What is so bad about socialism? - Page 6 - Historum

Chancellor · May 10th, 2012, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishcrusader95

interesting discussion, i'm inclined to agree with Guaporense's view that total socialisem is impossible as there is no way any goverment can gain total control and conformity over a people.

No. And thank god for it

**irishcrusader95** · May 10th, 2012, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dagul

^When certain socialist principle is applied in a capitalist system of economy, the nature of its being a form that is capitalism does not change because the state does not have the exclusive right over the degree of accumulation of wealth. While it is correct that such principle is applied in situations of government owned and/or controlled corporations, yet the private entities and citizens are still entitled to acquire wealth according to their ability and skills and are also provided with the powers to create corporations that have its own charter and exists by fiction of law. Thus, it doesn't cease to be capitalist and such is in keeping with egalitarianism.

with the system of control by shareholders there will always be a chance of other people holding said company rather then it being the sole asset of the government. what is the benefit, if any, if the government controlling all the business and the accumulation of with, it seems to me like it would create hopeless bureaucracy and no government could manage effectively and even if they could what still is the benefit compared to privet ownership.

**dagul** · May 10th, 2012, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishcrusader95

with the system of control by shareholders there will always be a chance of other people holding said company rather then it being the sole asset of the government.

Of course in a captailist system there is always that possibilty that government owned corporations may be sold to private entities by acquisition of shares of stocks or execution of deed of converyance involving the ownership thereof. There is no prohibitiion over that aspect.

Quote:

what is the benefit, if any, if the government controlling all the business and the accumulation of with, it seems to me like it would create hopeless bureaucracy and no government could manage effectively and even if they could what still is the benefit compared to privet ownership.

On this aspect, there are those who advocate that the government intervention is necessary to regulate the flow of business transactions and economy of the state. But like you I am not sold out to such idea, and I am a fan of free market economy and capitalism.

**irishcrusader95** · May 10th, 2012, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dagul

On this aspect, there are those who advocate that the government intervention is necessary to regulate the flow of business transactions and economy of the state. But like you I am not sold out to such idea, and I am a fan of free market economy and capitalism.

better centralization of resources for better distribution is probably there viewpoint. the whole idea of a totally equal society is just totally utopian, it can't be done, we are human beings not robots. the novel 'We' by the russian author Yevgeny Zamyatin displays well what sort of society the bolsheviks were looking to implement where everyone performs there daily tasks like robots and all think exactly the same with people no long having names but numbers to differentiate them like D-503. some idealists may say that such a society would have total peace as there would be no wars yet that is no life but is a meer robotic existence, i would rather live and die in the hypotricol and violent world we have today then ever live in such a uniform world.

yet this is all for those extreme socialists. what do socialist parties today advocate, do they look for greater centralization and government control because in some areas i see that as beneficial yet total control will do more harm then good. finding a balance is key.

**dagul** · May 10th, 2012, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishcrusader95

better centralization of resources for better distribution is probably there viewpoint. the whole idea of a totally equal society is just totally utopian, it can't be done, we are human beings not robots.

Indeed.

Quote:

some idealists may say that such a society would have total peace as there would be no wars yet that is no life but is a meer robotic existence, i would rather live and die in the hypotricol and violent world we have today then ever live in such a uniform world.

Like what you said, humans are not robots and not powered by any microchip.

KunaltheGreat · May 12th, 2012, 02:23 PM

The evil of socialism is that it takes away from the rich and privileged segments of society, the ability to exploit the lesser privileged and disadvantaged segments of society. Yup. that's pure evil isn't it? How dare a system challenge the establishment, in order to meet the needs of those exploited by the people on power?

**irishcrusader95** · May 12th, 2012, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KunaltheGreat

The evil of socialism is that it takes away from the rich and privileged segments of society, the ability to exploit the lesser privileged and disadvantaged segments of society. Yup. that's pure evil isn't it? How dare a system challenge the establishment, in order to meet the needs of those exploited by the people on power?

yet i think rather then creating an equal society it just creates a more poor one and traps the people in it. when the russian revolution came the common people went nuts with vengeance against the borgonise attacking anyone well dressed and burning manor houses down. they were happy to see the rich fall regardless if it didn't bring any improvement in there lot.

i feel the capitalist system has to exist so that the rich can stimulate growth through spending and investments. so long as the workers are protected against exploitation through labour laws and trade unions then i feel the system works wonderfully. those days back in the 19th century when children were working 14 hour shifts down mine shafts and cotton mills are over, today the blue collar workers are protected against such exploitation while still living in a capitalist system. Marx and the other socialist believers always used the example of the workers exploitation to show that capitalism is evil yet with that no longer standing that shows they were wrong in that regard.

Fereydoon · May 12th, 2012, 06:30 PM

Nothing. As Marx and Engels themselves said in the "Manifesto", the problem is how well Burgueoisie can lie, making people think that Socialism will strip them of all property and freedom

Tecumseh Sherman II · May 12th, 2012, 06:47 PM

I believe it's because if you make everyone equal through wealth redistribution, it can take away the will to strive for more, because you won't get more, and eventually everyone is at the same level of poverty, due to the fact that if people who work hard get the same as people who don't, then noone tries.

Fereydoon · May 12th, 2012, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tecumseh Sherman II

I believe it's because if you make everyone equal through wealth redistribution, it can take away the will to strive for more, because you won't get more, and eventually everyone is at the same level of poverty, due to the fact that if people who work hard get the same as people who don't, then noone tries.

Socialist counter-argument, also written by Marx, K. and Engels, F. : If that were true, then everybody would stop working for Capitalism as well, because the only thing that it guarantees is that the majority of the population will be poor, no matter what the effort.