I will admit I do not have a DEEP level of knowledge of Socialism. I do know that when I first heard of the concept, it sounded odd. Then I did some
basic research and it seemed like a rather decent/moral idea. Then I started researching people that were warning against it or pointing to history
for examples of how it has failed badly. At this present moment in time, it seems the negative consequences (while fewer in quantity than the positive
consequences) are so extremely bad that they almost cancel out considering it as an option.
So, those who are in favour of a socialist system of any kind: if you could read a summary of my views on the topic and then answer my question well,
I would probably be more inclined to be supportive of a socialist system. (Perhaps what I have mentioned below is somewhat inaccurate or ignorant, so
please correct me if I am wrong.)
I personally have no issue with wealth distribution that involves transferring money from those in the VERY top bracket of wealth to helping the poor
or even lower-middle class. Those at the very top will have to forgo extreme luxuries that most others in the country can only dream of, otherwise
they will still be filthy rich and be financially secure, so my sympathy for them is not very high. That is the main reason why I would support
socialist policies if there were no additional negative consequences besides this.
People who disagree with me so far might say (how can you support theft? It's immoral and wrong! How would you like it if you were in the top bracket
and were forced to give away money you earned to others that didn't?)
My reasoning would be this: it is not fair to those at the very top that only they are required to do this to such a vigorous extent, but that lack of
fairness is less important than people actually living without a home, regular access to food/water and those who are in a miserable situation that is
close to impossible to escape on their own. So, I would be willing to prioritise the second situation over the first and not feel guilty or wrong for
If it ended there and I didn't have to think about the potentially negative consequences, I would rigorously demonstrate my support for a socialist
system. The trouble is that it doesn't end there and the potentially negative consequences MUST first be considered.
In essence, state assets/money comes from taxpayers as a collective group (those that are contributing to adding to the tax bucket, which does NOT
include everyone within the state — e.g. children under legal working age, homeless, people with deliberating disabilities, people on state
benefits/welfare — only those who are working and legally paying their taxes are TAXPAYERS). The State cannot exist or function unless they have a
source of resources to pull from, so since money is the most powerful global resource in countries with a strong focus on economics, the state relies
on at least one taxpayer to exist, otherwise it would not.
Keeping this all in mind, socialism is changing the dynamics from "all taxpayers are contributing to the state in the current system that is
relatively fair across the board to TAXPAYERS, even though all taxpayers are also supporting those who do not pay tax" to
"all taxpayers are
contributing to the state in the current system, but those in the highest bracket will need to contribute significantly more to ensure the more fair
distribution of wealth to EVERYONE in the state (not just taxpayers themselves)" which is a rather big game changer. In essence, an already "fair"
system is being made even less fair for the greater good.
What happens when you are in the top bracket and see this happening? If you are a compassionate and altruistic person you would probably stay and try
to help your fellow citizens, you wouldn't be bothered too much. If you are a greedy and selfish person, you would probably view this as a grave
injustice and threat to the life of extreme luxury that you enjoy. Now, I hate to paint most of the high bracket earners with such a broad brush
because I don't know any personally, but I would wager the majority of them got to where they are by utilising their greed and selfishness for
material gain, not by utilising their compassion and altruism. Therefore, most would leave the state and find a state where their fortune can remain
Now, we have a problem: the amount of money generated to help those in need of it will be reduced by a significant margin as more high bracket earners
leave, which while able to work for a temporary duration of time, means that eventually there will be no "extra" pot to draw funds from and then the
state will have to put the full burden onto all taxpayers. Since only a handful of the original group of highest bracket earners remain, the state
will need to include those that were not originally in the highest bracket to come into it. Eventually this system will lead to the crash of the
economy with no way to adapt before it happens.
So that is a small glimpse into why I am convinced socialist systems are overall NOT a good idea for ANY party because it wants to treat equality of
outcome as the primary goal when not everyone can contribute on anything close to an even playing field towards making this a reality.
Can anybody who is pro-socialist explain how to avoid such a fate when a socialist system is put in place?
edit on 13/4/2017 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)