Why is Socialism so heavily disliked?

(Note: Talking aloud, in general, not directly to the OP. Airing thoughts on the topic)

Because there are those few who need it, but sadly the numbers are quite higher with those who are just plain lazy and want an easy life, based on the work and sweat of another as a way of life.

I think for the most part, everyone loves to be lazy in some regard...but when this 'everyone is the same' stuff happens, it pushes mediocrity...after all, who would want to start a business, only to have the majority of their work, and possibly their company controlled by a Gov't, and those who just wanna do the minimum and be treated as well as those who push themselves above the 'average'?

I don't recall who said this, nor if this is an exact quote, but it went something like this:

"If you're under 25 and not a democrat, then you've no heart. If you're over 25 and are a democrat, you have no brain."

The reason I say democrat (and one could use the term liberal) - is that they have shifted heavily more towards a socialist methodology...many people who are democrats/liberals, can't tell you the difference between socialism/communism/liberalism (democrat).

Sure, some social programs need to exist, but it *should never be* the system for the entire basis of Gov't.

You see, our *Repbulic* (we are republic, look it up), protects the individual against the masses. Democracy is the masses against the individual and does not protect the individual and instead favors the masses.

Our country was it's most profitable and productive during the lowest amounts of taxes...as they have gone up, so have the debts, not only for individuals, but for our country.

Balance is needed -and anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see that politicians already have proven by repeated example, that they cannot be trusted, yet people think if there was *more* Gov't control, it would some how fix itself? Laughable...at best.

Ever seen the movie "Idiocracy"? May be interested, the Gov't is already starting to run like that in some facets...and the ill-educated think that by granting the Gov't more power, and giving up their own rights and the rights of others, that it'll somehow fix itself...wow. Seriously wondering what the @!$!@ some people are taking in the mornings...I think Mr. Potato Head in the movie Toy Story may have been onto something.. lol

a reply to: BlackboxInquiry

That is why you make the Welfare subsistance level and make the Job's pay decent wages for the work done, not force them to have no safety net so they end up being wage slaves working extremely long hours for subsistance level's of pay.


From what I know of US history you are correct, and yes your nation is a republic kicking the corrupt king out does that for you.
Also you are correct as to the lowest levels of tax but your economic model was vastly different, no huge corporations, what corporations existed were small and there were a very great many numbers of small business and self employed, then came the recession of the twenty's.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Well, not really. There were mega corps late 1800's into the 1920's before The Great Depression. Just they were owned by individuals with names like Carnegie, Rockafeller and Vanderbelt. And those guys also liked to spread the wealth a bit as in Carnegie Hall, Rockafeller Square, Vanderbelt University and so on with quite a few names actually.

But that was when if you earned a buck, you kept a buck. And there was no minimum wage either. Imagine such a thing. Of course the stock market crash of 1929 and the volume of people that were dependent on a steady job versus raising your own food....well things got bleak...and in more than just America.

In fact, I watched the Greek Austarity with a little trepidation because a number of "better off" countries in the EU were not too far behind Greece economically. Given the history of the 20th Century, I didn't think a country (with nuclear arms) like uh, France would jive with frozen bank accounts dictated by oh, say Germany. I'd say that won't jive at all.

a reply to: Ahabstar

Don't forget that those guys paid slave wages to exploited workers who were lucky to find a room in a brothel where they could sleep out of the rain.

Those guys were ruthless, focused only on money and monopolizing the new 'infrastucture', and used people as tools to be discarded when they became unfit.

a reply to: Ahabstar

I still think the world is teetering on the edge a bit, the chinese economy slowing down and there own need to export even though they are now importing less mean's that the wheel of money is not as greased as it was for that market, there dumping of cheap steel is causing major job loss here in UK as the last vestiges of British Steel go the way of the Dodo or look set too, more than a shame I feel personally but not as personally as those guy's whom are going to out of work and the many subcontractors that will go bust as well since they relied upon those steel works as there main customer, My family (Mothers side) used to own a steel work's among many other assets (defrauded by crooked solicitors).

As you know the Bankers have gotten away with murder here and there in the States, at least when the wallstreet crash of the 1920s' happened the Bankers then had the decency to feel remorse, some even sadly throwing themselves from there office windows while the bankers today are more like remorseless financial psychopaths.

I though actually think a lot of this is indeed down to a small elite of power brokers who really control the world economys but perhaps even for them China is still a wild card as I don't think they have much direct control there.

a reply to: lydie15

I think it's because some people work harder than others sometimes, and at the end of the day...they both get the same wages/privileges. Which in turn, causes a stagnant economy, where everyone gets a shared amount of the money at the bottom of the stack, and the rich (who are in a level above the common man), get all of the overflow, as well as the money they make daily...all while the common man lives nothing more than a common life. Mostly, it's because the welfare type people, will manipulate the system, and get paid the same as those who actually worked.

a reply to: blood0fheroes

Do you suppose this is indicative of the quality of government received?

No, it is indicative of human nature.

Further, if the product received IS worthwhile, people will voluntarily wait in line to pay for it.

Nobody regards good government as a ‘product’. The causal link between taxes and government services is too complex and tenuous for people to understand and respond to in that way. Besides, what one person regards as a good use of tax money is regarded by others as a waste.

The mistake you make is twofold.

First, you assume that other people are like you, or can be persuaded to be like you if only they could be brought to see things your way. Wrong. They aren’t and they can’t.

Second, you think your point of view is reasonable because it is logical. You mistake logic for reality. They are very far from being the same thing.

A word about my background, because I think it is relevant; I am retired from a long and pretty successful career in advertising, public relations and international development planning. All my life has been spent dealing with the realities of human behaviour and motivation, and leveraging them on behalf of my clients (one of whom, at times, was the government of my country). I won’t say that I always worked on the side of the angels, but on the whole I am proud of what I was able to achieve. So the matter we’re discussing is one in which I can boast considerable practical experience.

a reply to: Astyanax

So the matter we’re discussing is one in which I can boast considerable practical experience.

I see. As a retired soldier I was witness to, and sometimes participant of the very worst of what we are capable of. That is the reason behind my idealism. I have to believe we can someday stop letting the demons run amok, as Bill Hicks would say.
I don't assume people can be brought to my point of view, I simply hope they can.

a reply to: blood0fheroes

That is the reason behind my idealism. I have to believe we can someday stop letting the demons run amok

They are not running amok.

Ideals are worthwhile guides to personal behaviour as long as it is clearly understood that reality bears the same relationship to them as an asymptotic curve does to its axes.

Attempting to impose one's ideals upon reality is a losing game.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
a reply to: Open_Minded Skeptic


This is for everyone.

Socialism is exactly like a theocracy.

And who wants to live under a theocracy?

You do realize that it's an economic system, right?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Bluesma

And I would argue, for example, that some things people now consider "collective concerns" are of dubious benefit.

Let's take university as we see it in the US. Most public universities are stuffed with majors of dubious benefit to society as a whole. Does it really benefit the larger community to fund an endless stream of "studies" majors or other pure academics? When was the last time you life was tangibly improved by a Women's Studies major or a Latino Studies Major? How about a Theatre major give most of Hollywood's best never went to college at all?

About the only majors that could be said to tangibly improve our day to day existence in any real way are the STEM-related ones, but most people don't go into those degree fields.

And before you go on about teachers, understand that I taught based out of a program that took already degreed professionals and put them in the classroom working to certify them with a Masters to cover the teaching degree as they taught. We did as well as any other teacher, better in some cases as we have specifically studied our degree areas, not how to manage a classroom.

Just want to point out Theatre is more than acting. If you take the backstage side, you have skills in:
Electrical
Audio
Carpentry
Welding
and depending on the shows you worked on:
laying carpet
Masonry
ect. in trade skills.

A theater major is actually an asset.
tomvanderwell.wordpress.com...

a reply to: randomtangentsrme

A theater major is actually an asset.

I don’t know about a theatre major, but anyone who has crew experience in the theatre is a person who knows a great deal about the practicalities of getting things done. Amateurs may actually be better than pros because pros are unionized and hence tend to be more specialized. But a general production person is an asset in almost any field.

You won’t have an easy sell with that idea on this thread, though. It’s full of idealists; people who don’t realize that if an idea isn’t workable in practice, it’s worthless.

originally posted by: BlackboxInquiry

I think for the most part, everyone loves to be lazy in some regard...but when this 'everyone is the same' stuff happens, it pushes mediocrity...after all, who would want to start a business, only to have the majority of their work, and possibly their company controlled by a Gov't, and those who just wanna do the minimum and be treated as well as those who push themselves above the 'average'?

I think these are some interesting questions, because I used to think the same things.
The often repeated myth about the school teachers experiment with a class to teach them about collectivism seems to make sense, except it doesn't work that way at all.

Individualism and collectivism are systems of values- moral codes.
That story and many of our assumptions on how it would work are based upon our collective system of values which is individualist. In other words, we assume our ethics and values are inherent human traits, instead of conditioned thoughts and behaviors specific to our culture.

We assume that money is the only motivational force a human can have to do anything.
We assume that money is the only form of power or security, that exists in the world.

What I have found in this country (where being a business owner means twice as much work for equal or less pay) is that, surprisingly, there are still many entrepreneurs!
What I found out is that independence and creativity is a very strong trait in some people, strong enough to overide their drive for money sometimes.

Strong enough even to override the cultural conditioning of values (here where independence is seen as "bad"- it is being egotistical). The very nature of a independant personality though, chooses to follow their personal values instead of the colelctive ones.
How do you know, in the states, if you are really independant and individualist by nature?
I mean, even if you are "doing it", you are doing it in a context in which you were told you should by everyone around you.... (! hmm)

Furthermore, those who simply are not, by nature, driven towards independence and creativity do not try to be entrepreneurs here. Those who simply want attention, respect, admiration and money don't take that route.

Those people are of a social nature naturally. They care about their place in society and in regards to others, but individual passion, creativity and independence is not their main interest.

Here we have the second false assumption- that respect in our community only comes from having money. We have made it so in our Protestant based society, but in some other cultures, it is not so. Here the Catholic ideas of money as the root of sin remain: the more of it you have, the more you are regarded with suspicion and distrust.
Service to your community is much more admirable here.
People want to work, mostly for the social interaction. They don't like being alone, they need to feel a part of something larger. A "chomeur" (unemployed person) is considered a social drop out, which is the worst possible thing that can happen to a person. (I presently am unemployed temporarily and people speak as if a great tragedy has befallen me- even if our income is six times theirs, I drive a BMW, spend my time riding horses or doing yoga...)

This is why it is also true that some people still become doctors despite the fact that they do not make a lot of money here- because it is considered an admirable service to the community and doctors are highly respected. There is a social hierarchy in every community here, and doctors will be up on the highest level. Even if they do not have a lot of money, they are looked up to and treated respectfully.

So, for example, the problem, as I often point out in the classroom experiment fallacy, is that there is the assumption that the kids who do not work, and bring down the average of the classroom, do not care what the others think of them. That they are totally egotistical, selfish, lacking empathy, social conscience and are extremely individualist in nature.

But if the person was raised in a collectivist value system culture, what others think of them, and their place in the group is of utmost importance! Not only do they care, but their colleagues feel it is their DUTY to speak up and push each other to be socially conscient. They wouldn't be keeping quiet out of a concern for the slackers' right to freedom. A strong pressure would be exerted upon him/her by the rest.

Granted, like I said, I observe that no matter what the cultural mores, it seems a certain part of any population is born naturally individualist or social in nature, so even in that pressure could fail if it was one of those highly naturally individualist people.
But frankly, it seems that overall, the percentage of inherently highly individualist people always seems proportionally lower than the inherently social people. There will be less people who counter that social pressure exerted than who submit to it.

I think I got too long again. To try to sum up my point for those who scrolled through the rest, in a collectivist governing system, (usually put in place by a population with a collectivist system of ethics and values in culture) the people do not react the same way as would the people from an individualist culture.

In a more social value system, respect of peers is more highly valued than individual freedom and expression, and can be a bigger motivational factor.
Also, basic security (survival necessities) being guaranteed by the society already, money is not the center of focus as a necessity as much as sense of social belongingness and unity.

I think we could find problems in either extreme (free market or communism) because humans are, in the majority, born with both social and individual drives. Go to far either way, you are going to find problems because one part is being repressed.


But that is why it is important to consider the gray areas in between the extremes. The question doesn't have to be either capitalism or socialism,

but how much capitalism and how much socialism, do we want?


(ETA- I just realized that in the quote I took from your post, you made mention of government controlling the business you start up- which obviously is not the problem here, despite there being more of a socialistic element. They just make you pay a higher percentage of taxes, and you lose some benefits- like you have less medical coverage provided by the state and have to choose your own mutual to supplement.
There are some limits... I am thinking about when I had my own business and found there was certain limits to what I could do legally to gain an advantage over my competitors. They turned out to be protect my business from dishonest people in the end though, and I saw why the people embraced them. The controls protect smaller businesses from big corporations.)

originally posted by: blood0fheroes
a reply to: Bluesma

Precisely! Now for a thought experiment - in this modern electronic age, could it be possible to have a system where people not only self assess their tax liability, but also direct exactly what percentage of taxes paid goes to which particular function of government?

I can imagine most would choose to apply the largest % to things like maintaining infrastructure, education, etc.and very small allocations to things like war, and government civilian salaries.

But, basically that is what happens, when people vote. In local and national politics.

(Though I understand what you mean- I guess that would make the budgets too fluid and changing from one month to the next and make stability impossible)

originally posted by: BlackboxInquiry

Our country was it's most profitable and productive during the lowest amounts of taxes...as they have gone up, so have the debts, not only for individuals, but for our country.

I am curious about this- I have been trying to research it and it is rather complex and difficult to get a very clear cut picture there. I keep coming up with numbers indicative of the opposite. But perhaps you could point me to more?

This is a run down of what I have found so far, reflected in this article (which I don't know if this is an outrageously biased journal or not)

-Today's government spending levels are indeed too high, at least relative to the average level of tax revenue the government has generated over the past 60 years. Unless Americans are willing to radically increase the amount of taxes they pay relative to GDP, government spending must be cut.

-Today's income tax rates are strikingly low relative to the rates of the past century, especially for rich people. For most of the century, including some boom times, top-bracket income tax rates were much higher than they are today.
During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.

-Super-low tax rates on rich people also appear to be correlated with unsustainable sugar highs in the economy--brief, enjoyable booms followed by protracted busts. They also appear to be correlated with very high inequality. (For example, see the 1920s and now).

-Periods of very low tax rates have been followed by periods with very high tax rates, and vice versa. So history suggests that tax rates will soon start going up.

Business Insider

Because many of us here have actually known people who lived under real socialist systems. We know the suffering that they endured, we have heard their stories and the warnings that they passed to us first hand.

Now contrast that with the special snowflakes who have heard some much about how awesome socialism is from their high school or college teachers. Teachers who have no GD clue about WHAT socialism is, how it is actually practiced, and what it is like to live in it.

Oh and the other little bit about close to 100 million people who were murdered by their socialist governments in the 20th century.

Call me not EVER convinced. Call me an eternal opponent, call me a counter revolutionary, a reactionary, an enemy of the people. Call me what ever you want but I would rather die on a pile of dead commies and socialist rather than live under their rule.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Dfairlite

I understand your concern, the US view of socialism is as a Red Menace which could not be further from the truth, do you really wan't to see broken people on the street's like the infamous Bag Lady's etc or would you rather see society cleaned up in a constructive way by housing these people, providing medical care and mental health and ensuring that children are no longer born into poverty?.

Making the poor better off does not impoverish the rich, it just mean's they have to pay there fair share of the tax burden as they have made there money off of the economy of there nation (in most cases) and so it is giving back a small percentage of what they have gained from that economy.

It also boosts retail sales which boosts production and logistic's job's as the welfare payment's will never be enough to save up (So state pension's are a fundamental part of a healthy economic welfare state and also since contribution for them are taken at the pay roll stage they help to leave the rest of the pay the employee picks up for spending on other thing's without being bamboozled by corrupt hedge fund managers whom are selling them dodgy pension schemes that will fold when they come to retire), what the state hand's out is spent quickly on food, rent, -
(Even if the accommodation is state provided and for another serious problem of the 20th and 21st century's there should be control to ensure that state handout's do not pay for drugs etc with enforced and if necessary penal punishment for using welfare to pay for drug habit's as in the black market it does no good and is effectively lost money as fare as the
economy is then concerned)

- and utility bill's.

State sponsorship for private enterprise which provides jobs but reducing the tax burden based on number of employee's through a process colloquially called state Subsidies is also a factor in a progressive liberal social economic society with state ownership of some essential utilitys such as power, water and transportation infrastructure such as road networks etc.

In fact some of this your nation the United States already has but it has faced the ferocious right wing whom have demonised it at ever turn using everything from outright lies to comparison's to Hitlers Germany and the Soviet Union to turn people against it.

At it's heart the British model of Socialism under OLD LABOUR was the best example it was ruined by two thing's.

Ever time Labour got into power the money men conspired to move the money offshore and also the internal menace of Militant which were a communist movement that hijacked the Trades Union's of the UK and also some local Labour Seat's, the backlash against Millitant sadly gave rise to NEW LABOUR which was just another Tory Party, this was a sad time for British politics and today the repercussion's are that both Scotland and Wales have very strong independance movements intent of breaking the British union apart, the Success of the SNP and Plaid Cymru is directly the result of NEW LABOUR policy's being so far to the right when nearly all Scotsmen and the majority of Welsh are actually Socialist in there view's and felt that NEW LABOUR had effectively abandoned there nation's within the UK focusing only on the right wing view of about slightly less than half of the English Votors, we do not have a proportional representation system in the UK so remember this as to understand how the right wing have always gotten in to power despite being very unpopular you have to understand it is because they look after there own county's and interest's at the expence of other's county's and the poor and always have.

The USA is different as you have such a melting pot of different people's that getting them to feel altruistic toward there neighbour whom is culturally and racially often totally different may be a lot harder.

We are quite a diverse society as well today in the UK though not as diverse, get this though it is Socialist view's that are more embracing and Right wing views that are more discriminatory as a general rule of thumb.

So to recap when we say socialism in the UK and other western European country's it is not like what you imagine, free enterprise is essential not outlawed as in a communist idiology, freedom of social movement as well so no matter how low you are born you can achieve the unthinkable even reaching to the seat of the prime minister is another fundemental (sound familiar).

In a runaway free capitalist society there is no safety net, no way out of the gutter and youth anger turn's to crime, violence and despair often erupting in gang violence and a dangerous underworld of crime which feeds on the social injustice (Sound familiar).

Socialism is not Communism, it does not outlaw or persecute free enterprise though it DOES make it play fairly and pay it's way as it is all about ethic's.

I lived in germany for a few years less than a decade ago, I think I've got a pretty good grasp on what your version of socialism is, and it sucks.

You and I seem to have different views of what "fair" means. You seem to think it means some people paying the way for others, by state coercion. Your "Fair share" is absolutely not fair. Let me illustrate with the actual numbers:
the top 1% pay 50% of the taxes (referring to income taxes) and have 38% of the US's wealth. 38% of the wealth should pay 38% of the taxes, regardless of who has that wealth. That's fair by every meaning of the word. Your saying 'fair' is really just saying unfair but not wanting to use the proper term.

Utilities,
Yes we had city (municipal) utilities for natural gas and electricity in my city here in the US. Unfortunately government ineptitude reared is ugly head as they simply "misplaced" a $1B bond, so it cost $2B instead. Then once they finally got it all up and running it cost about 12% more per year than the local private providers. The mayor refused to sell the utilities, in fact, she flat out lied and said no one wanted to buy them. She was booted from office and the new mayor had sold them (for a small profit to the city) within 8 months. When the new natural gas company took over we suddenly saw a spike in gas leaks. Well, it turns out the city thought they were spending too much going out to fix small gas leaks so they lowered the amount of scent they were putting in the natural gas, below safe limits. The company that took over boosted it back to regular levels and suddenly people could smell their gas leaks again. Luckily no one died, but the new company came out and fixed all of the gas leaks.

Cleaning up the streets,
I've been all over Europe, your streets are teeming with the homeless, disabled, and beggars. I've never seen as many beggars in the US as I have in europe. Why isn't your safety net working?

Health care,
My wife gave birth in germany. The only positive was that we didn't have to pay for it, but that wasn't because germany was so kind. That was because I had a zero deductible plan that covered me internationally. This was before the nACA went into effect. And let me just say this, I wouldn't have paid a dime for that care anywhere because it was awful. 2 hour waits for appointments that last 10 minutes (what's the point of having an appointment). Sharing a room with strangers like some sort of hostel. 1980-1990's technology. Just terrible.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Ahabstar

Don't forget that those guys paid slave wages to exploited workers who were lucky to find a room in a brothel where they could sleep out of the rain.

Those guys were ruthless, focused only on money and monopolizing the new 'infrastucture', and used people as tools to be discarded when they became unfit.

Ahhh the robber baron myth. One of the classics! Tell me, if that were the case, why were people streaming over here? Just to get crushed under the boot of another person?

a reply to: Dfairlite

I think it is pretty obvious we have different view's, you are like many other's blind to the truth, you assume all social care is in accord which what you recieved in Germany, odd that ours in Britian used to be the best in the world, better even than your paid for hospitals in the states but with years of Tory and New Labour abuse of our health system, the Brain drain which took our best mind's to the States, Canada, New Zealand and Australia we lost not only our best doctors and scientists but also the quality of our care system slipped downwards as we were left with the B'Grade specialists in those fields, then it was corrupted even more by the influx of Indian and Pakistani Doctors to fill those role's, they were not all bad by any means and some are ever bit as good as what we lost but many of them were quack's plain and simple with dubious qualifications that were probably bought rather than earned.

As for Germany well let's just say taking our money from the Lend Lease arrangement and using it to build west germany and japan up was making a cross not only for your countrys back but also for our's.

You mention being stationed in Germany, did you ever cross the border into the netherlands and sample chips with there specialty Frit Sauce, I still crave it after it was introduced to me by a former squaddie while we were training some dutch worker's for a subsidy of Nedcar.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Dfairlite

I think it is pretty obvious we have different view's, you are like many other's blind to the truth, you assume all social care is in accord which what you recieved in Germany, odd that ours in Britian used to be the best in the world, better even than your paid for hospitals in the states but with years of Tory and New Labour abuse of our health system, the Brain drain which took our best mind's to the States, Canada, New Zealand and Australia we lost not only our best doctors and scientists but also the quality of our care system slipped downwards as we were left with the B'Grade specialists in those fields, then it was corrupted even more by the influx of Indian and Pakistani Doctors to fill those role's, they were not all bad by any means and some are ever bit as good as what we lost but many of them were quack's plain and simple with dubious qualifications that were probably bought rather than earned.

As for Germany well let's just say taking our money from the Lend Lease arrangement and using it to build west germany and japan up was making a cross not only for your countrys back but also for our's.

You mention being stationed in Germany, did you ever cross the border into the netherlands and sample chips with there specialty Frit Sauce, I still crave it after it was introduced to me by a former squaddie while we were training some dutch worker's for a subsidy of Nedcar.

Yes, we would often stay in greetsiel and head over into groningen for a meal. But the two things I crave most are the turkish pizza's in germany and the deep fried mars bars in scotland. I'll be back up in scotland later this year so I can at least take care of one of those cravings...