What are the downsides to Socialism?

Answer 1

The absence of freedom in your economic affairs - which is pretty close to everything you do when you think of it.

The redirection of capital from production of what the consumers want produced to what the government thinks the consumers should want produced.

The resulting decline in aggregate production levels - in wealth creation - which translates into lower per capita wealth.

We would trade freedom and unequally shared bounty for centralized control and still-unequally shared shortage.

Answer 2

Socialism assumes everyone's needs are the same. Also Socialist economies generally require higher taxes.

Some small degree of socialism is necessary in todays world but if the government can combine with private industry to provide the services people need taxes are kept low and the corporations benefit as do the citizens. When corporations don't participate or get greedy governments are sometimes forced to provide services the people would not get otherwise. Unfortunately that is too common.

Answer 3

To: "Steven H"

What you have described IS socialism. It isn't some degree or a little bit.

I don't think that the government should be in the business of providing "benevolence" to its citizens, regardless of "need" or "merit". If you know anything about the mindset of our founding fathers, you will understand that.

I believe that the founding fathers got it as close to "right" as is actually possible in the original constitution. They saw that through the encroaching of democracy and socialism that the government would get into taxing its citizens for the benevolence of a few and saw this as evil.

The is absolutely NO place for the government in the individual lives of its citizens or in "regulating" the affairs of business. Whenever we see this happen, such intrusion is almost always accompanied by "unintended" consequences.

The ONLY regulation that government should impose should be the subject of LAW not regulation. Law applies to EVERYONE.

The subject of the government "stepping in" when companies "fail" to take care of the needs of a few is abhorrent to me. It is NOT the responsibility of a company to "care for" or attend to the "needs" of individuals. Those are the responsibility of the individuals themselves.

Are there cases where people are in need of care and have needs? Of course. The solution to this is family, religious and civic groups, the community and anyone that has the wherewithall and willingness to VOLUNTARILY offer help.

Any other basis upon which a government justifies the FORCING of charity actions upon its productive citizens is seen to be debilatory to the individual and the overall economy.

Democracy and socialism are the polar opposite of a representative republic. The first seeks to minimize the individual and his initiative and responsibility in favor of "government care". The second is a grand (and successful) experiment in self-governance by the people.

If you want to promote self-governance...read the constitution and insist that your representatives STICK TO IT. If you want to promote a powerful and controlling central government, support socialistic and democratic views (the "what's in it for ME" systems)

Answer 4

All of it. If you believe in it go to Eastern Europe and see how socialism has worked out for them. I have spent a lot of time in the former Yugoslavia and let me tell you what socialism has produced there - squallor and poverty. The power does not work half the time, 70% unemployment, lack of water, broken streets, corruption, garbage piled up on street corners, and those are just a sample of what socialism produces.

Answer 5

Nasty winters in Siberia, empty grocery shelves, 5 year waits to purchase a vehicle, incomes more than 25 times less than capitalist counterparts, having only one candidate on the ballot. Now that I think of it, I can't think of one single successful socialist country in the world. Many former socialist countries are now capitalists, ie: all of the eastern European countries, Russia, all her satellite countries, and now even communist China largely operates on a free market capitalist system. Hmmmm? Makes you wonder doesn't it?

Answer 6

The abolishment of the Bill of Rights would be a good place to start this list, and I could go on forever. Every socialist country on the planet is overrun with unemployment, inferior medical care, inflation, and outrageous taxes. If anyone wants that they should move to France.

Answer 7

It removes the incentive for people to do their best, since if they work adequately or superbly, they get paid the same. There's nothing to gain by putting in the extra effort, except for altruism, which is a weak motivator at best.

Answer 8

With a socialist economy you loose a lot of free market capitalism. So, with government regulation of industries can sometimes curb incentive. We do participate in some here in our “capitalist” world. The post office is a socialist type of program. So is welfare.

Answer 9

The government controls evrything

Answer 10

A better quality of life?!

Look at Europe, the Scandanavian countries for example are Socialist. We currently have a health care system that doesn't care for us and it is private.

Socialism is not communism. Public education...that my friend is by its very nature a socialist construct.