffered. Many many bad things.

[phuckphace]

Syrum - I'd choose 1970 US if given those two options. at that time my country was actually liveable.

I still don't consider the USSR to be anything other than an example of how not to attempt socialism, although attempt is probably too generous.

[Syrum]

lenin was good. He tried. Then we have Stalin, who had 5 year plan to nationalize everything. Then WWII.

[Atom]

For example, socialized medicine can be good.
Russia is definitely not a good example of such medicine.
The problem with socialism is good until greed gets involved.
That seem to me to be the main problem. Nobody can give a good example of socialism that is not corrupt. Or if they can, - they have no idea how to implement it.
...and as much as the USSR did good...
Hmph, like what?
Would you rather live in 1970's USSR, or 1970 America.
America, no doubt.
Then we have Stalin, who had 5 year plan to nationalize everything.
How nationalizing everything is any different from fascism? And again, Stalin himself is a corrupt product of wrong implemented socialism.

[Vlerchan]

They look down on it because in it's extreme form socialism didn't end up correcting amoral behavior in society.
It wasn't supposed to.

It effectively robbed the basic citizen of their freedoms and resources were not distributed equally.
Marxists have different conceptions of what freedoms should be (i.e., socioeconomic) as opposed to liberals (i.e., civic and political).

Marxists have never claimed to want to distribute resources equally.

---

Russia is definitely not a good example of such medicine.
How? It wasn't perfect, but it wasn't uniquely awful either.

Nobody can give a good example of socialism that is not corrupt.
The problem here is that when liberals use the term 'not corrupt' it tends to refer to 'democratic' or 'respects my rights'.

If they mean it in other ways like, 'power is not accrued in the hands of a small elite', or 'elites don't have undue influence on societies', etc., then there is not a non-corrupt system in the world, and their criticism is redundant.

Or if they can, - they have no idea how to implement it.
Market socialism.
Skew taxation levels in favour of worker's co-operatives.
Eliminate regulatory controls on worker's and consumer's co-operatives and credit unions.
Social housing based around the idea of co-operative living.
Etc.
The issue isn't that there's not a clear path to implementing certain ideas of socialism, because there is, but rather that this path is politically infeasible at the moment, and the proper intellectual base needs to be devised in order for it to become workable.

How nationalizing everything is any different from fascism?
Fascism doesn't entail nationalising anything? Or even most things?

And again, Stalin himself is a corrupt product of wrong implemented socialism.
You'll need to expand more here.

How was it 'wrongly implemented'? (Though, the Marxist view at the time was that it wasn't possible to implement socialism 'right' somewhere like Russia, because it was still a semi-feudal state).

[Atom]

I'm sorry if I say a lot of gibberish, I'll try to keep it simple, - I just had one of the hardest days in my life so I can barely breath.

How? It wasn't perfect, but it wasn't uniquely awful either.
It is mostly (like 90% of it) free, but the quality is just horrible. So you will prefer going to the private hospital and pay some rubles but you'll at least get a proper treatment.

The problem here is that when liberals use the term 'not corrupt' it tends to refer to 'democratic' or 'respects my rights'.
Just fyi, I don't live in a "liberal" country. We say that we are "liberal", but we are as liberal as North Korea is independent.
If they mean it in other ways like, 'power is not accrued in the hands of a small elite', or 'elites don't have undue influence on societies', etc., then there is not a non-corrupt system in the world, and their criticism is redundant.
And yes, Russia is an example of this. Since USSR there are still a lot of corruption left. It basically works like this: you are close to nothing if you don't have friends at in the right places. Connections can and will give you everything in this country. Not even saying that almost anything can still be bought, just like back in the USSR.

Market socialism.
Skew taxation levels in favour of worker's co-operatives.
Eliminate regulatory controls on worker's and consumer's co-operatives and credit unions.
Social housing based around the idea of co-operative living.
Etc.
I know that you strongly support Market Socialism, judging from your other posts on this forum, so I'm sorry for my ignorance towards it. I've never heard of it and read anything about it.

So... Basically workers should get paid the same wages as the head of the corporation? And do you truly believe this is right?
Social housing. I can see it working but I personally would not live in such a community for one simple reason - I don't need people's nose up my business.

How was it 'wrongly implemented'? (Though, the Marxist view at the time was that it wasn't possible to implement socialism 'right' somewhere like Russia, because it was still a semi-feudal state).
I think you know my opinion on this. Revolution is (almost) never the answer. Maybe in some societies where the government is oppressive, the yes, revolution could be carried out. I don't really see pre-revolution Russia to be very oppressive. I would still prefer the sneaky-illuminati-machiavellian way, if it would come to this.
it wasn't possible to implement socialism 'right' somewhere like Russia, because it was still a semi-feudal state
So they forced it anyway? They thought they knew what was best for everyone?

[Vlerchan]

It is mostly (like 90% of it) free, but the quality is just horrible.
I have no idea why I disagreed earlier (I guess I was on a roll). I agree it was underfunded and this lead to a poor performance with respect to the OECD average. Of course it's worth considering that the USSR was much poorer than the OECD average (it's GDPpc was - for reference - five-fold lower (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/charts/russia-gdp-per-capita.png?s=rusnygdppcapkd&d1=19890101&d2=20151231&URL2=/united-states/gdp-per-capita&title=false) than the US in 1989) and the arms build-up it felt was required to continue existing sucked-up large amounts of its budge - so given the circumstances I would consider it passable.

Just fyi, I don't live in a "liberal" country. We say that we are "liberal", but we are as liberal as North Korea is independent.
You are a liberal though? Or at least seem like it.

I know that you strongly support Market Socialism, judging from your other posts on this forum, so I'm sorry for my ignorance towards it. I've never heard of it and read anything about it.
You're forgiven. I think I've met one other market socialist ever.

So... Basically workers should get paid the same wages as the head of the corporation? And do you truly believe this is right?
I don't support this at all. I think worker's should set their own wages - through voting - and run their workplaces - through the same mechanism - in general and the profits that the firm makes are offered in a dividend to workers as opposed to their absentee-shareholders. This would be done in the context of a free market in order to ensure that activities were efficient. So - whilst it's possible - it's quite unlikely you would see all workers being paid the same because due the the nature of human incentivisation (as is now) these firms would be run out of business.

I feel this is both right and economically pragmatic.

I think you know my opinion on this. Revolution is (almost) never the answer. Maybe in some societies where the government is oppressive, the yes, revolution could be carried out. I don't really see pre-revolution Russia to be very oppressive. I would still prefer the sneaky-illuminati-machiavellian way, if it would come to this.
I think we can just agree to disagree here.

I think there's preferable means of gaining power but I'm quite fine with revolutions.

So they forced it anyway? They thought they knew what was best for everyone?
The intention was that the revolution would expand to the industrialised countries. In the earliest years the USSR was quite committed to the idea of permanent revolution and squandered massive amounts funding revolutionaries in other countries (and not to mention marched as far as Warsaw before getting pushed back). It also could have happened: after WWI you had you had revolutions in the collapsing Austro-Hungaran and German empire, soviets being established in places as far-flung as Ireland, though most of this had been short-lived.

[Atom]

You're forgiven. I think I've met one other market socialist ever.
I promise that I'll spare some time and read about it.

I don't support this at all. I think worker's should set their own wages - through voting - and run their workplaces - through the same mechanism - in general and the profits that the firm makes are offered in a dividend to workers as opposed to their absentee-shareholders. This would be done in the context of a free market in order to ensure that activities were efficient. So - whilst it's possible - it's quite unlikely you would see all workers being paid the same because due the the nature of human incentivisation (as is now) these firms would be run out of business.
This sounds good and all but here is my main problem with all types of socialism - how do you keep people from going corrupt? I'll confess, I don't know a lot of social governments, but all those that I do know about, are rotting with corruption. Bribes, connections, etc. The same examples I gave when talking about Russia.

EDIT: Russia may not be that bad actually. It just had some rough times and a lot of stupid people here and there. They almost solely took the WW2 hit. I think in a couple of generations, when all the USSR leftovers and their legacy dies out, Russia will be back in business. I, however, can't imagine what will happen to this country when Putin will be no more. I don't say that he's good or bad, but he certainly is special. He solely built Russia as we know it today. So yeah, I don't even have theories of what will become of Russia, good or bad, after his reign.

[Vlerchan]

This sounds good and all but here is my main problem with all types of socialism - how do you keep people from going corrupt?
The free market punishes inefficient behaviour.

I'll confess, I don't know a lot of social governments, but all those that I do know about, are rotting with corruption.
I don't want the government to have a massive role in economic affairs, which makes what I'm suggesting radically different to what most socialists want. I'm also supportive of devolving power to regions and localities, which, among other things, reduces the ability of governments to mobilise against the people.

[Uniquemind]

The way socialism was marketed though, especially way back in the past, was that it was better and more fair than the capitalist system that had giant social woes and a wealth gap (a problem has only gotten worse since the late 90's in the USA).

But at the same time the real problem is human nature exercising, greed, and manipulation on others at both the individual level and at the high business (corporate) level not just with other firms within their own country but with firms in other countries with different rules regarding property rights.


So you can't cut out government in economic affairs either, especially when you have one corporation hacking another corporation's trade secrets along with intellectual property and patents.

There's a certain level of manpower that only government can realistically provide for companies.


The real way to solve the problem all is to not: steal, murder, lie, and leverage/manipulate lose control to lusting after others or judge others based on biased points of view.

Be honest with yourself and others, and treat everyone kindly.

[Vlerchan]

The way socialism was marketed though, especially way back in the past, was that it was better and more fair than the capitalist system that had giant social woes and a wealth gap[.]
It didn't claim to be capable of eliminating social woes or the wealth gap though.

It just claimed that the proletariat would be better off it if asserted control over the means of production (absent of the exploitation - appropriation of the surplus value of their labour - by the Bourgeoisie), and it was their historical destiny to do so (at its most simple). You won't find a single, genuine Marxist attempt to give an outline of what societies would be like under socialism or communism. Rather the individuals in the movement that attempted to theorise about what came next were derided as utopian socialists.

But at the same time the real problem is human nature exercising, greed, and manipulation on others at both the individual level and at the high business (corporate) level not just with other firms within their own country but with firms in other countries with different rules regarding property rights.
I don't see how this quite connects to the above.

Of course these are problems. But if they are 'human nature' then Marxism shouldn't be expected to solve them.

So you can't cut out government in economic affairs either[.]
I don't think anyone wants to cut government out of economic affairs entirely.

Though I wonder - with your pessimism about the state of human nature - how you can bring yourself to support something that has a legitimate claim on the use of force.

The real way to solve the problem all is to not: steal, murder, lie, and leverage/manipulate lose control to lusting after others or judge others based on biased points of view.

Be honest with yourself and others, and treat everyone kindly.
If you can combine this into an ideology then I'll be very impressed.

[Uniquemind]

It didn't claim to be capable of eliminating social woes or the wealth gap though.

It just claimed that the proletariat would be better off it if asserted control over the means of production (absent of the exploitation - appropriation of the surplus value of their labour - by the Bourgeoisie), and it was their historical destiny to do so (at its most simple). You won't find a single, genuine Marxist attempt to give an outline of what societies would be like under socialism or communism. Rather the individuals in the movement that attempted to theorise about what came next were derided as utopian socialists.


I don't see how this quite connects to the above.

Of course these are problems. But if they are 'human nature' then Marxism shouldn't be expected to solve them.


I don't think anyone wants to cut government out of economic affairs entirely.

Though I wonder - with your pessimism about the state of human nature - how you can bring yourself to support something that has a legitimate claim on the use of force.


If you can combine this into an ideology then I'll be very impressed.


I believe human nature can be transcended through extreme mental discipline, acknowledgement (not denial mind you) of the self and it's flaws, and the pursuit of knowledge and the use of that knowledge for the most efficient positive purposes for macro society.

Any ideology I'd make or adopt for society would have flexibility built into it along with the common sense (no stealing, murder, uncontrollable lust etc).


--

There are some things the USA got right, and there are some things other countries got right.

But history has shown us this:

1. Whomever is in power whether it's a small percentage at the top, or the mass collective of the populace, they need to be WISE and see both short term and long term actions and the consequences of such actions.

Just because someone is in the 1%, and went to university, doesn't mean they're going to make wise rule for society. Some of the most brilliant people have come from slums.


2. The people need freedom to make common everyday choices, but they should not expect blank check help either.


3. Rulers also need to know that they have to pass the torch of leadership onto their successor gracefully, partly also because all humans are mortal. If peace and a modicum of societal stability are only around because of the current leadership, that's only a breathe away from instability again not good for the long term.

--

I also think that not all work is equal, but that all work should be ensuring the bare essentials of medical coverage, high quality food, shelter, education (and supplies necessary to function in modern education like a computer, internet, pencils, paper, and books), clean water and electricity.

Anything else more than that would require people to earn those luxuries. So I guess you could say I believe in a mix of socialist concepts and capitalist concepts, depending on social tiers.

I also believe in a consumption tax.

[phuckphace]

The problem here is that when liberals use the term 'not corrupt' it tends to refer to 'democratic' or 'respects my rights'.

If they mean it in other ways like, 'power is not accrued in the hands of a small elite', or 'elites don't have undue influence on societies', etc., then there is not a non-corrupt system in the world, and their criticism is redundant.

I came in here to post a less eloquent and tl;dr version of these same points. thanks for saving me the trouble :P

[Syrum]

Russia is definitely not a good example of such medicine.

That seem to me to be the main problem. Nobody can give a good example of socialism that is not corrupt. Or if they can, - they have no idea how to implement it.

Hmph, like what?

America, no doubt.

How nationalizing everything is any different from fascism? And again, Stalin himself is a corrupt product of wrong implemented socialism.

And there you go. There is no example what so ever. Facism is just nationalized socialism. USSR did many things. You know, stormed Berlin. Beat the Nazis. His five year plan did modernize the USSR. We had (have) good space program, better than USA now. Also women were a lot more involved in politics.

[Kochanek]

I think that people fear socialism primarily for its history...socialist revolutions always come with lots of death, murders, and imprisonment. It's estimate that over 200 million people lost their lives in the 20th century over collectivist governments from the Nazis to the Soviets and more.

Socialism is a bad ideology because it ignores human nature. Humans are motivated by incentives and by unpredictable preferences. Socialism and other totalitarian ideologies seeks to make everyone equal, while ignoring the incentive problem. How do you motivate people when there is no such thing as competition and reward? Usually that means that violence is the only way that equality can be enforced.

The natural way for humans is the free exchange of goods, services, and ideas. Anything else is unnatural, and must be enforced by violence or the threat of violence. Not everyone is born with equal abilities, so there is no way to trulley be equal. Socialists don't get that, so again their policies don't work because those with high abilities are having to work hard to support those with no abilities. It becomes unjust, so either the people with abilities give up working, or they end up having to be forced to work.

It is always bad, if ideas are realized to their extremes and pushed through by force.

But the "World Happiness Report", a studies by the New York Columbia University for the UN in 2013, showed something stunning. They found out that things like welfare system, job market, life expectancy and gross domestic product per person play a significant role for how happy people feel.

What they found out: The happiest people in the world live in 1. Denmark, 2. Norway, 3. Switzerland, 4. Netherlands, 5. Sweden! Those are the countries with the highest personal taxes and highest level of taxation throughout Europe if not the world, they have the most developed welfare systems and some of the highest price levels. Those are no socialist countries like USSR was, as they do not have totalitary political systems but democracy, and they do not have a planned command economy but market economy!

The result of those countries' policy is: The richest people are still very, very, very rich. But the poorest are far away from being that poor like poor people in other western countries. No beggars on the street. So it seems as if a little bit of socialism paired with democracy and freedom makes people feel that there is justice and fairness. And that makes them happy.

http://unsdsn.org/resources/publications/world-happiness-report-2013/

[Microcosm]

It is always bad, if ideas are realized to their extremes and pushed through by force.

But the "World Happiness Report", a studies by the New York Columbia University for the UN in 2013, showed something stunning. They found out that things like welfare system, job market, life expectancy and gross domestic product per person play a significant role for how happy people feel.

What they found out: The happiest people in the world live in 1. Denmark, 2. Norway, 3. Switzerland, 4. Netherlands, 5. Sweden! Those are the countries with the highest personal taxes and highest level of taxation throughout Europe if not the world, they have the most developed welfare systems and some of the highest price levels. Those are no socialist countries like USSR was, as they do not have totalitary political systems but democracy, and they do not have a planned command economy but market economy!

The result of those countries' policy is: The richest people are still very, very, very rich. But the poorest are far away from being that poor like poor people in other western countries. No beggars on the street. So it seems as if a little bit of socialism paired with democracy and freedom makes people feel that there is justice and fairness. And that makes them happy.

http://unsdsn.org/resources/publications/world-happiness-report-2013/

Please refrain from bumping threads that have been inactive for more than two months.

:locked2: