What is so wrong with socialism?

[Albion]

Yeah, but totalitarianism is bad because it's totalitarianism, not because it may have started out as socialism.

But totalitarianism is possible only because of Socialism. Previous to the 20th century no such thing existed.

 

[Larniavc]

The point is that Socialism has the Potential to make theSHTF for a Society,and when it does,it CAN become the Scenario now unfolding in Venezuela...It becomes Totalitarian,and that's Very-Bad! There is Nothing Good about Totalitarianism.

Yes, yes the sky is falling in.

 

[Albion]

It appears to have fallen in on Venezuela.

 

[David Brider]

I think I covered this earlier, but the word implies appropriation for the sake of appropriation, and even a penalty (for being able to afford it).

So if there is a 6% sales tax, it probably couldn't be considered confiscatory on any account. But if the government taxes anyone at, say, 60% of his earnings and it's not for the general good but, rather, in order to punish the wealthy for being wealthy and reward the poor simply because the government believes this to be justice, it's confiscatory.

But that doesn't happen.

 

[Albion]

But that doesn't happen.

You mean, I take it, that the effective rate is lower than 60%. OK, but the point remains the same if it's 40%. And BTW, the American rates are what I was thinking of. You know that the rate has been 102% in some other countries, and there's no way not to understand that that kind of thing is punitive only because the taxpayer is wealthy--a moral judgment made in accordance with Socialist theory.

 

[David Brider]

You mean, I take it, that the effective rate is lower than 60%. OK, but the point remains the same if it's 40%.

No, what I mean is that taxes aren't to punish the wealthy and reward the poor.

 

[Albion]

No, what I mean is that taxes aren't to punish the wealthy and reward the poor.

I just have to shake my head at a statement like that one. Have you forgotten "From each according to his ability, etc.??"

 

[David Brider]

I just have to shake my head at a statement like that one. Have you forgotten "From each according to his ability, etc.??"

No. What of it?

 

[David Brider]

But totalitarianism is possible only because of Socialism. Previous to the 20th century no such thing existed.

*Any* government that overreaches its authority is totalitarian, whether that government is left wing or right wing. It's certainly not "possible only because of socialism". Two of the earliest states to be described as totalitarian were right wing...

 

[Albion]

No. What of it?

Confiscation of assets simply because the rich are rich (and giving it to the poor only because they are poor).

 

[Albion]

*Any* government that overreaches its authority is totalitarian

Oh, no. There is a definite meaning to totalitarianism and it's not just another word for dictatorship or authoritarianism.

It's certainly not "possible only because of socialism". Two of the earliest states to be described as totalitarian were right wing...

Are you referring to Fascism, a variety of Socialism??

 

[super animator]

No, they're not.

YES. THEY. ARE. BY DEFINITION!!

 

[Ygrene Imref]

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?

Socialism is the perfect government if the people are decent, and the leader is perfect.

Capitalism is the perfect government if the people are commodities, and the leader(ship) is corrupt.

Socialism begins to fail when the people begin to accept themselves as commodities, that their talents are more special (and therefore, worth more in a certain market) than others. Socialism will fail if the leadership is imperfect.

Capitalism, the other pole, begins to fail when the people see themselves as more than commodities - that their talents are more than for sale, and are for everyone (for the better.) It categorically fails if the leadership is perfect, or drives toward perfection.

Socialism focuses on people, while capitalism focuses on objects. No human on this planet is ready for real socialism, because (I believe) no human finds sharing their talents for the sake of sharing (for the better) profitable in that this sharing will provide adequate life conditions. Every human naturally aligns to capitalism, because we all, unfortunstely, understands what it means to make a commodity out of the most vile, and precious things. And, trading commodities in order to receive a capital gain feeds the alleged innate drive we have to compete.

I think most people who romanticize socialism or capitalism do so from popular culture and psychological programming (e.g. propoganda.)

 

[David Brider]

Oh, no. There is a definite meaning to totalitarianism and it's not just another word for dictatorship or authoritarianism.

There is a definite meaning to totalitarianism, but it's not something specific to socialism. Rather, it's "a political system in which the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible." (Source.)

Are you referring to Fascism, a variety of Socialism??

Fascism is not a variety of socialism, since fascism is a right wing ideology whilst socialism is a left wing ideology.

 

[David Brider]

Confiscation of assets simply because the rich are rich (and giving it to the poor only because they are poor).

But - once again - that doesn't happen, either in taxation or in socialist systems.

 

[FredVB]

I think in socialist philosophy it does not require governing with coercion by police power with redistribution by force. Communism would be the distinct way for that. Communism uses the term socialist to portray itself as less forceful.

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.

Socialism can still be voluntary. That can be that way where all there consent seeing the value of having each with ability including in mind contribute according to ability, for what is needed, for provision shared without inequality, without exploitation of any for some to profit. This is not what is practiced widely but certainly can be seen as an ideal, that some community can live with. This would be called socialist, without it having coercion. A money system does not lend itself to this.

 

[Albion]

Socialism can still be voluntary.

If it's voluntary, it's not Socialism. It might be called communalism, meaning something like a monastery or other association in which the members voluntarily share everything, but then you have the problem of motivation (with a monastery, it's not to achieve economic parity) as well as the fact that it doesn't involve but a very small slice of the population. To transform society as Socialism seeks to do requires the government to involve everyone. That rules out voluntarism.

 

[Hank77]

Socialism can still be voluntary. That can be that way where all there consent seeing the value of having each with ability including in mind contribute according to ability, for what is needed, for provision shared without inequality, without exploitation of any for some to profit. This is not what is practiced widely but certainly can be seen as an ideal, that some community can live with. This would be called socialist, without it having coercion. A money system does not lend itself to this.

Millions of imperfect people cannot live in a commune and get along. We'll just have to wait for Jesus and the perfecting of the hearts of the saints.

 

[Redac]

Socialism can still be voluntary. That can be that way where all there consent seeing the value of having each with ability including in mind contribute according to ability, for what is needed, for provision shared without inequality, without exploitation of any for some to profit. This is not what is practiced widely but certainly can be seen as an ideal, that some community can live with. This would be called socialist, without it having coercion. A money system does not lend itself to this.

Unless capital owners don't just hand over their property to the working class. Then what?

 

[hislegacy]

Ten people in a room

One has 1000.00
Two have 750.00
Four have 500.00
Two have 250.00
One has 100.00

Socialism says it is ok for the bottom seven to take from the top three so every one gets 515.00

Whether they want to or not.