What is so wrong with socialism?

[David Brider]

Socialism is a system of government in which all members of society are coerced by the police power. And the purpose is to effect a redistribution of the wealth by force.

No. Socialism is characterised primarily by social or democratic control of the means of production.

 

[Albion]

I think in socialist philosophy it does not require governing with coercion by police power with redistribution by force.

Of course it does. The fact that it uses the IRS and the court system to take your money is different from Communism but it's still confiscatory.

 

[Albion]

No. Socialism is characterised primarily by social or democratic control of the means of production.

...in which a redistribution of assets is accomplished by force.

 

[David Brider]

...in which a redistribution of assets is accomplished by force.

What exactly do you mean by redistribution of assets by force? Because it's not something that I, as a socialist, see as being part of socialist philosophy. But understanding what you mean by it may help to understand how or if it fits into socialism.

 

[Albion]

What exactly do you mean by redistribution of assets by force?

The state takes from the richer and gives to the poorer and to the administrators. This is in accordance with the Socialist concept of morality or fairness, if you prefer. That's fundamental with all forms of Socialism, whether it's done at the point of a gun or by the police and judicial systems enforcing the confiscation.

 

[David Brider]

The state takes from the richer and gives to the poorer and to the administrators. This is in accordance with the Socialist concept of morality or fairness, if you prefer. That's fundamental with all forms of Socialism, whether it's done at the point of a gun or by the police and judicial systems enforcing the confiscation.

It sounds as if you're describing some form of social welfare funded by taxation. Would that be a fair assessment?

 

[FireDragon76]

The UK and the Scandinavian countries have social democracy, not socialism.

 

[Albion]

It sounds as if you're describing some form of social welfare funded by taxation. Would that be a fair assessment?

Not exactly. A socialistic system of government does much more than we've been talking about, but as far as the comment that it's a form of government that forcefully redistributes the wealth in various ways because it considers that to be just goes, that much is certainly accurate.

 

[FireDragon76]

Not exactly. A socialistic system of government does much more than we've been talking about, but as far as the comment that it's a form of government that forcefully redistributes the wealth in various ways because it considers that to be just goes, that much is certainly accurate.

The central concern of Marxism is actually alienation of the laborer from his goods. "Redistribution of wealth" is actually how a Marxist sees capitalism.

 

[super animator]

...in which a redistribution of assets is accomplished by force.

Like taxes.

 

[Albion]

"Redistribution of wealth" is actually how a Marxist sees capitalism.

Right. Which is to say, how a Socialist sees Capitalism.

 

[Albion]

Like taxes.

Not exactly. If taxes are for the general good and are not confiscatory, they are a necessary part of governing. But to tax in a confiscatory manner and to do it in order to reduce the wealthy just because they are wealthy is another matter.

 

[super animator]

Not exactly.

Yes exactly. That what it IS by definition. You think taxes is voluntarily?

 

[Albion]

Yes exactly. That what it IS by definition. You think taxes is voluntarily?

I explained this in the previous post.

 

[super animator]

I explained this in the previous post.

Which is irrelevent.

 

[FireDragon76]

Right. Which is to say, how a Socialist sees Capitalism.

Which is why I don't think its a helpful view of what Marxism or Socialism are actually about. I think it's more of a polemic.

Right. Which is to say, how a Socialist sees Capitalism.

You see Marxsim as Peter taking from Paul. A Marxist sees Capitalism as Paul being forced by marked forces controlled by Peter into working under conditions which make Peter rich and leave Paul poor.

 

[Always in His Presence]

This is a question for my American cousins: what is so wrong with socialism? Is it true that Americans hate socialism or is this just what gets shown in the media?

As a Brit living in (what America would call a socialist country) the UK I'm very happy with this style of government.

Where's the beef, here?

Are we speaking of countries:

1. in real life that self identify as socialist
2. That have socialized programs, but whose governments do not self identify as socialists
Or
3. The fantasy of a Socialist nirvana that is found no where in history or real life.

The three often get blended.

 

[Moral Orel]

Not exactly. If taxes are for the general good and are not confiscatory, they are a necessary part of governing. But to tax in a confiscatory manner and to do it in order to reduce the wealthy just because they are wealthy is another matter.

The bolded part is the part I don't get. When are taxes not confiscatory? Taxes are mandatory and if you don't pay them you go to jail and/or have your assets seized by the government. Your assets are seized, and that's the definition of "confiscation".

There's no such thing as a government run on donations.

 

[Moral Orel]

Are we speaking of countries:

1. in real life that self identify as socialist
2. That have socialized programs, but whose governments do not self identify as socialists
Or
3. The fantasy of a Socialist nirvana that is found no where in history or real life.

The three often get blended.

I'm sure he's talking about #2. Of course, though, all governments have social programs.

 

[Nithavela]

Why are you people so fixated on socialism redistributing wealth by force?

Wealth is always redistributed by force. Or what else would you call a pharma concern raising the cost of a live-saving drug by 500%?