What is so wrong with socialism?

[LionL]

Oh, right. Money is a negative sum game, and if some people are richer than others, they didn't get it legitimately, but stole it from the poor. How can you even believe such folly?

I gave an example of a landlord who grows rich by buying houses, thus upping their price so that the poor can't afford to buy, and renting them to the poor. This is a fact I see every day. That's how I can believe it.

 

[LionL]

Edit: Double post.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I understand that, however...an individual not being able to own the means of production at a private level is a common trait shared by both.

What do you mean with "an individual not being able to own the means of production at a private level"?

Perhaps it's just my english, but I seriously don't understand what you are trying to say.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't think most of us have a problem with CEOs making lots of money (maybe not 1000x the average employee, but that's probably another topic, and maybe we don't disagree there). But recognize that a lot of developed countries have higher rates of entrepreneurship than we do. Typically they attribute it to the fact that their citizens graduate from university without debt, aren't worried about losing their healthcare when they choose to leave a job (like McDonald's, in your example), and possibly even get government assistance to do it.

Surprisingly, people here are actually willing to work soul-sucking jobs for less than a living wage if they're sufficiently afraid of not having a job at all. You and I may have "good" jobs (I had a high-paying soul-sucking job until I came back to school), but a lot of people who work long days don't even make a living wage -- and they're afraid of losing those jobs. What are they going to do? Is the father going to go back to school for an associate's degree with little Suzie about to get braces? What about the people who take the risk, and for whom it doesn't pay off? You can say that's their problem/fault, but I think you can see why developed countries attribute the fact that more people take the risk there than here. Rolling the dice, here, is just riskier.

But all of this gets away from the issue of the people who live in poverty. For them, working hard doesn't lift them out of poverty. For them, the education to work smart is unattainable. Yes, there are uneducated people who do brilliant things... there is a much higher rate of educated people who do brilliant things. And, frankly, a person who is concerned about where his next meal is coming from, or what to do about the chronic pain in his back from a pinched nerve, or whether he will still have an apartment when he gets out of the ER... this person is not thinking about entrepreneurship, and it makes no sense to tell him that he should do so.

I think you just struck the nail on the head.

It's neatly summed up like this: "America is the land of opportunity... but only if you have money to start with".

In the US, I could have never founded my company. I simply wouldn't have had the money to do so. Well, no, that's not true...
I suppse I could have gone to a rich guy and have him invest, and by doing so handing over +50% of it, essenially turning me into an employee of my own business (and the rich guy getting richer - obviously).

But that's assuming, off course, that I would have had the money to get uni degree...

 

[LionL]

What do you mean with "an individual not being able to own the means of production at a private level"?

Perhaps it's just my english, but I seriously don't understand what you are trying to say.

They seem to be under the mistaken belief that under democratic socialism free enterprise doesn't exist.

 

[Jan Volkes]

I would much rather face God after opposing policies that devastated and destroyed families and harmed the poor spiritually by making them envious, entitled and ungrateful. Good intentions don't count. You are the ones harming the poor.

Do you mean a system a bit like the American system in place now? the system where the bottom is falling out and millions are falling through the hole.
Before I start this is not an 'I hate America fest', it may seem as if it is but it's not, I am just telling it as I see it and I think it needs to be said, how many Americans here can see some of this as being true of America?

Why can everyone outside of the US see how bad the US system is yet the Americans still think their system is great?
I wonder if it's because most of them don't know any better or are badly misinformed?

Americans are told before they can walk that they live in the best country in the world and they should feel sorry for all those people who live in countries that do not have the freedoms they enjoy, when in fact it's the people who live in those other countries who are feeling sorry for them.

America is a country that has been organised by the rich to systematically syphon most of the money to the top of the pile,
the people have been duped into believing all kinds of weird things in the process, things like , war is good and we are the protectors of the free world, you need guns to protect yourselves and your families from other Americans, be very religious because God is on the side of America and our religion will keep us safe.
Americans have been fed lies and misinformation by the media to the point where most Americans can not tell the difference between the truth and the lies, the flag waving, pledge of allegiance and hand on heart anthem are all designed to make Americans feel special and proud to be Americans, even American sports are designed to fit around the media so they can keep pumping out the messages about how wonderful it is to live in America and be an American.
Why do Americans need to be constantly reminded about how wonderful it is to be American and live in America?
has it not sunk in yet?

While some Americans might feel pride in America when a crowd starts chanting USA,USA,USA, people across the world just feel embarrassed for them and shake their heads, they are seen as adults acting like children.

Years ago if you wanted to see the biggest or the best you went to America, not today, America still has big things but they are not the biggest and they still have very good things but they're not the best, amusement parks and other distractions perhaps but not the main things in life.

The American way of life is crumbling and the people in power seem helpless or unwilling to do anything about it,
the system is so corrupt perhaps the only thing to do with America is start again. [in other words I don't know what the answer to America's problems are either, perhaps time and pain is the only answer?]

 

[buzuxi02]

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?

We don't actually believe Britain is a socialist nation. It maybe 'more' socialist than America but its not what we think of when we hear the term. As a Greek-American, socialism would refer to my native country of Greece. Socialism is basically one of the fatal flaws of democracy. And make no mistake about it even the political party most considered 'conservative' in Greece (New Democracy)are socialist lite -actually according to american standards they would be labeled socialists on steroids! Promise away the house in exchange for votes.

There are a few problems with socialism especially in the context of America. First off the majority of immigrants that come to America, come here to make as much money as they can and accumulate wealth. When a 'sub group' in America speaks of being in favor of socialism it usually means to try to extract something extra in order to get ahead of that other sub-group they are in competition with. Or they may just want to slow down the wealth accumulation of that other sub-group who are leaving them in the dust.

This also is the reason why the socialism of nordic countries cannot work here. The nordic countries are smaller, more monolithic socieities. They are a homogeneous societies, with common cultural ties and views on how their society should function. America is built on the entrepeneurial spirit, and competition. You either come here to get ahead, (you dont come here to be financially equal) or you are sent here to accumulate money to send back home and build a house in your village in hopes of going back for that early retirement from what you've saved.

 

[Larniavc]

you either come here to get ahead not to be equal or you come here to accumulate money,

A sort of economic survival of the fitest?

 

[ebia]

Why is there so often a train of conversation along the lines of:

A: America is the best country in the world.
B: But x works much better somewhere else.
A: But we couldn't do that in America because we have all these (long list) of problems they don't have.

 

[buzuxi02]

Yes. Ever heard of the saying "keeping up with the Jones'? Its competition. This country has 317 million people, the may say we come here for a better life. Quiz them further and they will tell you its all about the money. "Better life" is the politically correct way of saying getting ahead. Or as my hispanic colleagues say im here for the 'Franklins'.

 

[Oafman]

What do you mean with "an individual not being able to own the means of production at a private level"?

He means individuals owning businesses. The defining characteristic of socialism, in all its myriad forms, is that individuals cannot own businesses. Some systems do not even allow for private property (you can't own your house!); others do allow private property, but none allow private ownership of the 'means of production' (ie businesses). These can be 'owned' by the government (statism) or owned by conglomerates or co-operatives, or whatever, but not by individuals.

They seem to be under the mistaken belief that under democratic socialism free enterprise doesn't exist.

This can only exist if we redefine words. Socialsim is an umbrella terms for loads of different ideas about how an economy should function, but the thing that they all have in common is that the means of production cannot be privately owned.

Most of the developed world has embraced neo-liberalism, an extreme form of capitalism which values deregulation, globalisation and the rights of the individual. Economic policy which now gets described as socialist (eg higher taxes) is in fact just aspects of policy for a capitalist economy. Basically , these days, if it's not neo-liberal, it's called 'socialist'.

 

[Jan Volkes]

Why is there so often a train of conversation along the lines of:

A: America is the best country in the world.
B: But x works much better somewhere else.
A: But we couldn't do that in America because we have all these (long list) of problems they don't have.

It's because there are too many people with their finger in the pie for anyone to be allowed to change anything,
everyone wants to go in their own direction and no one is willing to stop and find out the best way to go.

The US is based on an 'every man for himself' system where the fittest survive and the weakest move to the side and die.
Words like 'love and compassion' are just words in the US, Americans want the words to mean something but self preservation and self interest steps in to make those words meaningless again.

It comes from the fact that the US was populated by all kinds of people from all over the world who went to the US to make their fortune, they found that if they didn't push their way to the front they were pushed to the back and got nothing, this caused people to become more and more aggressive and made for a dog eat dog society to become the norm, that basic instinct has never left them and they still see everyone else as the competition, this outlook is there from the top to the bottom that's why people grab everything they can even if they have no use for it, why do billionaires want billions? they can't spend it or even use it all, they want it because they could not stop themselves from grabbing as much as the could while they were still able to grab.

Selfish has never been a dirty word in America, nor has greed, in fact greed has been seen as a spur to greater things.

 

[LionL]

This can only exist if we redefine words. Socialsim is an umbrella terms for loads of different ideas about how an economy should function, but the thing that they all have in common is that the means of production cannot be privately owned.

This is a misunderstanding. The British Labour Party, of which I am a member, is a Democratic Socialist party. While some businesses, usually utilities, were nationalised under Labour governments of the past the vast majority are left in private hands.

 

[Oafman]

This is a misunderstanding. The British Labour Party, of which I am a member, is a Democratic Socialist party. While some businesses, usually utilities, were nationalised under Labour governments of the past the vast majority are left in private hands.

The Labour Party uses that term because of its roots. It was founded by the TUC and by various socialist groups, and was originally a socialist party.

It is certainly not that now. New Labour was big on privatisation and deregulation. Even now they accept/support austerity. They are a capitalist party.

If they were socialists, they would advocate social ownership, rather than private ownership, of the means of production.
The first line of the Wikipeida entry for socialism is "Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production"

 

[LionL]

The Labour Party uses that term because of its roots. It was founded by the TUC and by various socialist groups, and was originally a socialist party.

It is certainly not that now. New Labour was big on privatisation and deregulation. Even now they accept/support austerity. They are a capitalist party.

If they were socialists, they would advocate social ownership, rather than private ownership, of the means of production.
The first line of the Wikipeida entry for socialism is "Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production"

Democratic Socialism works within a capitalist society. You are talking about one particular type of socialism which doesn't. Don't rely on wikipaedia for your education - it's full of mistakes and opinions. It also has an American bias, words have different meanings over there.

 

[Jan Volkes]

The Labour Party uses that term because of its roots. It was founded by the TUC and by various socialist groups, and was originally a socialist party.

It is certainly not that now. New Labour was big on privatisation and deregulation. Even now they accept/support austerity. They are a capitalist party.

If they were socialists, they would advocate social ownership, rather than private ownership, of the means of production.
The first line of the Wikipeida entry for socialism is "Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production"

Socialism has had it's meaning changed over the years to mean something that is for the social good of everyone by the best means possible.

It is never wise to put all your eggs in one basket that's why it's always better to have a little taken from a lot of ideas.
Britain is an amalgamation of them all with hopefully only the best parts being used.
The US is also an amalgamation but some of the parts used are sadly not always the best parts.

 

[DogmaHunter]

He means individuals owning businesses. The defining characteristic of socialism, in all its myriad forms, is that individuals cannot own businesses. Some systems do not even allow for private property (you can't own your house!); others do allow private property, but none allow private ownership of the 'means of production' (ie businesses). These can be 'owned' by the government (statism) or owned by conglomerates or co-operatives, or whatever, but not by individuals.

If that is what the term "socialism" means, then there isn't a single "socialist" country in Europe. Or even the world. Except perhaps North Korea - eventhough I'm not really sure about that either. Can't people own a house in North Korea?


In any case, what you describe isn't exactly what I would call "socialism". It's not even what I would call "communism". It sounds more like "extremely radical communism".

And somehow, I doubt that the poster of the original post that I was responding to, would agree that there are no "socialist" countries in Europe.

But I could be wrong about that. Perhaps that poster can clear that up for us.

What strikes me in any case, is how a lot of people here are using this term in a variaty of ways.... It would seem that for many here as well, socialism is somehow synonymous to communism.

I live in Belgium. I'ld say that it is a socialist secular democracy.
Why? Because we have very strong socialistic programs concerning social security, health coverage, education and other such government sponsored services.

And they are paid for with tax dollars from every Belgian citizen.

Nonetheless, I own a house as well as a business. Privately.
The idea that ownership is somehow restricted or similar is completely foreign to me.

 

[Oafman]

Democratic Socialism works within a capitalist society. You are talking about one particular type of socialism which doesn't. Don't rely on wikipaedia for your education - it's full of mistakes and opinions.

Socialism can't 'work in a capitalist society' - they're mutually exclusive.

And the Wiki entry on socialism is very well put together. But OK, if you don't want to rely on it, then there are plenty of online dictionaries. These are the top 4 in a Google search:

Dictionary.com - a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
Merriam Webster - any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production
thefreedictionary.com - Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government
Oxford Dictionary - A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

 

[Oafman]

Socialism has had it's meaning changed over the years to mean something that is for the social good of everyone by the best means possible.

I didn't get the memo! Neither did any political scientists, or textbooks, or dictionaries!

If that is what the term "socialism" means, then there isn't a single "socialist" country in Europe. Or even the world. Except perhaps North Korea - eventhough I'm not really sure about that either. Can't people own a house in North Korea?

This is correct, there are certainly no socalist nations in Europe, and possibly in the world these days. Socialism is a failed ideology.

It would seem that for many here as well, socialism is somehow synonymous to communism.

Communism is one type of socialism. Two words that I do think people consider to be synonymous are communism and totalitarianism. But even this is nonsense; for example there is something called anarcho-communism, which advocates for the state to be completely dismantled - ie no government. There are a few on this forum who might like such an idea, were it not for the name!

I live in Belgium. I'ld say that it is a socialist secular democracy.
Why? Because we have very strong socialistic programs concerning social security, health coverage, education and other such government sponsored services.

And they are paid for with tax dollars from every Belgian citizen.

Nonetheless, I own a house as well as a business. Privately.
The idea that ownership is somehow restricted or similar is completely foreign to me.

Belgium is a capitalist economy. The fact that a 'society' still exists in Belgium (a welfare state etc) does not mean the country is socialist, it just means that it is not quite as capitalist as it could be.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The Labour Party uses that term because of its roots. It was founded by the TUC and by various socialist groups, and was originally a socialist party.

It is certainly not that now. New Labour was big on privatisation and deregulation. Even now they accept/support austerity. They are a capitalist party.

If they were socialists, they would advocate social ownership, rather than private ownership, of the means of production.
The first line of the Wikipeida entry for socialism is "Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production"

I feel like this is a rather tunnel-vision view of it.

That wikipedia entry could mean a lot of things. Does it have apply universally accross all industries for example?

Some industries / sectors are socially owned and some are not.

In the real world, there are gradations of this stuff.
According to that wikipedia line, not even China would qualify as a socialist country.

In Belgium, some things are socially owned and some things are not while other things are even both... It depends on the industry.

The police force is socially owned.
Public transport (busses, trams, trains) is socially owned
Health care insurance is socially owned, with additional private companies for those who wish to go the extra mile (which isn't necessary - it's rather extra luxury).
Education is socially owned, with additional private schools for those who want to (for example, for foreign people like diplomats etc, where they can get their kids educated in another language for example)

All those things are socialist programs.

I feel it's kind of silly to only label those countries as "socialist" where EVERYTHING is socially owned.

That would mean that if you can privately own a lemonade stand in North Korea, then North Korea would no longer be a socialist country....

In fact, has there EVER been a 'socialist' country in the history of the world, if that is the definition of it?

Belgium is a capitalist economy. The fact that a 'society' still exists in Belgium (a welfare state etc) does not mean the country is socialist, it just means that it is not quite as capitalist as it could be.

Ok, I get what you're saying.

I can only respond with the fact that when we Europeans use this word, we mean something completely different.

And clearly, so do a lot of people in this thread. Several people here have made it clear that they believe Europe contains at least several socialist countries.