The Concise Reason Why Socialism Will Never Work In The Western World!

reply to post by Kovenov


And as for an unhampered market, I presume then that you are completely fine with hazardous, dangerous, toxic, and poisonous wares being offered for sale in your stores? The market will weed them out and all that because it's up to the consumer to drive the market? They won't buy the poisonous stuff? There is a reason why we have a regulated market. Safety is just one reason, among many.

Socialism works quite well for corporations. They privatize profits an socialize losses. Remember the 700 billion we gave the banks? That money came from the pockets of every man woman and child in the country, If thats not socialism I dont know what is. But when they are counting money instead of taking ours, then its a different story. THEN its capitalism.

Originally posted by openminded2011
Socialism works quite well for corporations. They privatize profits an socialize losses. Remember the 700 billion we gave the banks?
That money came from the pockets of every man woman and child in the country, If thats not socialism I dont know what is. But when they are counting money instead of taking ours, then its a different story. THEN its capitalism.

Socialism is not taking money from some people and giving it to others, unlike fox news has told you. Socialism is worker ownership of the means of production.

Furthermore, socialists oppose the ruling class bankers, so would never bail them out, they would rather hang them.

A capitalist pig like obama is the type to bail a bank out.

It seems like very few people understood the OP.
The pro-sociaists or the one's saying that I don't understand what Socialism is you need to read my OP again!

What you don't seem to understand is that I wasn't trying to define Socialism, I simply said that if you put socialism in a country infested with special interest groups you will only get cronyism and corporatism.

For those saying oh well cronyism and corporatism is not socialism.... sure.. it's not!
But what I said in my OP is that it will become them!

People say oh no no that's not socialism, well it's central planning right, it's trying to define outcomes is it not?
Sure the implementation over time may not be true socialism but that's the entire point of the thread.
That's what happens why you have socialism in a nation infested with special interest groups, understand now?

I don't think Socialism is evil, I think it's perhaps idealistic, but not evil.
However it will always be corrupt in the western world, now if you think that is socialism or not that's not the point.
The point is that it's what the end result will be.

Free market capitalism is different, the power remains with the people not Govt.

Hopefully you guys understand the thread more.
And please refrain with useless posts like the post in the middle of the first page saying "Oh you don't know what socialism is".

Please no one-liners, it's a useless post!

Originally posted by polarwarrior
Socialism is not taking money from some people and giving it to others, unlike fox news has told you.

This is incorrect!
What you meant to say is socialism is not ONLY redistribution, it's also common ownership of things that can be common and centralized planning.
Redistribution often results from centralized planning.

Even regulation comes from centralized planning but regulations are more grey in terms of whether it's socialism or not.

Nonetheless to say redistribution of wealth and services is not socialism is incorrect, what you mean to say is that's it's not ONLY redistribution, and socialists say this because they get annoyed when people think it's only about that.

I don't think Socialism will work in a country as big as the USA. It would take hundreds of years of conditioning and there are always going to be people who will want to be slackers. In order for socialism to work, every job has to be considered just as important and there is no room for huge egos. That is not the case here in America. Maybe a community can go socialist but a complete country this size cannot. There is nothing wrong with pure Socialism but it is open for corruption just like any other government. Pure Communism is also good but no examples of pure communism existing on a large scale ever work correctly. Our form of Capitalism is bad though, pure capitalism has a lot of small businesses and most anyone who wants to works can. We have a twisted egotistical mess of an economic structure here in the USA with many different parts trying to control the rest. The banks and stock market have made a big mess out of it.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


how does planned obsolescence fit into your premise?
to me that has nothing to do with socialism, and eveything to do with the greed that comes with corporate capitalism.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Free market capitalism is different, the power remains with the people not Govt.

This is what proponents of free market capitalism always get wrong. The power shifts to those who make it to the top first. Then it's back to good old fashioned crony capitalism.

They might cause a revolution and set up their own government or buy the one already in place.

Originally posted by kalisdad
how does planned obsolescence fit into your premise?
to me that has nothing to do with socialism, and eveything to do with the greed that comes with corporate capitalism.

Oh yes it does!
In fact it especially has to do with Socialism in the western world... IN THE WESTERN WORLD. I just capitalized that so people don't say "hey that's not socialism".

Planned obsolescence occurs with monopolies because competition would not allow such a tactic to live for too long.
Monopolies occurs because of socialism in the western world.
You may disagree but monopolies occur in a country that has centralized planning and special interest groups, they lobby for legislation that helps them and severely hurts the small businesses.

In a free market, not only would there be too much competition so planned obsolescence wouldn't thrive but also it's decentralized businesses. So competition by state by state by state, not only that but perhaps city by city by city.
More bussinesses, therefore more jobs distributed through the entire nation!

Originally posted by daskakik
This is what proponents of free market capitalism always get wrong. The power shifts to those who make it to the top first. Then it's back to good old fashioned crony capitalism.

That doesn't even make any sense
How would you have crony capitalism under a free market?

You can't have crony capitalism when there aren't any seats for cronies to sit in.
Socialism creates those seats, not free market capitalism.

reply to post by ModernAcademia

Crony capitalism is nothing more than people colluding. It is totally possible under free market capitalism. Of course it stops being free market capitalism but that is the whole point, free market capitalism is just as idealistic as socialism.

Originally posted by daskakik
Crony capitalism is nothing more than people colluding. It is totally possible under free market capitalism.

I explained how it happens in socialism.
You said it's also possible in free market capitalism.
Explain how.

Originally posted by daskakik
free market capitalism is just as idealistic as socialism.

Hardly.
Socialism was intended to be given birth out of a global revolution and/or overthrow of govts.
You thnk that's going to happen?

Also it puts too much trust in individuals in power.
Free market does not!

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
I explained how it happens in socialism.
You said it's also possible in free market capitalism.
Explain how.

It is self explanatory and happens in many different ways on all levels. If you look at the actual definition of the term you will realize that it isn't limited to business and government helping each other out. It also includes private parties colluding to drive someone else out of business or forming an oligopoly in order to artificially inflate prices.

There are many ways in which influential participants in the market can manipulate the market, resulting in markets that are anything but free.

Also it puts too much trust in individuals in power.
Free market does not!

Free market puts as much trust in individuals being honest or some invisible hand keeping them honest.

Originally posted by daskakik
It is self explanatory and happens in many different ways on all levels. If you look at the actual definition of the term you will realize that it isn't limited to business and government helping each other out. It also includes private parties colluding to drive someone else out of business or forming an oligopoly in order to artificially inflate prices.

There's anti competition laws that forbid this.
Free market is free from govt. intervention, now the law.

Originally posted by daskakik
There are many ways in which influential participants in the market can manipulate the market, resulting in markets that are anything but free.
.

Nothing is free, only socialism calls things free, remember?

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
There's anti competition laws that forbid this.
Free market is free from govt. intervention, now the law.

Yes but without government intervention there wouldn't be anti-competition laws.

Nothing is free, only socialism calls things free, remember?

What does this have to do with "free markets"? I sure wasn't talking about "free" stuff.

Originally posted by daskakik
Yes but without government intervention there wouldn't be anti-competition laws.

That's not true and a common misconception.
There would still be laws, it's just that the people would manage the economy themselves.
That doesn't mean not anti competition or and class actions suits.

Nothing is free, only socialism calls things free, remember?

What does this have to do with "free markets"? I sure wasn't talking about "free" stuff.
I'm just saying
If you read about socialism the word "free" comes up quite alot.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
That's not true and a common misconception.
There would still be laws, it's just that the people would manage the economy themselves.
That doesn't mean not anti competition or and class actions suits.

Depends on which free market capitalist you ask.

Law suits are possible but if the person being sued has the connections and/or the money the results can be skewed or the plaintiffs silenced. That is how it happens in the real world. Again, just like socialism, it looks good on paper but in the real world ruthless people are ruthless.

reply to post by ANOK

There are no socialist countries. Capitalism is the predominant economic system the world over.

LOL! Anok thinks if he just repeats this lie enough people will believe it. The truth is completely the opposite Socialism/fascism/communism/corporatism in all its forms is the dominate economic system and is responsible fro all the problems we have today. Capitalism cannot exist without free markets and we have not had that for a hundred years now since the Federal reserve act was passed in 1913. These wannabes want to blame Capitalism for all the things that socialism has caused for the last century.

Socialism requires force and or coercion no system of socialism however they claim to define it has ever existed without force and or coercion of some sort. If it was so wonderful even those who claim it has never been truly practiced they would be doing it and people would be flocking to it. There is nothing stopping them from creating a small scale model of their supposed better society and proving the concept. But they can't because they would have to force people to participate because no one will volunteer to give up the fruits of their labors for very long when they see that others who do not work as hard as they do receive the same benefits they receive for working much harder.

The advocates of socialism are just wannabe thieves who do not want to do the heavy lifting of creating something on their own or they would have already done it. They want others to create something and then steal it from them for their benefit in the name of equality and justice.

Even voluntary socialistic societies like the Amish use coercion as in God wants you to and will punish you if you don't style coercion. Socialism is against human nature. All humans want to keep the fruits of their labors to do with as they please. If Anok or anyone of his ilk won the lottery tomorrow do you think they would share it with everyone or use it to create a model of their supposed superior society? Not a chance! They would forget all about their socialist cause in a heart beat!

The funny thing is that people who say "You don't know what Socialism is" dont' know what it is themselves either.

People don't realize socialism was intended to be born out of a global revolution and violent overthrow of govt..... GLOBALLY.

And then when you talk about common ownership and the above it is by far the most unrealistic and idealistic imaginary path ever conceived.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
The funny thing is that people who say "You don't know what Socialism is" dont' know what it is themselves either.

People don't realize socialism was intended to be born out of a global revolution and violent overthrow of govt..... GLOBALLY.

And then when you talk about common ownership and the above it is by far the most unrealistic and idealistic imaginary path ever conceived.

Hmmm not true. Socialists have always been for political change to socialism, not violent revolution. Marxism for example was apposed to direct action.

The revolutionary wing of socialism would be anarchism, and most anarchists do not advocate violence.

But regardless do you not think that "violence" is sometimes the only answer? I mean after all you appear to support capitalism and governments, which are both inherently violent.

If you lived in N.Korea would you not advocate violent revolution?

The only thing socialists want is worker ownership, they want the true producers to earn the full fruits of their labour.

What is the point of this thread anyway? Why are you so obsessed with bashing socialists? It's not like we're any threat anymore to the establishment. Are you scared of change, have a personal reason to maintain the present system? Violence is obviously not what you have a problem with.

Did you know that socialists during WWI and WWII were conscientious objectors?

There were many groups and members of American society who objected to World War I. Recent immigrants, Irish immigrants, socialists, midwestern progressives and populists, and even parents of young men are a few of the members and groups who opposed the war. Moral and religious reasons contribute to the underlying reason as to why young men tried to avoid and even refuse the war draft.

www.reviewessays.com...

Conscientious objection arising from non-religious - humanist, socialist, anarchist - motives developed in Europe from the early 20th century, particularly in the aftermath of the First World War.

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION History of conscientious objection in Europe

Conscientious Objectors

Socialists are not the ones invading other countries to spread capitalism globally. Socialists are not the ones creating the global economy and sending your jobs to cheaper labour markets.

Like I said on page one, you have no idea what socialism is. You only know what the right wing establishment has told you it is. I doubt you have ever picked up a book, ever, have you?