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

I don't think Socialism is evil, but it very much can be.
And the threat of evil owns a higher percentage of ownership over socialism than the good has ownership of.

Let's talk about the United States.
The U.S. is sick, it's currently is infected with special interest groups and powerful lobbyists.

So the problem with redistribution of wealth and services in the northern western world is the redistributor!
He redistributor will auction off his powers, his votes and therefore national business in the end.

People call capitalism evil.
But big corporations do not own monopolies in true capitalism, they own monopolies in Socialism.
Because when socialism comes into effect in a country infested with special interest groups it turns into corporatism, one ingrediant is what some may call crony capitalism.

But true free market does not allow crony capitalism, socialism does!
So if you truly hate crony capitalism then why are you a socialist?

Free market also dislikes crony capitalism, but socialism allows it in a nation infested with special interest groups.

Regulations!
Many socialists are also pro-regulations, I am talking about the form of socialism in the U.S.
Regulations create regulatory bodies and the czars and/or execs of these bodies are many times from big corporations that leftists hate!

Time to wake up!

But there are no big corporations in a true socialist society. What has happened in America is the logical conclusion of corporate capitalism.

Originally posted by kimar
But there are no big corporations in a true socialist society. What has happened in America is the logical conclusion of corporate capitalism.

How can you have crony capitalism without socialism?
Explain that.

There will always be big corps in a true socialist society where special interest groups have a chockehold on politicians.
What you have today could never be the conclusion of a free market.
Think about it.

I have thought about it, a lot actually. I think you may be confusing the act of giving special interests vast sums of money and the political philosophy of redistribution of wealth, worker ownership, environmental sustainability, etc.

So let me see here. You place the blame for the corruption of capitalism on socialism rather than any flaw within the concept of capitalism itself? As if there is some ethereal, Platonic Form of capitalism which if allowed to flow freely and not become degraded by earthly realities, like human inconsistency, would continue to work for the betterment for all who worship at its holy alter? I think not.

Free market and free enterprise and "true capitalism" do not exist in a void. They like any human endeavor, are prone to corruption at the hands of the foibles and extreme variances of the human condition.

Capitalism has worked. It has. For everyone, maybe and maybe not. But even if it has for the most part been beneficial in the overall development of our species, that does not necessarily mean that it will always continue to do so. It has flaws and like all our systems needs to be watched and modified to prevent it from allowing those who would control it for their own private interests, to use it to run roughshod over the rest of us.

Socialism is not the problem.

Capitalism is not the problem.

The real problem is that we allowed the once tightly regulated corporate charter system to run amok; paving the way for a nefarious marriage of corporate greed and a corrupt government that no longer exists to protect the rights of the individual.

That's called fascism!

Socialism has nothing to do with it and if we had a little more social awareness in America we may not be in the position we are in.

Originally posted by TerryMcGuire
So let me see here. You place the blame for the corruption of capitalism on socialism rather than any flaw within the concept of capitalism itself?

You talk about the flaw of capitalism and I will respond

Originally posted by TerryMcGuire
As if there is some ethereal, Platonic Form of capitalism which if allowed to flow freely and not become degraded by earthly realities, like human inconsistency, would continue to work for the betterment for all who worship at its holy alter? I think not.

You are being extremely vague.
Please explain how free market capitalism would be stained by earthly realities.

Any ideology that uses plunder and oppression as its cornerstone IS indeed evil. Socialism has never worked anywhere, and it never will.

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
Any ideology that uses plunder and oppression as its cornerstone IS indeed evil. Socialism has never worked anywhere, and it never will.

The Ideals you fools berate, and the Ideals you people Push, are Laughable.
Your Argueing over the Crumbs that Spilled over the Side of the Pie Pan.
The Pie itself, is for the Leaders of this Corporatism State.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


I don't think you understand what socialism is.

Socialism is the workers common ownership of the means of production. It is an economic system, not a form of government.

Corporations are capitalist. Incorporating is simply a way for capitalist owners to protect their wealth. It has nothing to do with socialism. If a company is incorporated then the owner is not liable for any court action against the company. If a company is not incorporated the courts can take the owners personal wealth.

Anarchists are socialists, so how can socialism be a state system?

"Anarchism is stateless socialism" - Mikhail Bakunin

reply to post by ModernAcademia

The Concise Reason Why Socialism Will Never Work In The Western World!, page 1

There are plenty of countries that are basically socialist and they enjoy a higher standard of living than we do in the states.

www.economist.com...

This thread is just a clever way to issue in the anti Obama rants; isn't it? Obama is a neocon. I would think the conservatives would be overjoyed. There must be some other reason why they hate him so....

reply to post by olaru12


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

What you mean is liberal countries. Countries that have a capitalist economy, with a state system that provides a social safety net, is liberalism not socialism.

Socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production, and has nothing to do with government, or state systems, as it is an economic system and can be state-free, as in Libertarian Socialism, Anarchism.

"Anarchism is stateless socialism" - Mikhail Bakunin

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
There will always be big corps in a true socialist society where special interest groups have a chockehold on politicians.

Clearly you don't know what socialism is, which basically debunks your whole thread.

Why don't people ever read about what it is before commenting? Ya know, it just makes the socialists look good when their critics don't even know even the most basic concepts about what it is they're criticizing.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Leaving socialism and or more precisely that which is perceived or labeled by so many as socialism aside, I see a popular impression of capitalism at its best to be a free and unfettered system of exchange. This for that. Lets trade. I need that and you need this. So lets do it.

However I do not think that this is possible. Maybe not impossible, but certainly not probable. In my observations of humanity, I find that there are too many differences , or maybe not differences, but variations in the manner in which we approach the basics of human consciousness.

There seem to be people for whom enough is enough, while there also seems to be people for whom enough is not enough. We can wallow in this description if you wish but I hope I clearly expressed myself here.

Now capitalism would surely be a perfect system of free exchange if everyone were of the enough is enough type. But we do not seem to be. Where does the category of enough is not enough end. That group that is bound to the concept of more, more and more. Do the enough is enough people have any way of putting the skids on the more more more people? Do the more more more people have any internal mechanism which holds them from just reaching for more and more again? The invisible hand?

The invisible hand might be argued. That the breakdown in the system would be prevented by the own best self interest of the more more more realizing that the whole system is in peril due to the over satiation of their own self guided interests? Human history is replete though, with examples of humans allowed to over develop their own best self interest. Kings, Tzars, CEOs who never have enough. NEVER.

Now if we had an unlimited environment, a never ending land of resources we might be able to get away with a completely free market. Let the enough is enough have their, enough. Let the enough is not enough have their more more more etc. However we do not live in this world of unending resource. We live in a world of limits.
Enough and not enough cannot live side by side.

I would like to see a form of capitalism where you improve your situation and I improve mine. I am an individual with people, wife, children, etc, who depend upon my ability to secure for myself and for them a reasonably secure existence. I am confidently sure you are also. Yet we live in a world of limits. So here is where we get down to the nitty gritty.

I am not a social Darwinist. Darwin came along and the concept of survival of the fittest took on a life of its own. However this is only a simplified version of evolutionary science. This simplified version took on a life of its own and was turned into an excuse for the more is more people to continue to take more more more at the expense of others. It is only survival of the fittest. This concept is hierarchical.

If we accept hierarchical systems as natural then we are stumped. All we can do is scramble as hard as we can to crawl higher on the pyramid. We cannot complain that those who oppress us or take from us or whatever are wrong. They are only higher on the totem pole and it is their right as is our right to do that to those under us. At the same time those who are under us have every right to crawl higher, even if it is at our expense. This is a never ending cycle which is excused by a hierarchical system.

When my right to provide for me and mine takes precedence over YOUR right to do the same we end up in eternal conflict. This is why I do not think that capitalism in it's present form no longer serves us as a viable means of exchange. If you are willing to kill me and mine for your needs to be met, then so be it. You will do what you will do. I will not.

A basic tenant of capitalism is expansion.Capital must be used to expand. This is why your basic mom and pop is in jeopardy. Mom and pop are not capitalist. For mom and pop, enough is enough, and mom and pop can not compete much longer in a system of more more more. Dog eat dog. McDonalds is capitalism.

Ahhhhchhhh. That is more than enough of your time. I ramble and ramble and apologize if I have not gotten more specific as both of us wish I might.

there are many socialist programs in every nation in the western world

pure capitalism doesn't exist

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
there are many socialist programs in every nation in the western world

pure capitalism doesn't exist

Governments handouts are not socialist programs.

Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, and yes the predominant economic system the world over is capitalist.

Socialism is an economic system, not something governments do.

Governments handouts is liberalism, capitalism with a state supplied social safety net. Socialism is the workers common ownership of the means of production.

Originally posted by polarwarrior
Clearly you don't know what socialism is, which basically debunks your whole thread.

Why don't people ever read about what it is before commenting? Ya know, it just makes the socialists look good when their critics don't even know even the most basic concepts about what it is they're criticizing.

thanks for saying absolutely nothing

reply to post by ModernAcademia


It is the logical progression of capitalism because capitalism has one singular interest, the profit motive. In a true laissez faire capitalist system, because it is competitive, there will be monopolies. One business will "do better" than all the rest, and because of the profit motive, it HAS to shut down all competition, otherwise it risks loss of profit. If a monopoly exists, it guarantees all profits for it's sector. Once that monopoly is achieved, in order to guarantee it's hold on the market, it HAS to affect the laws that it's host society that threaten it's profitability. Ergo, it HAS to begin to bribe government officials to affect contract, tort, and other kinds of laws that could affect the profit margin, as well as make it impossible for competitive enterprises to arise and threaten it's interests. When this is complete, the business has, in effect, "won" the game that they are playing, which is to create and maintain total profitability indefinitely.

All of this has happened before in the United States. The Standard Oil scandal is just one of such events that produced the anti-trust and anti-monopolization laws we have today. The hopelessly convoluted system of laws governing business interests that we have now is the direct result of non-monopolized businesses using their financial power to influence the political process to their benefit, because they HAVE to in order to protect or create profitability. This is not a Democrat or Republican issue either. Solyndra is just as bad as Amgen. They all do it because the profit motive demands it. The only remedy to the situation is for the the profit motive to either be replaced or attenuated by a conscious, humane, ethical motive, which is generally found in Socialist economic theories.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Lump all the various names for political philosophies under the heading of 'Economic Darwinism.'

Some people live in big houses. Other people are bottom feeders.

If socialism is incorporated (pardon the pun) into the current capitalist/governmental system to keep the lower echelons in place, well, that's the way any system works in Economic Darwinism. The upper echelons utilize whatever systems or parts of systems they need to pay the lawn maintenance and pool cleaning people who keep the big houses functioning properly.

Illegals are important to big house Economic Darwinism being that illegals generally work for cheaper wages, etc.

reply to post by ANOK


Government handouts are essentially forms of Plantation Economics. Keep 'em down on the farm, even if the farm is an urban shade tree environment where the mailman can deliver welfare checks in total to the entire neighborhood at one fell swoop.