Why is Socialism so heavily disliked?

a reply to: Bluesma

Most Americans , in my opinion, support some of the principlesof socialism if it appears they will benefit directly from them while disparaging other socialist ideas that do not appear to directly benefit them. This is what I refer to as "lite". They call themselves democrats and republicans respectively.

I happen to agree with your classification of obamacare, but our socialists widely proclaimed it in its original form (vs the form which was enacted into law) and thus it was and still is associated with socialism by default.

Europe is many different countries, with different languages, cultures, practices and political systems. 
You have not specified which you refer to. 
I can only comment on that of France. 

I speak to no particular form, so France will do fine. Across these forums, I have read that my country has few true socialists, and no true socialist policies. With our roots in staunch individualism and individual liberty, I tend to see anything less as not true freedom.

Voluntarism, in which area?

Yes. In all areas of human interaction and association I believe force should not be used to compel. One should always have the option to opt out for any or no reason, at any time. Conversely , one should also be able to opt in at any time.

The proclaim fiercely - these government officials are MY employees, I pay them, and they are using MY money, so I am not about to let them run around and do whatever they wish with it! 

I agree with this whole heartedly! Unfortunately here, this mentality has slowly been all but stamped out over the last 60 or so years, with ideas such as " if you want to keep friends - never discuss politics".

The reason I originally asked your thoughts was not to disparage or elevate any particular form of government; it is because it seems to me that socialism cannot maintain itself without mandatory participation, and so I see no benefit to it over our current less than perfect government. Whereas here, there are options for non participation, even supposed non negotiable taxes where it is each persons responsibility to assess their own tax liability, or whether they even have a liability... at least according to the letter of the law.

I personally don't know anyone who has made that choice. I am not sure why you wouldn't want to. Everyone gets sick, everyone needs a vacation, everyone retires. In any case, there is still taxes you have to pay anyway, just as in the US. 

Regardless of motivation the option should be there to avoid funding the things we do not wish to uphold.
Again it comes back to our roots in individuality. I am more capable to use these funds for my well being than any blanket policy could ever be, because I am the smallest minority - the individual. I know what is best for my life.

rich people hate socialism, as they would be taxed higher.
the rich spend a lot of money telling people socialism is bad, some of the uneducated believe it.
those uneducated get it confused with communism, somehow, then hilariously point and snarl at soviet russia, for some reason, missing out that, that was actually an autocratic or totalitarian system.
given that only two developed countries have a socialist government (india and portugal), and that socialism is 'left wing' not many countries actually have socialist parties, obama a 'new democrat' is centre right while britain's corbyn is lurching labour back to the centre left after blair's 'new labour', the rich have gotten their way, virtually no global opposition, with an idiot base of fans prepared to growl at anyone that could dent their fortune.
murdochs press have painted both corbyn and bernie as communists, and centre right 'new democrat' hillary as a socialist, whilst painting britain's conservative party in a favorable light glossing over discrepancy and, attempting to prove that buffoons and philanderers are america's only choice.
remember kids, fair wages, safe working conditions and free healthcare are a bad thing.

a reply to: Bluesma

I mentioned the bit about teachers because usually that is used to justify the payout for the academic subjects.

But I spent four years specializing in a subject area in my degree and then found out that learning how to teach was essentially a bunch of extra crap not even related to making me better at teaching my subject area at all.

Gov. Perry went to UT at some point not too many years ago and asked them why they couldn't create stripped down degree programs that took a lot of the "lard" out of degree programs so that students could more or less just take the degree needs without all the extra "padding" with a reduced cost.

And I think we do need to ask ourselves, if our public school system was doing the job it was supposed to do, wouldn't we be producing the well-rounded students all the extra electives in academia claim they are supposed to be creating?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ForteanOrgI wasn't saying there was no place for all of it, only disputing that society as a whole should pay for it.

Society will ALWAYS pay for it - and reap the benefits of it. The only difference between the socialist and capitalist model is whom will be allowed to study. In the socialist model that would be pretty much anybody that has the talents. In a capitalist model it are pretty much those that have the money (i.e. a boss that is willing to pay for them or pays the sufficiently to pay it themselves). So, in the capitalist model, if you have the talents but not the money, you're screwed. In the socialist model you can simply attend classes and get an education.

STEM professionals directly go back to put value into society in the fields we train them for. A music major most likely will not

Of course it will, but you would never know, until you studied music yourself. As I said: society is a very complex fabric and what seems to be of no use to somebody might end up as very valuable to him or her still. If you never had to undergo, say, eye surgery, you may feel that money "wasted" on educating eye-surgeons could better be spend on mechanics, engineering etc. - but you are very, very grateful to these "useless" surgeons when they help you maintain your eye-sight if something goes awry.

Pure academics are the same. Sure we need a certain amount of them, but not nearly as many as will be produced if they don't have to pay for their degrees.

The quality of a person does not depend on the amount of money he or she had to pay for education.

This would not change. We would be basically paying for them to carry degrees that enable them only to work in low-skilled service industry jobs like they do now, and those jobs really only require a high school diploma. So why pay for them to study and academic field for 4 years first? It is highly inefficient.

You do so because you can't know beforehand whom will excel - whom won't. And if somebody tries and fails, isn't that bad enough without him or her being left with a huge debt? It's not that people study harder if they have to pay for it...

But it IS true they won't study if they can't afford it. And lo! it are always the poor that struggle to have their children study. Even if these children are sufficiently talented. That is a wrong in my book.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: lydie15

It's All about the Benjamin's . Socialism Never Creates Wealth , it can Only Absorb it which makes it Doomed to Failure .

Capitalism does not generate wealth either. It generates debt. Capitalism cannot grow an econony without the economy growing into debt. Every dollar in capitalism is borrowed into the economy. It failed before it started but we cant see it till the music stops.

a reply to: stinkelbaum

rich people hate socialism

Incorrect, as the rich are most likely to be on the receiving end of the consolidated power structure.

remember kids, fair wages, safe working conditions and free healthcare are a bad thing.

Fallacious argument.
1. Fair wages. As an individual I hold that I am more than competent to negotiate what my work is worth. I do not need a union nor government to do this for me.
2. Safe working conditions. The military has a policy that everyone is a safety officer, and I have yet to find a civilian employer who would ignore risk mitigation. Again, no need for a government edict of safety parameters.
3. Free healthcare. Here we should define term. Do you mean health care or health insurance? As for healthcare - it is already free. Most unfortunately lead extraordinarily unhealthy lives, and wish someone else to pay for their life choices. Insurance is nothing but a consumer product, and as such no man has the right to tell another what he must purchase.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: lydie15

It's All about the Benjamin's . Socialism Never Creates Wealth , it can Only Absorb it which makes it Doomed to Failure .

Capitalism does not generate wealth either. It generates debt. Capitalism cannot grow an econony without the economy growing into debt. Every dollar in capitalism is borrowed into the economy. It failed before it started but we cant see it till the music stops.

Incorrect.
Capitalism does indeed generate wealth. Currency is neither money, nor wealth. The fact that our current fiat currency is backed by debt is no fault of capitalism or any other ism.

originally posted by: blood0fheroes
a reply to: Bluesma


Yes. In all areas of human interaction and association I believe force should not be used to compel. One should always have the option to opt out for any or no reason, at any time. Conversely , one should also be able to opt in at any time.

On that, each individual is as free as in the USA when it comes to the minimum of obligatory taxes. If you do not want part of the roads, police and military protection, post office, education, etc. you are free to say no thanks and leave. As far as I know, there is no country in Europe which refuses to let people leave and go elsewhere.

The reason I originally asked your thoughts was not to disparage or elevate any particular form of government; it is because it seems to me that socialism cannot maintain itself without mandatory participation, and so I see no benefit to it over our current less than perfect government. Whereas here, there are options for non participation, even supposed non negotiable taxes where it is each persons responsibility to assess their own tax liability, or whether they even have a liability... at least according to the letter of the law.

Well, people here generally do their own taxes too. Except business owners sometimes have an accountant just to aid with the sheer complexity of it and to help you figure out where all you can find your exemptions.

For me, what I percieve is that attitude of the french, to retain their status as employers of government officials and to exercise that power through being politically aware and active each day (not just during presidential elections, LOL!)
is allowed because of their sense of solidarity. An individual alone, faced with these government officials, can do very very little in terms of impacting the decisions of those employees. Collective force is necessary to retain that power of the people over the government.

For example, when a certain bill or law seems to be heading towards being passed, the people go on strike. It might start with one particular sector which is concerned, but the rest of the population respects it. The trucks stop delivering, so the gas stations run out of gas, the stores are emptied, public transportation is stopped, and people can not get to work.

This happens a few times each year. It works - whatever bill or law was being proposed or passed is changed or rejected.

I was very irritated by this, complaining that a lot of times, the issue did not pertain to me, and I didn't want to be inconvenienced this way. Others simply told me that whether it impacts them directly or not, they felt it was important for the people to retain their power and influence, so they support it.

I was, of course, the typical individualist american (not my concern, leave me out). I was free to do that.
I learned quickly that it meant I would not be considered part of the powerful entity "the people", so as I was free not to take part in their actions, I also would not have their support. I could whine yell and lecture on the government directions that did concern me as much as I want, I would be powerless. It would just be wasted breath that would not move those officials in any way.

The "don't discuss politics at the dinner table" of my native land is appropriate for that culture- because discussion means individuals opposing each other in an action that is only useful as far as the individual is concerned. It helps you decide what YOU think and feel on the issues.

But in our culture, it is never done to bring individuals together to form a collective force, to create a real and tangible impact upon the reality (for that would be ....oooooh! scary collectivism or socialism!). So why ruin a dinner party for no real reason?


Do that self searching and determining argument on the internet, where no one has any hope of actually making an impact on the real world and can choose to read it when they are not eating.

originally posted by: blood0fheroes

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: lydie15

It's All about the Benjamin's . Socialism Never Creates Wealth , it can Only Absorb it which makes it Doomed to Failure .

Capitalism does not generate wealth either. It generates debt. Capitalism cannot grow an econony without the economy growing into debt. Every dollar in capitalism is borrowed into the economy. It failed before it started but we cant see it till the music stops.

Incorrect.
Capitalism does indeed generate wealth. Currency is neither money, nor wealth. The fact that our current fiat currency is backed by debt is no fault of capitalism or any other ism.

Ok. Write off all the debt and see how much wealth is left. The buildings arnt worth squat, they will fall down if not constantly maintained, our cars will stop working in a year without maintenance, our clothes are cheap and fragile. We have nothing that doesnt require more debt to maintain.

There is no wealth in capitalism. The US is the largest capitalist society and farthest in debt. If you switched to gold or silver it never would have got so big.

originally posted by: blood0fheroes

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: lydie15

It's All about the Benjamin's . Socialism Never Creates Wealth , it can Only Absorb it which makes it Doomed to Failure .

Capitalism does not generate wealth either. It generates debt. Capitalism cannot grow an econony without the economy growing into debt. Every dollar in capitalism is borrowed into the economy. It failed before it started but we cant see it till the music stops.

Incorrect.
Capitalism does indeed generate wealth. Currency is neither money, nor wealth. The fact that our current fiat currency is backed by debt is no fault of capitalism or any other ism.

Regulated fiat currancy WILL work under socialism and the products coukd be built to last without economic consequence like there is in capitalism. Fiat just wont work for capitalism and that is because capitalism wont work.

a reply to: Bluesma

Thank you for the enlightening and may I add very polite discussion. France is one country I have regrettably never visited in my travels thus far, though my wife is part French so perhaps someday.

Welfare states are capitalist in nature, not socialist in nature. This seems to be lost in attempt to save the word "socialism" from its own failures.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Ok. Write off all the debt and see how much wealth is left. The buildings arnt worth squat, they will fall down if not constantly maintained, our cars will stop working in a year without maintenance, our clothes are cheap and fragile. We have nothing that doesnt require more debt to maintain. 

I agree. As stated previously though, this is directly the fault of fiat currency and or fractional reserve banking. Not capitalism or any other ism.

There is no wealth in capitalism. The US is the largest capitalist society and farthest in debt. If you switched to gold or silver it never would have got so big.

I will revise my previous statement. Correct. There is no inherent wealth in capitalism. It does however, set the standard for creation of wealth, and capitalism has raised more people from poverty than any other economic model.
I would argue that it was the solid, reliable, immutable gold standard which was one driving force behind the u.S. rise to power, and that only since leaving it has our wealth been in decline.

Regulated fiat currancy WILL work under socialism and the products coukd be built to last without economic consequence like there is in capitalism.

Could you provide a reference please, for a country which has employed fiat currency under any economic model which held stable compared to gold, or any similar tangible backing?

You re not in France? Your ATS location is marked as France.
Web chatter does make a difference - you'd be surprised how
many ideas, memes and issues foment through the literate
web.
As long as socialist, communist and capitalist elites are in
control of all aspects of life, there isn't much hope any
political system will make conditions better for the
many impoverished people out there.

a reply to: Bluesma

a reply to: blood0fheroes

I said "will" work, not "does" work lol.

Money printed out of nothing and spent into the economy rather than leant into the economy is bullet proof. Combine that with democracy so that folks can choose what areas the money spent like ammusmemt parks vs spacetravel or whatever and we have a recipe for the future.

Capitalism did not really make a peep on the wold stage till it was given a credit card with no limit. Socialist countries are not that exciting but keep debt away from them and witness the end of history. Think iceland pre-2000. Giving them access to debt to compete with capitalism is what drove a stake through them. Not socialism.

Fractional reserve banking and intrest based spending needs capitalism to survive. So cut off the leg to save the body is the way i see it.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

I'm glad we agree that debt is the problem. Though historically every fiat currency has eventually been debased, whereas currencies backed by tangible assets like the gold standard have maintained their value for centuries.

Giving them access to debt to compete with capitalism is what drove a stake through them. Not socialism. 

Fractional reserve banking and intrest based spending needs capitalism to survive. So cut off the leg to save the body is the way i see it.

Agreed. We should cut off the leg of fractional reserve banking and fiat currency if we ever hope to return to a capitalist economy. As it stand the u.S. economy is best described as "crony capitalism", or corporations in bed with government. Another name for this is fascism.

originally posted by: blood0fheroes
a reply to: MALBOSIA

I'm glad we agree that debt is the problem. Though historically every fiat currency has eventually been debased, whereas currencies backed by tangible assets like the gold standard have maintained their value for centuries.

Giving them access to debt to compete with capitalism is what drove a stake through them. Not socialism. 

Fractional reserve banking and intrest based spending needs capitalism to survive. So cut off the leg to save the body is the way i see it.

Agreed. We should cut off the leg of fractional reserve banking and fiat currency if we ever hope to return to a capitalist economy. As it stand the u.S. economy is best described as "crony capitalism", or corporations in bed with government. Another name for this is fascism.

I think fiat gets debased by powers that want to exploit interest based money. Its one in the same but if fiat was controlled bybtye government then bankers get cut out.

Colonial script is a good example. It worked great till the british bankers got tired of being on the sidelines so they flooded the market with couterfeit script and debased it.

Fiat currency is great. You can do whatever you want with it but it is also possible to use it to hurt a nation. When we finally get the spotlight onto the money changers as the instigators we can get rid of the problems around fiat.

There is only much of any resource to base a currency off of and we dont want such restraints. Someone will just end up cornering the market on any resource based currency.

Watch money masters. 3 hours of sheer boredom but very knowledgable

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Welfare states are capitalist in nature, not socialist in nature. This seems to be lost in attempt to save the word "socialism" from its own failures.

No they are a hybrid, what has caused socialism to suffer - not fail in the likes of Sweden and other nation's which had a strong welfare system is the unsustainable influx of non working refugee's mainy from the middle east and north africa, they have also cause social tension's which in Sweden's case as once the most LIBERAL country (not to be confused with other types of LIBERAL each nation it's seem's has it's own definition much like socialism) has caused a rising change in racial attitudes.

In England we have a two pronged long thought out right wind attack on the Welfare state, the old Labour Party was unashamedly Socialist but don't confuse that with Communist they are as I pointed out earlier a completely different system, Based on taxing and nationalisation of essential asset's after the war Labour was able to implement even at the time of Britain's highest ever debt's following the war and with a crumbling empire a comprehensive selection of public services such as Health Care with a family general practitioner for everyone, Free Education up to the university level for people of all age's, Public Library's in every town, Sports Facilitys which used to be free for the public, Telephone lines for everyone (this was a big thing in it's day), Public housing - (A mixed bag as though the housing stock was far better than the mud floor slum's and ramshackle two up - two down tenements which were then the domein of Private landlords charcing exhobitane rent's form the low earning public there removal also destroyed the community's which came with those area's and which had been built up over generations of shared labour and suffering) - and comprehensive infrastructure, power and public policing.

That two prongued attack too place in phase one under Margarette Thatchers regime, wages in the UK had been tied by law to the rate of Inflation which meant that employers could not give a below inflation rate of pay rise and had to keep track with inflation every year, men fought and died for this right as well as employment rights and pensions which the state provided along with health care from National Insurance contribution's which were taken as a percentage of the Employee's pay.
By abolishing this index link that rate of Pay then fell for the next more than twenty years for the majority of workers, also her government abolished Subsidies to most business were by a portion of the NI (Which was not meant to be Raided but was by successive governments) and TAX paid by the Employee's was paid back as a bursery, since the state controlled the energy sector in the UK prices were regulated to also boost productivity and transport costs were also kept down.
The next phase was to take control of Labour so that they could finish this pincer move to destroy the welfare state followed by this Crooked and Corrupt bunch we now have in power whom are costing the country more to finish this act of state vandalism before Labour get's back in so that when Labour does it will like like a shambles and they can not then do the job they must if they are to fix the damage the Riot Club had done to the welfare state, part of that damage is the removal of Workers right's, abolishing state pension (Which they tried and could not get passed so instead they have wrecked it so that workers have to pay into hedge fund's to get a pension - funny that because the Tory's really represent the hedge fund's and not the people at all.

The middle class of England do not realise they are Slitting there own throats voting Tory and New Labour, they think these are good guy's whom care about them, thick or what eh?.

a reply to: NoNameAtAll

I guess i wasn't that far from reality
www.theguardian.com...

Doesn't anyone find it interesting that some of the biggest supporters of socialism are politicians and investment bankers who have made millions and billions off Capitalism?
That should be an answer unto itself, also that socialism doesn't really work.