PDA

View Full Version : What makes socialism evil?



Cesarbruh
04-08-2018, 08:50 PM
????

TaeBoNinja
04-08-2018, 08:56 PM
It's not evil, just incredibly dumb.

AgRyan
04-08-2018, 09:03 PM
Soviet Russia.

exxtracool
04-08-2018, 09:05 PM
equality of outcome

tnel00
04-08-2018, 09:14 PM
theft

tk217
04-08-2018, 09:20 PM
Theft; corruption; murder. Typical socialist government things.

kusok
04-09-2018, 03:14 AM
Theft.


Extortion, to be more specific.

spatchcock
04-09-2018, 03:21 AM
mine =/= yours

Iceman1800
04-09-2018, 03:30 AM
Greed, laziness and lack of moral values. So basically human nature.

wincel
04-09-2018, 04:49 AM
An economic system which leaves most of your people starving, gives all the power to a few elites, and removes all forms of freedom is what most would consider evil bro.

You may laugh and say I am describing the US. Our people are well fed and have tons of freedoms. In Russia, people were fukking eating seaweed because the grocery stores had no fukking food.

Talk to anyone from a socialist country. They will tell you.

kusok
04-09-2018, 07:47 AM
An economic system which leaves most of your people starving, gives all the power to a few elites, and removes all forms of freedom is what most would consider evil bro.

You may laugh and say I am describing the US. Our people are well fed and have tons of freedoms. In Russia, people were fukking eating seaweed because the grocery stores had no fukking food.

Talk to anyone from a socialist country. They will tell you.


^^^ Can confirm. Thou not seaweed in our case..

AlwaysFocus
04-09-2018, 07:50 AM
I work hard so lazier people get the same benefits? No thanks Ivan

stardumbell
04-09-2018, 07:53 AM
it takes away your ability to become rich, that's all, it takes away your freedom

DIL22
04-09-2018, 07:58 AM
The issue is that when you talk about socialism the people on the right are usually talking about communism and the people on the left are usually talking about social democracy so nobody is really talking about the same thing. In general I think most people agree that some social policies are good (public education, infrastructure, social security, etc.), but when they run rampant then they could be considered "evil".

Bushmaster
04-09-2018, 08:06 AM
In before "true socialism" has never been tried.

pwoL
04-09-2018, 08:11 AM
xF2lFGyADtM

compan
04-09-2018, 08:18 AM
I'd say mostly the death count attached to it's legacy is what makes it evil.

It breeds corruption just as badly as capitalism, only the poor don't stand a chance of surviving. Maybe if we could print money without it devaluing our currency, then we could be a democratic socialist utopia, but that isn't reality.

cashinout
04-09-2018, 08:24 AM
You: Lets redistribute our wealth

Me: No

You: You have to

Me: No

You: These armed men will try to convince you

Me: No

Armed Men: Redistribute your wealth

Me: No

Armed Men: Okay come with us to this cage that we'll put you in

Me: No

Armed Men: Okay, bye

Me: Dead

Tamorlane
04-09-2018, 09:20 AM
Socialism isn't evil, human ignorance and greed is evil. Extremes are usually where evil would come about. If we lived in a pure capitalist, chaotic society huge corporations could manipulate and exploit humanity and there would be nothing there to stop it. Anarchists and capitalists would claim you have a choice, but those with power can and will use it to keep the cattle under their control. To say socialism is evil you might as well say capitalism is evil.

I support capitalism to an extent: Free trade, mutual transactions, innovation, competition, etc.

I also support socialism to an extent: Public ownership of police, fire, emt, military, infrastructure, health care, prisons, etc.

I support the notion of running government like a business in terms of efficiency, but i'm not for running government like a business to ignore the functions and roles that a government is supposed to do (take care of the country where business - driven by profit and nothing else, won't).

We live in a world where these two different political theories are interconnected. We began with a more free-market, chaotic society and regulations were put in place over time as they became required. A major example is the Great Depression. After that happened, the government felt it needed to step in to tax high when economy good and tax low when economy bad to even out and avoid other recessions and depressions.

The entire premise of communism/socialism is that capitalism is a mere stage in humanity's progression. It cannot be sustained for ever. Even without the inherent contradictions between the workers and the owners, corporations will grow and consume resources for profit at the expense of anything else. We see this with deforestation, pollution, greenhouse gases, even war until a point that the planet is not habitable.

It's believed that capitalism will eventually fail and be replaced with pure communism. Socialist policies found in Denmark, Canada, Germany and even the US are stepping stones toward this inevitable outcome.



The writings of Karl Marx provided the basis for the development of Marxist political theory and Marxian economics
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels argued that socialism would emerge from historical necessity as capitalism rendered itself obsolete and unsustainable from increasing internal contradictions emerging from the development of the productive forces and technology. It was these advances in the productive forces combined with the old social relations of production of capitalism that would generate contradictions, leading to working-class consciousness.[290]

Marx and Engels held the view that the consciousness of those who earn a wage or salary (the working class in the broadest Marxist sense) would be moulded by their conditions of wage slavery, leading to a tendency to seek their freedom or emancipation by overthrowing ownership of the means of production by capitalists and consequently, overthrowing the state that upheld this economic order. For Marx and Engels, conditions determine consciousness and ending the role of the capitalist class leads eventually to a classless society in which the state would wither away. The Marxist conception of socialism is that of a specific historical phase that would displace capitalism and precede communism. The major characteristics of socialism (particularly as conceived by Marx and Engels after the Paris Commune of 1871) are that the proletariat would control the means of production through a workers' state erected by the workers in their interests. Economic activity would still be organised through the use of incentive systems and social classes would still exist, but to a lesser and diminishing extent than under capitalism.

The middle class is shrinking. The few at the top are accumulating the majority of ALL NEW WEALTH CREATED.

The 1% grabbed 82% of all wealth created in 2017
http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/21/news/economy/davos-oxfam-inequality-wealth/index.html

The system grossly favors those at the top orchestrating (the federal reserve banks). The middle class is bleeding into poverty, as inflation will always rise (cost of goods goes up) and the dollar in your pocket and bank becomes worth less. The lower class is growing, creating an ever increasing division between the elite and the rest. This is an inevitable outcome of capitalism. Because of the power of money and its influence, politicians failed to protect their country.

Mark1T
04-09-2018, 09:45 AM
Venezuela is a good example of how socialism ends up.

gwem32170191
04-09-2018, 09:56 AM
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/9b/1b/b1/9b1bb10c3a370773e8536c5d5cdc0bf9--humans-meme-movie-memes.jpg

Austanian
04-09-2018, 11:04 AM
Nothing necessarily "Evil" about it. Many tribal systems had those type of systems.

Doesn't make it a smart system though...

People need incentive to take risks with their personal capital.
People need to be rewarded for working harder than someone else.

xbandit07x
04-09-2018, 11:09 AM
The marxists from each nation has never stopped trying to Invade Democracy.

LukeLissen
04-09-2018, 11:44 AM
Theft; corruption; murder. Typical socialist government things.

That.

It's mass murderous robbery when practiced by real socialists. Even 'socialism lite' or 'democratic socialism' is simply a segway to the same eventual totalitarian murderous robbery if not kept in check hard by opposing anti-socialist forces.

In the past 100 years, socialists across the globe (especially communism and Nazism) murdered, slaughtered, genocided, etc several hundred million good people and caused vast destruction far above anything else humans have ever done. If you believe in the devil, satan, evil, dark forces, etc - then socialism is the economic-government system it pushes, causing death and destruction in the false name of goodness.

Cesarbruh
04-09-2018, 11:48 AM
You: Lets redistribute our wealth
Me: No
You: You have to
Me: No
You: These armed men will try to convince you
Me: No
Armed Men: Redistribute your wealth
Me: No
Armed Men: Okay come with us to this cage that we'll put you in
Me: No
Armed Men: Okay, bye
Me: Dead
/thread
surprised by the amount of wrong answers, socialism is evil b/c it is the destruction of freedom. It's enforce by a gun, i.e. comply or die



Nothing necessarily "Evil" about it. Many tribal systems had those type of systems.
Doesn't make it a smart system though...

threatening people with murder should they not comply isn't evil?

BrocepCurls
04-09-2018, 11:52 AM
You: Lets redistribute our wealth

Me: No

You: You have to

Me: No

You: These armed men will try to convince you

Me: No

Armed Men: Redistribute your wealth

Me: No

Armed Men: Okay come with us to this cage that we'll put you in

Me: No

Armed Men: Okay, bye

Me: Dead

Socialism doesn't mean capitalism with taxation

Cesarbruh
04-09-2018, 12:00 PM
Socialism doesn't mean capitalism with taxation
capitalism with taxation isn't capitalism you fool, that's facism
Large corporations and the wealthy can foot a tax bill, poor and upcoming businesses can't

capitalism=respect for property rights=freedom=voluntary based interactions =/=taxation

Austanian
04-09-2018, 12:04 PM
threatening people with murder should they not comply isn't evil?

Many tribal people through out history had socialistic forms of "government". Many religious organizations have socialistic forms of "government". There are communes that are very socialistic.

Failure to do your part would result in removal from the system... however, that threat isn't necessarily imprisonment/death.

Doesn't remove the flaws of socialism, but does show that the EVIL part of socialism isn't present in all forms.


capitalism with taxation isn't capitalism you fool, that's facism
Large corporations and the wealthy can foot a tax bill, poor and upcoming businesses can't

capitalism=respect for property rights=freedom=voluntary based interactions =/=taxation

Ahh you are one of those people...

AT MINIMUM a Capitalist Society requires government for:
Defense.
Contract enforcement.
Regulation of negative externalities.

These things cost money and as such require taxes. Beyond the basics there are dozens of other things needed for a society to function. Doesn't mean we need the bloated behemoth governments currently in place, but anarcho-capitalism is not possible to maintain.

BrocepCurls
04-09-2018, 12:08 PM
capitalism with taxation isn't capitalism you fool, that's facism
Large corporations and the wealthy can foot a tax bill, poor and upcoming businesses can't

capitalism=respect for property rights=freedom=voluntary based interactions =/=taxation

All of the worlds nations are fascist? You're living under fascism right now?

Capitalism = private ownership and control of the means of production, organisation of production for profit, and the existence of wage labour

Having all of these things but with some government taxation doesn't suddenly make it no longer capitalism, or make it "socialism", or "fascism" or whatever else you decide to call it on a different day of the week

You're a 17 year old edgelord and one Ron Paul video surmises the totality of your learning on this subject, come back in a few years when you've actually read something

Cesarbruh
04-09-2018, 12:19 PM
Many tribal people through out history had socialistic forms of "government". Many religious organizations have socialistic forms of "government". There are communes that are very socialistic.

Failure to do your part would result in removal from the system... however, that threat isn't necessarily imprisonment/death.

Doesn't remove the flaws of socialism, but does show that the EVIL part of socialism isn't present in all forms.
nothing wrong with socialism in itself, what makes socialism evil=the use of force and the use of force is always backed by death (people comply to avoid being killed)
True socialism is voluntary as it respects both the receiver and giver's personal freedom to choose for themselves


All of the worlds nations are fascist? You're living under fascism right now?

Capitalism = private ownership and control of the means of production, organisation of production for profit, and the existence of wage labour

Having all of these things but with some government taxation doesn't suddenly make it no longer capitalism, or make it "socialism", or "fascism" or whatever else you decide to call it on a different day of the week

You're a 17 year old edgelord and one Ron Paul video surmises the totality of your learning on this subject, come back in a few years when you've actually read something

we aren't living in a fascist state? brb, google CEO+Jeff Bezos on defense advisory boards for the Pentagon
Brb bank and corporate bailouts
Brb state subsidizes corporations like Tesla
Brb former director of FCC was a lobbyist and venture capitalist for the wireless+telecomm industry, the same industry he was meant to regulate (Can't make this sh*t up)
Brb google developing weapons of war
Still think we don't live in a fascist state?

Capitalism is the private ownership of the means out production. The means of production=your body, your time, your energy, etc Ownership=highest claim and authority over an object. The state overrides your ownership of your own body, your paycheck, business, machinery/equipment, etc through regulations, licensing, fees and taxes that force you to comply should you wish to continue with production. Private ownership is dead. Fascism/socialism are one of the same- they are just mere labels for systems that are based on the destruction of freedom- enforced at gun point which is the entire reason why they're evil.

I'm an edgelord because I support peaceful, voluntary interactions over violent ones? You're the type of edgelord to claim evil is necessary gtfo

BrocepCurls
04-09-2018, 12:32 PM
nothing wrong with socialism in itself, what makes socialism evil=the use of force and the use of force is always backed by death (people comply to avoid being killed)
True socialism is voluntary as it respects both the receiver and giver's personal freedom to choose for themselves



we aren't living in a fascist state? brb, google CEO+Jeff Bezos on defense advisory boards for the Pentagon
Brb bank and corporate bailouts
Brb state subsidizes corporations like Tesla
Brb former director of FCC was a lobbyist and venture capitalist for the wireless+telecomm industry, the same industry he was meant to regulate (Can't make this sh*t up)
Brb google developing weapons of war
Still think we don't live in a fascist state?

Capitalism is the private ownership of the means out production. The means of production=your body, your time, your energy, etc Ownership=highest claim and authority over an object. The state overrides your ownership of your own body, your paycheck, business, machinery/equipment, etc through regulations, licensing, fees and taxes that force you to comply should you wish to continue with production. Private ownership is dead. Fascism/socialism are one of the same- they are just mere labels for systems that are based on the destruction of freedom- enforced at gun point which is the entire reason why they're evil.

I'm an edgelord because I support peaceful, voluntary interactions over violent ones? You're the type of edgelord to claim evil is necessary gtfo

Capitalism means capital (farms, factories, offices) is owned and controlled privately, and operated for profit, with workers being compensated through wage labour. That's basically it. Our global economy has been more or less that for the past 200-300 or so years

Adding taxation (redistributing the wealth procured in a capitalist system) isn't socialism. Socialists never said "go ahead and keep capitalism, just take some of the capitalists money every April and we're happy". Socialism is an entirely different, mutually exclusive system about workers controlling the means of production, self managing, elimination of bosses and top-down hierarchical governance of the workplace, etc.

A capitalist economy with taxation and some redistribution of wealth, public services etc = social democracy. That's the term you're actually looking for here

These are all reasonably well defined and understood terms. You're throwing together a random mish mash of words, very edgy sounding soundbites ("we're literally living in fascism!), and a host of other retarded things that only a 17 year old on a rebellious streak could write with a straight face

I'll be nice to you because you're so young and so aren't expected to actually know anything about anything, but if you haven't grown out of this phase by the time you hit 20 you're going to spend your whole adult life inducing cringe everywhere you go. Ancap is an internet meme ideology that is a universal laughing stock among both actual anarchists and adults in general

Austanian
04-09-2018, 12:40 PM
When you label everything "Fascist" the term loses all meaning.

BrocepCurls
04-09-2018, 12:45 PM
When you label everything "Fascist" the term loses all meaning.

Haven't you heard? Since the US introduced income tax 100 years ago, you've been living under fascism

aranadiscoteca
04-09-2018, 12:59 PM
https://steemitimages.com/DQmQFjJwhxx5YQHfzdbyuLoBQdcMzLPNwoBxRZVjcUeKPhP/image.png

sjmdesigns
04-09-2018, 01:07 PM
I always looked at socialism like this...

You have this small group of people who decide who gets what for the rest of the populace. They decide what you get, how much you get, where you get it and when you get it. in the meantime, that small of group of people who make those decisions for everyone seem to live by other rules. They get everything, while the people they oversee ONLY get what they are told to get.

I mean, that's pretty corrupt if ya ask me.

Aircommander91
04-09-2018, 01:32 PM
dX2rC-hXzTY

kusok
04-09-2018, 01:42 PM
The issue is that when you talk about socialism the people on the right are usually talking about communism and the people on the left are usually talking about social democracy so nobody is really talking about the same thing. In general I think most people agree that some social policies are good (public education, infrastructure, social security, etc.), but when they run rampant then they could be considered "evil".

Wrong,

and yes they do always run rampant. Why wouldn't they???


Do you history and human nature?

deadhead6391
04-09-2018, 01:43 PM
Greed, laziness and lack of moral values. So basically human nature. that.

melDorado
04-09-2018, 01:44 PM
Killing fascists?

LFAesthetics
04-09-2018, 01:49 PM
I always looked at socialism like this...

You have this small group of people who decide who gets what for the rest of the populace. They decide what you get, how much you get, where you get it and when you get it. in the meantime, that small of group of people who make those decisions for everyone seem to live by other rules. They get everything, while the people they oversee ONLY get what they are told to get.

I mean, that's pretty corrupt if ya ask me.

It's fair to say that human history generally plays out like that, because human greed will eventually corrupt a government who has such tight controls over the means of production and no checks and balances. But in concept that's an oligarchy and not what socialism should be.

I just think its impossible to craft a socialist government that could go more than a few electoral cycles before power is consolidated to the leaders of the party, then it's game over for the populace.

look at the USA and how much gun control is being pushed over the MSM and fear is the general emotional trigger used in order to convince people to give up freedoms for security. all it takes is fear for your security and people seem to forget what freedom is.. do it enough and you end up with a dictator finally assuming power.

jlick
04-09-2018, 01:51 PM
Socialism is evil because it theft is wrong and evil.

Mike86er
04-09-2018, 01:57 PM
Killing fascists?

Or, in the case of socialist regimes such as Stalinist Russia, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia or Venezuela today, everyone who speaks out against the regime.........

Interestingly, 3 out of 4 of those murderous dictatorships (2 of which murdered millions of their own citizens for "wrong think") have been openly praised by current Labour Party leadership and policy gurus such as Suemas Milne, Jeremy Corbyn, Diane Abbott and John McDonnell lol.

nkiritsis13
04-09-2018, 01:58 PM
It's a matter of "in theory" versus "in practice," with the latter being subject to the inevitable rampancy that leaves the populace starving and reliant upon a central power that does not live by the same standards as everyone else. As the saying "absolute power corrupts absolutely," socialism is handing absolute power over to the government and expecting it not to be corrupted out of good faith (or in reality, naivety).

nosirrahx
04-09-2018, 02:02 PM
Providing incentive to stay at the bottom and punishment if you rise to the top?

How could that go wrong?

deadhead6391
04-09-2018, 02:15 PM
I always looked at socialism like this...

You have this small group of people who decide who gets what for the rest of the populace. They decide what you get, how much you get, where you get it and when you get it. in the meantime, that small of group of people who make those decisions for everyone seem to live by other rules. They get everything, while the people they oversee ONLY get what they are told to get.

I mean, that's pretty corrupt if ya ask me. the ironic thing is people who bitch about the 1% tend to push for this and all it does is take the power away from the 1% and remove incentive fpr the other 99% to give a fukk and turns the 1% into an even smaller minority with even more power. All theyre doing is making the problem worse and removing upward mobility at the same time.

LaoHu7
04-09-2018, 02:17 PM
I think it's the part where the government forcefully takes your resources, and uses it as they see fit.

cashinout
04-09-2018, 02:18 PM
Socialism doesn't mean capitalism with taxation

in order to get to socialism, at some point, you have to take property away from people without their consent

nosirrahx
04-09-2018, 02:18 PM
the ironic thing is people who bitch about the 1% tend to push for this and all it does is take the power away from the 1% and remove incentive fpr the other 99% to give a fukk and turns the 1% into an even smaller minority with even more power. All theyre doing is making the problem worse and removing upward mobility at the same time.

The people that bitch about the 1% only do so when they are not in the 1%. As soon as they are they have no problem at all justifying the 1% controlling the 99%.

Aircommander91
04-09-2018, 03:16 PM
Or, in the case of socialist regimes such as Stalinist Russia, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia or Venezuela today, everyone who speaks out against the regime.........

Interestingly, 3 out of 4 of those murderous dictatorships (2 of which murdered millions of their own citizens for "wrong think") have been openly praised by current Labour Party leadership and policy gurus such as Suemas Milne, Jeremy Corbyn, Diane Abbott and John McDonnell lol.

not only oppositors to the regime. but systematically reduce the population through mass killings.

it's objective is killing, pure and simple. the faster and mucher they can.


7YIcMrcihvU

01:48


they focus on eliminating the intelectual elite, that pose a threat to them.

and seek to replace them with their own. since IQ is hereditary, once you only have low intelligence ppl, it's much easier to control.


they're tackling this from many fronts, systematically reducing mankinds population.

be it through pushing for abortions worldwide, destruction of families/marriage by creating absurd laws or promoting promiscuity, lgbtq agenda, neutering of men, etc..

communism was only the fast path to achieve this goal.

look it up, every country it's touched, millions murdered.


not merely because they didn't vote the party. but because the goal of communism is to kill as many as they can.

Arsenal01
04-09-2018, 03:24 PM
Socialism/Marxism is no good. It takes away assets from those who earned it themselves and passes it out to those who haven't.


The Kulaks are an example of this. They were better farmers than their nearby citizens and were killed for it (under the flag that they were oppressors)


Ill leave a great quote from Churchill. "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others"

TruKnight
04-09-2018, 03:36 PM
????

since this comes up so often, ive made my own infomiscgraphic to outline it like you are 12:

https://i.imgur.com/wdgoOry.jpg

cliffs: america tried this chit back in the 1600s, and thanksgiving is the celebration of the demise of american socialism

A-GAME
04-09-2018, 03:48 PM
Extortion/10

Travis99
04-09-2018, 03:49 PM
just google image search venezuela

BrocepCurls
04-09-2018, 03:55 PM
just google image search venezuela

venezuelas economy is over 70% private sector, over half of its healthcare spending is private sector which is double the OECD average, and it has a lower % of state sector employees than the UK, Sweden and various other western capitalist countries

so I guess the results of that search are a poor capitalist country with a crappy government, not sure where socialism comes into it

MistaO
04-09-2018, 04:01 PM
By definition, taxation is theft. Therefore, the more tax, the more immoral. Government is therefore inherently immoral.

Travis99
04-09-2018, 04:11 PM
venezuelas economy is over 70% private sector, over half of its healthcare spending is private sector which is double the OECD average, and it has a lower % of state sector employees than the UK, Sweden and various other western capitalist countries

so I guess the results of that search are a poor capitalist country with a crappy government, not sure where socialism comes into it

Venezuela has a dominant-party system, dominated by the United Socialist Party of Venezuela


and people voted them in again due to the fact what they would call food stamps would have disappeared if they didn't

BrocepCurls
04-09-2018, 04:12 PM
Venezuela has a dominant-party system, dominated by the United Socialist Party of Venezuela

Yeah and I suppose that North Korea is democratic and a republic too

Cesarbruh
04-09-2018, 05:33 PM
Capitalism means capital (farms, factories, offices) is owned and controlled privately, and operated for profit, with workers being compensated through wage labour. That's basically it. Our global economy has been more or less that for the past 200-300 or so years


Socialism is the system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control


The moment you add taxation into the mix, you seize social control and abolish private property (The owner no longer has the highest authority over his own property, the state does)

Read my post below, or continue to stick your head in the sand


At the end of the day you're arguing on semantics to prevent from revealing your ideologies true basis, violence. It doesn't matter what stupid label you smack on your cult-like belief system, the point is you don't believe in private property and thus do not believe in free individuals. You believe in individuals being subservient to the collective at gunpoint, the collective being nothing more than a grammatical fiction which does not exist in reality. Socialism isn't bad b/c of its name, it's bad because it relies on the use of deadly force as a means of social control- the basis for all totalitarian societies


When you label everything "Fascist" the term loses all meaning.
except fascism is merger of state/corporation, do you lack the sense to see how corporate subsidizes, bailouts, regulatory capture, and high leveled executives serving highest levels of gov is NOT fascism?

keep your head in the sand, you deserve what's coming if you do

https://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/former-head-of-at-t-had-a-top-secret-security-clearance-1818991318

BrocepCurls
04-09-2018, 05:38 PM
Socialism is the system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control


The moment you add taxation into the mix, you seize social control and abolish private property (The owner no longer has the highest authority over his own property, the state does)

Read my post below, or continue to stick your head in the sand


At the end of the day you're arguing on semantics to prevent from revealing your ideologies true basis, violence. It doesn't matter what stupid label you smack on your cult-like belief system, the point is you don't believe in private property and thus do not believe in free individuals. You believe in individuals being subservient to the collective at gunpoint, the collective being nothing more than a grammatical fiction which does not exist in reality. Socialism isn't bad b/c of its name, it's bad because it relies on the use of deadly force as a means of social control- the basis for all totalitarian societies


Private property refers to the means of production - workplaces, where people labour. Socialists want these owned and controlled by the workers at large, in a bottom-up manner, quite literally because the private ownership of these entitites necessitates subservience (an underclass of labourers working for a small group of individuals who hold economic power), and is basically a modern updating of the master/slave, lord/serf relationship based on hierarchy and subjugation

Private property does not mean socialising your house, car, or toothbrush. It's about distribution of power in the workplace, as under capitalism businesses are basically run like autocracies

You literally haven't even graduated school

Cesarbruh
04-09-2018, 05:51 PM
Private property refers to the means of production - workplaces, where people labour. Socialists want these owned and controlled by the workers at large, in a bottom-up manner, quite literally because the private ownership of these entitites necessitates subservience (an underclass of labourers working for a small group of individuals who hold economic power), and is basically a modern updating of the master/slave, lord/serf relationship based on hierarchy and subjugation

Private property does not mean socialising your house, car, or toothbrush. It's about distribution of power in the workplace, as under capitalism businesses are basically run like autocracies

You literally haven't even graduated school
it doesn't matter what socialist want, what matters is HOW they want to achieve their ends (At gun point)
The point= socialism is evil and despotic b/c it relies on threatening the individual at gun point to submit to the collective- i.e. the individual is no longer believed to own their life, liberty, nor property, should they refuse to comply then they will be killed

No one is arguing that socialist goals aren't noble. The basis of socialism is violence, i.e. disrespect for human life and existence which makes it evil

BrocepCurls
04-09-2018, 05:57 PM
it doesn't matter what socialist want, what matters is HOW they want to achieve their ends (At gun point)
The point= socialism is evil and despotic b/c it relies on threatening the individual at gun point to submit to the collective- i.e. the individual is no longer believed to own their life, liberty, nor property, should they refuse to comply then they will be killed

No one is arguing that socialist goals aren't noble. The basis of socialism is violence, i.e. disrespect for human life and existence which makes it evil

Try again when you've actually fixed on a consistent working definition of even half the words you're throwing out. "Private property", "collective", what do any of these even mean and how do they relate to socialist ideas?

Cesarbruh
04-09-2018, 06:02 PM
Try again when you've actually fixed on a consistent working definition of even half the words you're throwing out. "Private property", "collective", what do any of these even mean and how do they relate to socialist ideas?
again, you're deflecting from the true point by arguing on semantics. Your ideology is fundamentally based on threatening others with violence in order to seek their compliance which is 100% evil as it destroys an individual's freedom to choose for themselves.

BrocepCurls
04-09-2018, 06:07 PM
again, you're deflecting from the true point by arguing on semantics. Your ideology is fundamentally based on threatening others with violence in order to seek their compliance which is 100% evil as it destroys an individual's freedom to choose for themselves.

That sounds like threatening others with violence in order to seek their compliance, but I'm not sure what that has to do with democratic control of the workplace and economy (socialism)

Cesarbruh
04-09-2018, 06:15 PM
That sounds like threatening others with violence in order to seek their compliance, but I'm not sure what that has to do with democratic control of the workplace and economy (socialism)
what happens if i don't wish to comply with your system? How will it be enforced if i wish to run my business free from your "democratic control"?

Austanian
04-09-2018, 10:05 PM
Lol well cesar I don't have enough tin foil in my house to continue this conversation.

I am a small government guy, but your visions and ideals are 1. Not going to happen 2. Would fail catastrophically if they were implemented.

You labeling every policy as "Fascist" makes me wonder if you even know what fascism is.


Your anarco-capitalist dream still requires Armies, Enforcement of Contracts, and regulation of negative externalities.

MistaO
04-10-2018, 03:35 AM
Lol well cesar I don't have enough tin foil in my house to continue this conversation.

I am a small government guy, but your visions and ideals are 1. Not going to happen 2. Would fail catastrophically if they were implemented.

You labeling every policy as "Fascist" makes me wonder if you even know what fascism is.


Your anarco-capitalist dream still requires Armies, Enforcement of Contracts, and regulation of negative externalities.

An an-cap defense, court, and any type of regulating bodies would all be VOLUNTARY, and private enterprise.

Private defense force. Private courts. Private associations.

This would enable competition rather than government held monopolies. Not only is the government system one that's immoral, it's one that's highly inefficient. That, and without competition in these markets, a true price point cannot be discovered.

MistaO
04-10-2018, 03:38 AM
Try again when you've actually fixed on a consistent working definition of even half the words you're throwing out. "Private property", "collective", what do any of these even mean and how do they relate to socialist ideas?

Just read the first 40 pages...you won't.

https://mises.org/system/tdf/thelaw.pdf?file=1&type=document

ArchangelST
04-11-2018, 06:06 AM
Socialism disincentives effort, innovation, and industry because as peoples fundamental needs are met, most people do no more than the minimum necessary to maintain that lifestyle. We already see this in the Welfare State. Some people living on government assistance have no incentive to improve themselves because the reward is not worth the effort. After Section 8 housing, food, and numerous other subsidies, most of their basic needs are met. There's no doubt that welfare recipients are not living privileged lives. In fact, finances are always tight and occasionally they don't have enough, but those hardships are not common enough to motivate a significant portion of those people to find work.

Let me lay it out using some basic napkin math. Say the yearly value of state-provided benefits that a family receives is roughly 25k. Now, assume that the adult(s) in the home could work for a total income of 30K (after taxes). In this scenario there is very little incentive to work 40+ hours a week +commute time + buying gas for the car in-order to add a few hundred dollars a month to the family budget. Especially when you can do nothing while still having a place to live and food to eat.

Under socialism, the bar of effort to maintain a reasonable lifestyle is very low. And, over time, the supporting framework of hard work that allowed a culture to initially adopt socialism begins to deteriorate. Relatively quickly, the economy ends in a tailspin that is almost impossible to recover from.

The problem is that human beings are generally lazy as phuk. The industrious minority cannot carry the burden of the larger whole.

Those who support socialism will /yawn and claim that Socialism doesn't promote laziness, but it's completely disingenuous. Be completely honest and think about yourself, your family, friends, or just people you know fairly well; if you could have a fairly decent standard of living for little-to-no effort how likely would you be to put in a lot more work to get ahead?

Maybe you're an exception. That's reasonably likely considering the content of this board and the fact that most of us are here to improve ourselves despite living in a society where hard work in the pursuit of self-improvement is a rarity.

A lot of Americans are fat and lazy. Imagine what would happen if you raised the standard of living across the board without requiring anything in return? It's not tough to figure out.

tk217
04-14-2018, 07:12 PM
Socialism disincentives effort, innovation, and industry because as peoples fundamental needs are met, most people do no more than the minimum necessary to maintain that lifestyle. We already see this in the Welfare State. Some people living on government assistance have no incentive to improve themselves because the reward is not worth the effort. After Section 8 housing, food, and numerous other subsidies, most of their basic needs are met. There's no doubt that welfare recipients are not living privileged lives. In fact, finances are always tight and occasionally they don't have enough, but those hardships are not common enough to motivate a significant portion of those people to find work.

Let me lay it out using some basic napkin math. Say the yearly value of state-provided benefits that a family receives is roughly 25k. Now, assume that the adult(s) in the home could work for a total income of 30K (after taxes). In this scenario there is very little incentive to work 40+ hours a week +commute time + buying gas for the car in-order to add a few hundred dollars a month to the family budget. Especially when you can do nothing while still having a place to live and food to eat.

Under socialism, the bar of effort to maintain a reasonable lifestyle is very low. And, over time, the supporting framework of hard work that allowed a culture to initially adopt socialism begins to deteriorate. Relatively quickly, the economy ends in a tailspin that is almost impossible to recover from.

The problem is that human beings are generally lazy as phuk. The industrious minority cannot carry the burden of the larger whole.

Those who support socialism will /yawn and claim that Socialism doesn't promote laziness, but it's completely disingenuous. Be completely honest and think about yourself, your family, friends, or just people you know fairly well; if you could have a fairly decent standard of living for little-to-no effort how likely would you be to put in a lot more work to get ahead?

Maybe you're an exception. That's reasonably likely considering the content of this board and the fact that most of us are here to improve ourselves despite living in a society where hard work in the pursuit of self-improvement is a rarity.

A lot of Americans are fat and lazy. Imagine what would happen if you raised the standard of living across the board without requiring anything in return? It's not tough to figure out.

Gonna need you to be quiet, comrade.

Now give me your money.

Chezdon
04-15-2018, 01:36 AM
I think if humans weren't human then socialism would work very well.

I3igAl
04-15-2018, 02:06 AM
Socialism disincentives effort, innovation, and industry because as peoples fundamental needs are met, most people do no more than the minimum necessary to maintain that lifestyle. We already see this in the Welfare State. Some people living on government assistance have no incentive to improve themselves because the reward is not worth the effort. After Section 8 housing, food, and numerous other subsidies, most of their basic needs are met. There's no doubt that welfare recipients are not living privileged lives. In fact, finances are always tight and occasionally they don't have enough, but those hardships are not common enough to motivate a significant portion of those people to find work.

Let me lay it out using some basic napkin math. Say the yearly value of state-provided benefits that a family receives is roughly 25k. Now, assume that the adult(s) in the home could work for a total income of 30K (after taxes). In this scenario there is very little incentive to work 40+ hours a week +commute time + buying gas for the car in-order to add a few hundred dollars a month to the family budget. Especially when you can do nothing while still having a place to live and food to eat.

Under socialism, the bar of effort to maintain a reasonable lifestyle is very low. And, over time, the supporting framework of hard work that allowed a culture to initially adopt socialism begins to deteriorate. Relatively quickly, the economy ends in a tailspin that is almost impossible to recover from.

The problem is that human beings are generally lazy as phuk. The industrious minority cannot carry the burden of the larger whole.

Those who support socialism will /yawn and claim that Socialism doesn't promote laziness, but it's completely disingenuous. Be completely honest and think about yourself, your family, friends, or just people you know fairly well; if you could have a fairly decent standard of living for little-to-no effort how likely would you be to put in a lot more work to get ahead?

Maybe you're an exception. That's reasonably likely considering the content of this board and the fact that most of us are here to improve ourselves despite living in a society where hard work in the pursuit of self-improvement is a rarity.

A lot of Americans are fat and lazy. Imagine what would happen if you raised the standard of living across the board without requiring anything in return? It's not tough to figure out.

You are right, but many socialist states tried to counter this by forcing people to work.
Eastern Germany basically had no unemployed people. If there weren't enough jobs, more jobs were created.

This lowered the problem, you describe, but people were lazy at work instead. They couldn't lose their jobs, nor were they needed to work that hard.

Stizzel
04-15-2018, 02:36 AM
Socialism violates the non aggression principle