Why not socialism?

Question

What factors make socialism a nono?
Is it just the higher taxes in exchange for national health care?
Or something more?

Answer 1

It's been tried quite a few times before and hasn't worked.

Answer 2

False socialism (ie Soviet-style State Communism) was a horror show that has gives the whole left a bad name. The dictatorship of the proletariat turned into the dictatorship of the ruling party. On top of the fact that Marxism is inherently confrontational, the Soviet Union, Mao's China, Cuba, North Vietnam, etc. also had to deal with the behemoth of American Capitalism. Which gave you the Cold War, etc. etc......

That being said, the word socialism has been unfairly labeled. By religious people as 'evil' because of the anti-religious philosophy and worse by the petit-bourgeois as 'a nice idea that could never possibly work'. However, socialism can and does work. One can look at the remarkable of 'socialistic' policies in Europe, such as universal health care. (Compare this to the American model in which the health of the patient is based on his wealth and social status - insurance.)

The ultimate problem of course is that people allow themselves to be ruled. So long as people hand all of their power to a select group of ruling elitists you will always have corruption and it's effects - poverty, ignorance, superstition, crime, violence, racism, etc.
If the human race were to make a conscious decision to start acting locally and thinking globally, you would see a massive change in the state of affairs.

To quote anarchist Peter Kropotkin:

"When we ask for the abolition of the State and its organs we are always told that we dream of a society composed of men better than they are in reality. But no; a thousand times, no. All we ask is that men should not be made worse than they are, by such institutions!"

Answer 3

Our government is currently running a deficit. Sure, you could raise taxes to increase public programs but I would bet everything I have that our government, as is, would squander our money. The inefficiencies that exist would prohibit socialism from existing successfully. Even Sweden has struggled to maintain a balance over the years (they're doing better now)...the government needs to do some serious number crunching and clean up its act before we launch a multi, multi billion dollar program (public health care). Also, please note that in countries where socialism is somewhat successful (let's look at our European counterparts) national health care is not well run. In Germany (and yes, I realize they have other problems like high unemployment and high benefit payouts) most people (who can afford it) subsidize their government-given health care with private health care, as public health care isn't sufficient. There are limitations on what doctors you can see and how often. These limitations would mean you might have to stop seeing your regular primary care physician in order to see another doctor to "evenly distribute" patient load. This completely reduces the people's power in choosing a physician who is right for them.

I guess that's why I am anti-big-government - it removes choices and thoughts...but then again, isn't that what communism (the parent of socialism) stands for? The displacement of individuality by a new group mentality?

Answer 4

The concept of Socialism is an ideal philosophy, however, the concept will never come to fruition. The problem with Socialism is the nature of people is in direct conflict with that which makes it so ideal. Even if human nature ever changed enough to properly carry out a true Socialistic society, chances are a more ideal type of society would have been derived by then. But as long as humans have desires like greed and power, along with our natural competitive nature, there will always be those who try to get into power for the purpose of usurping the idealistic philosophy of Socialism.

Answer 5

The inefficiency of it. Even in Sweden, where they manage an almost socialist system as well as it could possibly be managed, the unemployment is very high and for many people it is more profitable to stay home and not work than to actually go out there and make something of themselves. It seems like a good way to live at first, but it is really depressing to be completely useless. That's why suicide is such a problem there.
Again, Sweden is the best case scenario. For worst case scenario, look at North Korea. They can't even feed themselves.
Having said that, it is shameful that pure capitalist societies such as United States have managed to erode their social safety net system to the state it's in today.

Answer 6

As you know I am in the religious left not part of the sheeple Christians (KJV).

What's wrong with you? Socialism? Capitalism is an economic system that is neccessary for a middle class.

The problem isn't capitalism its when we went off the gold standard and currency exchange rates fluctuated and you had a class of people who made money buying and selling currency, and a class of wealth was created this way in America.

That was during Nixon, then we saw a collapse in the 70s because of oil prices.

We saw under Clinton people get rich off of technology stocks, buying and selling then these companies collapsed, the enronization of the market happened shortly after 9-11.

I was in economics class and the professor talked of a "correction".

Now oil prices are high again, its the same thing, the poor are screwed, peoples retirement gone cause their companies went bankrupt.

Is there a need for a better health care system sure. Is the solution national health insurance? No.

What steps can government take? 25 cents out of every dollar the insurance company spends is on marketing and paperwork for the government.

So heres one, less paperwork requirements, make that all electronic. Ever hear of e-record? Hillary Clinton and newt gingrich are talking about it.

The cost of medical malpractice insurance has put lots of doctors out of business. In Illinois its 10 times as costly to go to a pediatrician as it is in Wisconsin where you live.

Why? Cause of law suits against doctors where millions were awarded.

Government needs to do tort reform to cap these things.

Who gets rich off these lawsuits? Lawyers. What party are they with? Democrats.

Its a double edged sword, we need Republicans to help us while they are in power because Democrats won't give us any of the reforms we really need, but the Republicans are busy playing patty cake with Leviticus 18:22 and creating the wedge issue with gay marriage and then they spend time ranting about the US FLAG BURNING.

Nonsense.

No socialism is bad because it doesn't work. Capitalism works. How can we help the poor? Instead of spending 1billion a week in Iraq we could spend 1billion educating Americans and getting them job skills, betterering our lives.

Wheres that money go? Military and haliburton far as I can tell.

See Dick Cheney's stock options go up 600% or something?

I'm just stateing facts this is public record the price of Haliburton Stock and he made SEC filings Cheney has.

I believe we need a third party.

Jesus said help the poor, regardless of what color they are or what new orleans roof top they are or gay or straight.

Bush needs to spend his presidenc following jesus.

Answer 7

Anytime a politician says anything it's a lie.

Socialism by definition is government control of a large number of services. Excessive taxes to support a government is problematic for several reasons.. If government controls an essential service consumer choice is out of the window. One prime example is Healthcare. The leftist scream for government healthcare. Yet innovations in US healthcare is what still makes it great. In many socialist nations you can't choose which doctor you will see, you are assigned to a doctor by some bureaucrat (that may be talking bribes from another doctor) Fact is corruption increases at all levels of government as forms of control increase. it's a fact.. Ideology aside human behavior searches for ways to bilk systems that are easily bilked.

Answer 8

Socialism may look like a good idea on paper, but look at the tyranny and suffering it causes everywhere it is tried. It is good to see that people are starting to awaken to the defects inherent to capitalism run amok, but socialism is definitely not the answer. Maybe the 'free enterprise system' of Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard, or maybe 'distributism' is the answer. Chesteron and Belloc, among others, advocated distributism.

Let's keep looking for a solution.

Answer 9

A lot of people see it as against the fundamentals of capitalism.

They see it as everyone getting a "C" grade and it doesn't reward those who work harder than others.

I see no problem fundamentally with socializing health care, but doctors and other health care professionals don't want to see lower pay and people who worked hard for insurance during their life don't want to see others get a free ride.

There is also the problem of losing "freedom" because of big government. I don't think EVERYTHING should be socialized, but government should be in charge of general welfare and health of its citizens. People cannot be counted on to provide this for each other.

Answer 10

Socialism unfortunately has a rather bad historical track record. Anytime anyone has tried to implement it, it's led to tens of millions of deaths. Also, I'm not sure that a total argument against private property is ethically cogent; "public property" tends to become no one's responsibility, degraded and neglected. In short, unalloyed socialism simply doesn't work very well at increasing human welfare. Most likely, the best solution is neither one nor the other, but a mixed economy.

Answer 11

In theory Socialism is not a bad concept. However, history has proven that human nature is extremely corruptable. The leaders that have run socialists states in the past have been too thirsty for power. So the ideals become skewed and the people suffer.