Why socialism FAILS
Offline Quite simply, it disregards the ostensible fact that I owe nothing to any of you except the modicum of respect that I would have you give to me, as a non-criminal human being. ("you" and "me", in this case, refers to the 1st and 2nd parties of any social interaction imaginable)
The only socialist utopia in the World right now is Cuba. A lot of people try to move out of that place for some reason... 
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
- Login to post comments
I see your point. However, I am aware of the peak oil problem, green revolution and climate change. These problems combined will spike the price of food and what will happen is only certain rich countries will escape generalized famine. There will also be a rapid decentralization of food production. Will be much more local. Certain communities will suffer immensely from these circumstances. It is only because of oil that we can be beyond Earth's carrying capacity.
I think where capitalism went wrong was it allowed business to own natural resource that they did not work or invest to produce. So a capitalist can buy up land and sit on it then get rich because the supply of land is fixed while growing population increases the demand. We need tax natural resource usage and not tax work and investment. This would correct this problem. So the guys that could make products from recycled materials would get rich instead of the guys that own mining 'rights'. Better for the environment as well.
In pure capitalist theory, if a company is paying low wages while making massive profits, a competitors should step in and pay the workers better. This often does not happen because of the limited natural resource problem. A competitor would have to invest a large sum in resource procurement to start a competing business.
Also capitalism does not bear the costs of educating workers that industry demands. Government has to play a role in creating a workforce that can meet the demands of the market. The current socialist health care bill will fail because it does nothing to produce more doctor, nurses and medical facilities. It only produces more IRS agents.
Socialism and Capitialism will both fail until we address the fundamental problem of limited natural resourses with uncontrolled population growth. Low wages and poverty will persist until we do. But this topic is still taboo with too many people.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
EXC's criticism is (I think) "monopoly", where one commercial entity out-invests the other, until one "corporation" assumes an over-whelming majority of what is known as "marketshare", and are thus allowed to market a shitty 'product' at whatever price strikes their fancy.
This is referred to as "anti-competitive" behavior, and is actually prohibited by law. But, never-the-less, it is the nature of commerce/mercantile to engage in "monopolistic competition".
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
I see no reason to think that we are beyond Earth's carrying capacity. We currently devote such a small percentage of our resources towards production of food and water that it seems insane to think that we are anywhere near the maximum production of basic necessities.
Also, I see no reason to think that food prices will suddenly spike at any point in the future. There are factors that will cause food prices to gradually increase over time, but none of the ones you mentioned will cause a sudden spike. Furthermore, there are other factors, such as improvements in technology which will help to drive food prices down.
I also see no reason to think that there will be a rapid decentralization of food production.
Other than the idea that we are beyond Earth's carrying capacity, (which I find ridiculous given our current ease at meeting basic necessities) I don't see how any problem could ever require mandatory population control to solve.
I don't understand why the Christians I meet find it so confusing that I care about the fact that they are wasting huge amounts of time and resources playing with their imaginary friend. Even non-confrontational religion hurts atheists because we live in a society which is constantly wasting resources and rejecting rational thinking.
I'm not sure where you live, but in America, and in most other places I can think of, we do tax people who own property based on the value of the particular piece of property. Additionally, there are tax breaks and subsidies on using recycled materials. The reason why firms often choose to not use recycled materials is that recycled materials are very expensive even after the extra incentives have been considered.
I'm not sure what you are talking about here. Limited natural resources have nothing to do with a company's ability to undervalue its labor. If a firm is paying undervalued wages, then another firm which produces a completely different product can offer the laborers higher wages.
Yes, capitalism does bear the cost of educating workers. It bears the cost by paying higher wages to specialized workers.
The current health care bill does not suffer from this problem. On the short term, doctors, and nurses will work more or more efficiently, and medical facilities will admit more patients. On the long term, more doctors, and nurses will be hired, and more medical facilities will be built and expanded.
I don't understand why the Christians I meet find it so confusing that I care about the fact that they are wasting huge amounts of time and resources playing with their imaginary friend. Even non-confrontational religion hurts atheists because we live in a society which is constantly wasting resources and rejecting rational thinking.
So then I don't see how this is a problem with capitalism. All that you are doing is arguing that the law should be enforced.
Also, "monopolistic competition" is very different from an industry in which there is a monopoly. Monopolistic competition is not the ability to produce low-quality products and sell it for a high price. Products are actually more likely to be high quality when there is monopolistic competition.
I don't understand why the Christians I meet find it so confusing that I care about the fact that they are wasting huge amounts of time and resources playing with their imaginary friend. Even non-confrontational religion hurts atheists because we live in a society which is constantly wasting resources and rejecting rational thinking.
I distinguish between natural monopolies and market monopolies. Electric and water service providers have a natural monopoly because it is impractical and expensive to have multiple service lines from different companies running to every home.
I believe oil and mining companies also create monopolies because there is a limited number of places where these activities can be done. Ideally, we should want the companies that do drilling and mining in the most efficient and safe manner to be the most profitable. But the system now is set up that if a company can get the drilling and mining 'rights' through political connections and bribery, that company will be most profitable. The capitalist system of monopolizing land and other natural resources is messed up. So it ends up not being the hardest working, most innovative that are winners, but the most politically connected.
I believe land ownership and water, drilling, mining so-called rights should be viewed as privileges that one must pay to use. The competition in business should be to develop the best technology, not to buy up and monopolize the most resources.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
I live in California, the land of Prop. 13. It enabled a lot of people to get rich(up until 4 years ago) from just sitting on real estate. Wealth without work or innovation. The decline and bankruptcy of the state can be traced back to this and to the state pension system. As property tax went down other taxes went up driving business and skilled professionals away.
We also have an inefficient farming system now because we don't make farmers pay for the real cost for water and land they use.
What is your theory then on why companies that make massive profits while paying low wages don't soon get a competitor. Why doesn't another capitalist want to get in on all the easy money to be made exploiting cheap labor?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Oh, that's easy. The fact that wages are often low is a reflection on the supply and demand curves of some labor markets. In places where wages are very low it means there are a lot of people willing to work relative to the number of people who are willing to hire them. In a scenario with a high supply of labor and a relatively low demand of labor, a low wage is the correct value.
edit: to address the other part of your post:
Prop.13 of California did not abolish property tax nor is it inherent to capitalism. I'm not sure how this is relevant.
Supposedly, the citizens of California have decided that they feel that society benefits when people hold onto property whose value increases at a rate higher than 2% and have decided to incentivize that behavior. As long as the collective opinion of Californian society holds that opinion, then this is not a problem. If they don't hold that opinion, then the people who voted for it must really be stupid.
I don't understand why the Christians I meet find it so confusing that I care about the fact that they are wasting huge amounts of time and resources playing with their imaginary friend. Even non-confrontational religion hurts atheists because we live in a society which is constantly wasting resources and rejecting rational thinking.
She's a very unique (and astute!) kitty!
Actually, I'm (still) at a loss as to "why" this post/thread was bumped up...
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
You've restored your original signature. Yay.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Why doesn't another capitalist jump in and take advantage of the low wages to make obscene profits?
I'm pointing out that we don't have a society where people pay for what they use. Property owners are high users of government services, but they put the tax burden on income and sales, which are not necessarily high users of services. So we don't have the capitalist free market, we have one group of people subsidizing another.
Everyone wants something for nothing. People want to see their taxes only go up a little while their house goes up a lot.
The problem with is not socialism or capitalism per se. The problem is capitalists that want something for nothing, and socialists that want something for nothing.
Many capitalists want access to land and resources at little or no cost. Many socialist want access to welfare benefits with no requirement to work or get educated to pay it back. Capitalist and socialist both want to be able to have large families and have the rest of the society pay for these costs. These people are the problem and the barrier to having a rational economic and social order.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
The problem with capitalism is that it's a zero sum game, and its affects last for generations. My fathers failure in the capitalistic market (either due to his own problems, bad luck, or problematic technology shift) will affect me and likely my grandchildren. Money begets money, capitalism might provide economic opportunities but the key here is that the market still needs a stable society to function around. In a disaster I give everyone food, not just those that I think 'earned' it. Capitalism unhindered leads us to patent medicine and a lovely gut wrenching rendition of Upton Sinclairs The Jungle. Socialism isn't perfect either, but I do believe we have a duty to one another, if only as members of a global society. No one is an island, injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere and frankly I would rather have a government running business than have business running government. A government can do things better than private industry, more importantly they can do things that private industries can't or won't do.
"Life isn't fair."
I have no duty to the rest of the human race. Period. Genocide in Darfur, Sudan, is still genocide in Darfur, Sudan. (And the U.N. is STILL is not capable of preventing it except by pushing more useless paper. International law is a joke as well; but for different reasons unrelated to socialism, and more connected to pacifism.)
We Americans have our own unique history with genocide- manifest destiny. And despite being 1/8th or (more likely) 1/16th native American, I'm still not going to care; it's in the past. Spain has a Black Legend, starting with Cortez - I don't give a rat's ass about that, either. (Though I find it mildly amusing that Spain is trying to sweep it under the rug with "The White Legend".)
Obsession over social justice- it gets no one anywhere except in Europe, where the ideal is "Something for nothing" (meaning you can be fed, housed, and even allowed to purchase drugs off of someone else's money) as EXC has mentioned numerous times (in multiple threads). They are having a harder time with economy than we Americans are for some reason.
Government can't create "stable society" unless people want it, first. Throwing money at a problem does nothing. State-sponsored charity is a joke as well, because of the dilemma Europe faces with Eurabia.
And thus you all have the primary reasons why I am an evil right-winger.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Capitalism may have some drawbacks, but it is certainly not a zero sum game.
The effects of being very rich may last for generations, but having poor parents can be overcome in 1 generation.
So, you are in a similar situation as the majority of the rest of the population? It is unappealing to lack the advantage that a small minority of people born into very rich families have, but it's not the same thing as being handed a huge disadvantage compared to the typical person.
I don't understand why the Christians I meet find it so confusing that I care about the fact that they are wasting huge amounts of time and resources playing with their imaginary friend. Even non-confrontational religion hurts atheists because we live in a society which is constantly wasting resources and rejecting rational thinking.
Sorry guys, I completely agree with Joker here.
Depends on your definition of poor. One thing is certain:
"It's probably as unlikely that you would nowadays become as rich and famous as Bill Gates, as it was unlikely in the 17th century that you would accede to the ranks of the French aristocracy. But the point is it doesn't feel that way. It's made to feel, by magazines and other media outlets, that if you've got energy, a few bright ideas about technology, a garage, you too could start a major thing" - Alain de Botton
What makes me really mad is that some people barely work to make a living and make millions just by interest. Others work like hell, literally die working for a penny a day, this really makes me want to start a revolution.
I don't want to be rich. I just want a fairer world and it is possible if WE want it. Life doesn't have to be unfair, we have the creativity to make it enjoyable for most. In this I'm in disagreement with Kapkao.