261
262

Why Socialism Fails (lh3.googleusercontent.com)

ManOfTheInBetweenConservative が 投稿

全 79 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]lukewarmhalfspeed [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

People are selfish. Capitalism let's them be selfish and turn that into success

[–]super_ag [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

This is what I always say to Socialists. The two systems have to deal with human greed and self-interest somehow.

Socialism deals with greed by crushing it with the power of the State. You want to make lots of money and don't want to give up half of your stuff to give to others? Tough shit, we will take it by force and you will have no recourse. If you refuse, you can always go to jail, and we'll take what we want anyhow. It needs to crush greed for the greater good.

Capitalism doesn't try to crush greed but harnesses it for the greater good. You want to make lots of money? Great! Just provide a good or service that people are willing to give you money for, and you can make as much money as you want. You customers get what they want, and you get what you want. It's a win-win.

[–]TeaPartyOverlord#NeverHillary [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

It's hard to think of something more selfish than the assholes in the handout line (those who don't really need to be there) expecting everyone else to support them.

[–]powpowbang 34ポイント35ポイント  (0子コメント)

Then someone points a gun at you and tells you to be in the other line.

[–]harryhov [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

What bothers me the most is people who actually need the money (disabled, veterans, etc) doesn't get it.

[–]JobieWanKenobi [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

instead of giving useless politicians their salary for life, they should give that money to veterans

[–]harryhov [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Not just politicians, tenured teachers, unions, public servants. It's simply not sustainable. Immediately, those who are double dipping should be sued.

[–]TeaPartyOverlord#NeverHillary [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

And at the same time, spewing the horseshit that the people in the left line are "privileged".

[–]Gstreetshit### [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Then eventually you get shot if you don't get in the other line to keep the fantasy going.

[–]seobrien [スコア非表示]  (23子コメント)

Why downvotes ? Someone please explain how this isn't what happens? I'm successful, hard working, and an employer and at the first chance I get to spend more time with my kids, I take it.

Of course, the cartoon is a bit extreme. People will still want to work. They'll want to contribute. But they'll also do jobs they prefer, take time off when it suits them, and in general work less diligently. All having the same net impact.

[–]Sword_of_ApolloObjectivist [スコア非表示]  (15子コメント)

Why downvotes ?

Roving BernieBots that permeate all of reddit.

[–]seobrien [スコア非表示]  (13子コメント)

Ahh. Okay, bot, or even person who just knee jerk downvotes anything with which they don't agree: please, someone, explain how this is wrong.

Rhetoric aside. Idealism aside. Talking points aside. No Venezuela getting it wrong vs. Capitalism really failing crap. Just straight talk, how is this not a tongue in cheek and extreme observation of what happens?

Please :) because I'd really like to understand how this would work. I have a bit of the idealist toward socialism in me. I like the idea of being provided for even at a base level. I want to know how we get there.

[–]aboardthegravyboat [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I want to know how we get there.

Eliminate scarcity. That's the answer. Star Trek replicators. The basic needs of survival need to be essentially free.

That means very cheap and very widespread energy generation. We are a few leaps in nuclear technology away from that. We probably also need a good, hearty leap in battery technology, too.

It means very cheap and very widespread food production. There are some neat ideas for farming more food in less space, but that usually requires a lot of an artificial energy source, so see step 1. The food also needs to be made into something edible. The idea of 3D food printers is neat and maybe viable after a few leaps.

It means very cheap/free clothing and housing. So, aside from replicating food, we also need to replicate building materials and clothing. We are very far from having an automated process where cotton goes in one end and jackets come out the other. Or something where a tree trunk and some cement goes in one end and a brick house comes out the other.

That would at least cover the basics. That doesn't eliminate scarcity for luxury items. So, it doesn't flatten the wealth gap. But it does provide for basic needs.

In the end, the goal should be to eliminate scarcity. As long as there is scarcity, there must be a means to decide who gets what. That happens when people charitably and consensually donate goods and services to each other, when people competitively and consensually trade goods and services (with currency as a medium), or when people are forced to provide goods and services by a compulsory authority. The latter is the most evil.

[–]FatalTypingAccident [スコア非表示]  (10子コメント)

It can't work. Socialism cannot scale beyond a contained population. It requires everyone to buy in to the collectivist morality, and without that it will fail.

[–]WIlf_Brim [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

This is what the current crop fail to understand.

In a constrained population, preferably one that is very ethnically homogenous, a heavily socialized society can work. Even though one could slack off and live off every body else, the closeness of the society and peer pressure probably keep more people honest. The minority that doesn't care and takes anyway is small enough that they system as a whole can tolerate it. (think Sweden).

When the population is large and diverse (the U.S.) or there is an influx or increase in a population who may not have the same values as the rest of the population (Sweden) the system will break down. More people become "takers". As the number of takers increases, the burdens on those working increases (with no corresponding increase in personal gains). The urge to stop working begins to increase at the margins. People who were ambivalent about working look and decide "eveybody else is on the dole, why shouldn't I be" and quit.

TL;DR: For many people, getting paid 60% of their take home pay for 100% less work is a pretty good deal.

[–]gizayabasu [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

I don't even think ethnic homogeneity is all that important. What's important is that a community shares the same values. I can see socialism (though maybe not pure socialism) perhaps working at a city level or perhaps even a state level. Never at a federal level.

The problem is that there's too much divisiveness. Ironically, those who espouse divisiveness are the same ones advocating for socialism. Socialism works if there's a give and take. In a society where everyone blames each other for everything, there's only take.

[–]BuLLZ_3Y3 [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

But at the same time, when you have a community that devotes itself to caring for one another in a true sense, the government almost immediately squashes it. Because at its core, socialism is about State power.

[–]gizayabasu [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Which is why socialism sounds ideal but fails in all instances in reality.

[–]BuLLZ_3Y3 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

If you investigate the early Church (found in Acts), we are shown a perfect example of what I would call "Jesusism;" that is, socialism as depicted by Christ.

It's just a group of people living in relative harmony with one another. There was no forced giving, but giving out of love for their newfound family in Christ.

It's quite fascinating, even if you aren't a believer. As others have said, this type of living is almost impossible without every member being a believer in the same religion, which is why you see so many cults doing the same thing.

[–]gizayabasu [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I think there is a sense of "socialism" that exists in the family unit. It's a group of people with common beliefs and a sense of love and harmony that looks after one another out of altruism and the advancement of a common group. It's something that decays as you get to more extended family, but I guess it does show that some sort of homogeneity, whether religious, ethnic, or just a common values system, does help in establishing group harmony. Without that common level of respect, socialism doesn't work. And it especially doesn't work in a country so diverse as the United States where you have proud patriots and parasitic leeches living side by side.

[–]seobrien [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Yes, most realize that; I'm looking for a debate here because I'm getting exhausted by even having the discussion with people who believe we can successfully accomplish Socialism. I'm looking for the holes in the idea that it WON'T work.

For example, for the sake of the discussion, you're saying that IF everyone buys into collectivist morality, it could succeed, yes? I'm reinterpreting your thesis (valid thesis mind you) that without doing that it will fail; thus, doing it it would succeed.

Why? Why would everyone buying into the collectivist morality actually result in it succeeding?? Most will still get in that line on the right. Most will still work as little as possible. Most who DO work will still favor that which they prefer... teaching, the arts, entrepreneurship, etc. So even if we all buy in, will it not still fail? Who will pick up the trash, manufacture chemicals, fertilize crops, and so forth? Is it valid that in collectivism, enough people would step up for the greater good and do all those things? Why? Forget capitalism. They have no need to do those things when they could instead be a painter or web developer (for which no one needs anything :) ).

Things would get bad first. So is the supposition that once things get bad, trash everywhere, lack of food, etc. then people would find a different morality that drives everyone to do those jobs?

[–]FatalTypingAccident [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It works on a small scale like the Israeli Kibbutzes where everyone buys into the goals of the collective and everyone is held to the standards of the collective.

It works because they're basically a religious cult at that point, sharing identical morality on wrong and right -- not just paying it lip service, but believing it.

It's that belief that makes them join on the "line on the left" in your comic. The belief they are making the right choice and doing the right thing and seeing others making the right choice and doing the right thing.

But again such beliefs are indistinguishable from religion, and there will be those who dissent (especially in succeeding generations) and there is little room for dissent in a collective.

[–]leviathan3k [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

You keep saying "most". This implies that while the line on the left will be sparsely populated, it will not be empty.

I believe there will be some people who will always work just because society needs it, despite whatever disparity of compensation/entitlement happens.

I know, because I'm one of them. It's just my particular attitude to life, and the way my mind works. I know I'm a minority, but I'm also pretty sure I'm not alone.

The reason I think this has a potential to work is because of the continuing mechanisation of society.

I believe you are absolutely correct in thinking a disparity is going to cause a lot of people to work a whole lot less. I can see this being a major cause of failure in the various attempts of the past.

I think, however, that the immense forces in our current economy will cause the actual need for people to work to go significantly down. We will no longer need most of our taxi drivers, cashiers, or truck drivers. We will need significantly fewer doctors or lawyers, once our AI analysts get even better at analysis.

This labor reduction is going to happen in every industry. I believe that, if we make a serious change in both mindset and economic structure, we could change things such that the people willing to work for a combination of societal and personal improvement could meet the needs of a society where all of the industries actually needed for the society are highly automated.

I don't necessarily believe this is going to work. I like to be realistic about what is actually possible. A society would need to decide together that they really wanted this, and it is an enormous task to actually change everyone's minds. I also believe that someone outside of this society could so very easily take advantage of the situation and cause an enormous strain. It would be constant work to keep the right balance, and for the government to catch and adapt to whatever needs the society would encounter as it goes along.

As to why I think like this, I suspect this is where you and I might differ. I want this kind of society. I want the kind of society where I can work so others don't have to, at least not on the scale we require them to now. I believe the automation removing jobs is going to happen with or without this sort of shift, and I believe that if we don't do this, the situation is going to get much worse for everyone.

[–]JagItUp [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I agree. Once a robot can do every blue collar job, there will be very little reason to depend on expensive human workers

[–]jsh5h7 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Downvote shouldn't be a disagree button. Usually I down vote the bad Obama memes/cartoons that periodically pop up here and articles from fringe sources that don't contribute anything to conservative discussion

[–]Spidertech500 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The worst is, they take over subreddits they have no need to be in, like R/investing

[–]Dest123 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

In reality it's generally "no work, just barely enough free stuff to survive". So people only get in that line if they're willing to be poor as fuck.

If this cartoon were true, then heavily socialist countries would have super high unemployment rates, and/or much lower GDP per capita, which isn't the case. You can just google denmark gdp per capita or sweden unemployment rate.

The real problem is when people game the system and get more than their share of free stuff.

[–]pantytwistcon [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

"Now if you feel that the bare minimum is enough, then okay. But some people choose to wear more and we encourage that, okay?"

[–]VictorTrejo [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It's really hard to simplify it down to this. Capitalism and socialism, like all models of government, are important to understand first as ideologies, then historically, then practically.

This cartoon in particular reminds me of the post-cold war American propaganda.

It depends on what image one projects onto those people in line. Some might see them as the lazy lower class, while others might see them as the upper social hierarchy. By contrast, most socialist propaganda seems to be against social hierarchy.

How is this not what happens? Places like Denmark are a good rebuttal. I don't know specifically of any cases where that are similar to the cartoon, so if anyone has sources...

[–]Pandos636 [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

I didn't downvote you. I think Capitalism is by far the most beneficial economic system, but it has some obvious flaws like wealth inequality, monopolies, and care for the poor. These are three areas that socialism is better equipped to deal with, and the current crop of Democrats are inclined to borrow ideas from Socialism to help alleviate these problems.

[–]banhammerred [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I think Capitalism is by far the most beneficial economic system, but it has some obvious flaws like wealth inequality, monopolies, and care for the poor

In any system that is free and also competitive, there will be winners and losers. The fact that there are winners and losers is not a flaw of capitalism but a manifestation of the fact that nobody controls it, the only time we need to intervene is collusion, and monopolies (as you stated). Unfortunately when some entities get to big, we run into regulatory capture, and we can't control them any more. This is partly because gov't itself is too powerful and can be used by large corporate entities to their benefit.

These are three areas that socialism is better equipped to deal with

No. In socialism, everything is a monopoly, there are ONLY monopolies....
Wealth inequality / poverty is dealt with because everybody equally is poor and makes nothing...

So I don't know what your point is?

[–]rAlexanderAcosta [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

but it has some obvious flaws like wealth inequality

There isn't anything inherently bad about wealth inequality.

monopolies

There also isn't anything inherently bad about monopolies if they were created in a free-market system. The way you get monopolies in such a system is because people voluntarily gave them their money. In addition, there are very few monopolies in a free market system because there are so many competitors and the ones that do exist eventually decline because others make breakthroughs.

care for the poor

In the late 1800's and early 1900's, we saw the greatest outpouring of voluntary, charitable giving. Besides that, as production and wages increased, we saw the greatest leaps in living standards that haven't been replicated on this planet until China started to privatize their markets. Some manufacturing jobs are coming back from China because living standards and wages have improved so much that it's becoming cheaper to build stuff here.

[–]latinjones [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Because it's an oversimplification of a complex issue. Most of us benefit in some way from a progressive tax system where the wealthy pay a higher share of taxes. Roads, schools, social security benefits, etc. But when you try to extend these benefits to include higher education and healthcare all of a sudden we're all just a bunch of lazy commies who don't want to work for anything.

[–]Tenorek [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Socialism does work to make all parties equal, but I've always likened it to how a lawnmower seeks to make all blades of grass equal. You can never force a blade to grow higher, so to equalize, you must cut down any that are "too successful." That's socialism.

[–]TheTrueMadman [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

Why isn't there a third option? Work hard keep all?

[–]ladyanita22 [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

Because then, we wouldn't have government...

[–]goldenbug [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

And that's a bad thing?

[–]duktalo [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Are you an Anarchist?

[–]storminnormies [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

They're just another one of the "conservative" gay weed libertarians who don't give a fig about their country or fellow countrymen.

[–]ladyanita22 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I actually think there should be a small government, with low taxes and guaranteing its citizen's freedom.

[–]weetchexLibertarian Conservative [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

uhhhh . . . the sign on the building?

That doorway is on another building.

[–]zerj [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Perhaps I'm selfish, but I like not having a toll booth every quarter mile on my way to work. It's also pretty cool that I don't need to shovel the snow from my whole commute in the winter.

[–]desertfoxz [スコア非表示]  (14子コメント)

So why are people in Germany still working harder than Americans?

[–]GruntledSymbiont [スコア非表示]  (8子コメント)

Cultural and racial differences? If you want to compare only Americans of German heritage you'll see similar numbers.

[–]desertfoxz [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

But they are "socialists"... shouldn't there be bread lines and high unemployment there?

[–]GruntledSymbiont [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

Socialism is an economic system. If you mean Germany has generous welfare programs- that is true. Those programs are paid for by taxing the German capitalist economy.

[–]desertfoxz [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

Than why do people call Sanders a socialist or at the same time other politicians in the same vein. No one is calling for that kind of system even in the Democratic party or their voters.

[–]GruntledSymbiont [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Sanders called himself a socialist. Glad I could solve that mystery for you. Yes, many people in the Democrat party are calling for a socialist economic system. What do you think single payer medicine is? That is 1/5 of the entire economy run by the government right off the bat. Certainly nobody in the democrat party thinks they can transition a country to socialism overnight but that is certainly the objective for many. Sanders in particular is a hardcore communist viewing socialism as the necessary transition.

[–]TaylorHammond9 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Than why do people call Sanders a socialist

Yikes... You're pretty or of touch it seems.

[–]TheBlackSun8 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Because socialist/ communist still had a negative connotation for older Americans. Both parties like to paint things as black and white to divide Americans into an us verses them mentality.

[–]citizen_beyond [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

What if elements of socialism can work for certain ethnic groups but not others? Every "good" example of socialism is a society that is, or at least recently was, made of fairly high IQ northern Europeans.

[–]Acheron13 [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

They're not? What do you mean by working harder?

2104 Average annual hours actually worked per worker:

US: 1789

Germany: 1371

2014 Level of GDP per capita and productivity

US: 62.4

Germany: 58.9

They work less and produce less when they do work.

[–]storminnormies [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

They're almost at the same level of GDPP and productivity despite working 25% less?

[–]Acheron13 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I don't think it's the same thing. The last source looks like it takes into account standards of living.

2013 GDP (PPP)

The GDP (PPP) per hour worked is a measure of the productivity of a country when not taking into account unemployment or hours worked per week.

US: 67.32

Germany: 57.36

2013 GDP Per Capita:

US: 55,805

Germany: 46,893

[–]storminnormies [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Gotcha. I think I'd still make the trade to work 25% less but only lose 15% GDPPC. My dad had to go to Germany on business for a while and the amount of time they got off for Christmas sounds great.

[–]Day_C_Metrollin [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Americans* is a large group of incredibly diverse people. I guarantee if you compare subsections of Americans* to Germans you'd see similarities.

[–]citizen_beyond [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

Honest question:

Can you have some elements of socialism within a framework of capitalism and still have it work?

I'm thinking of some of the ways the NSDAP managed the economy in Germany in the 1930s. They had a homogenous fairly high IQ population to start with, and they encouraged private ownership and meritocracy.

However, they also encouraged breaking down class lines, respect for worker and capitalist alike. They provided some basic level of preventative health care, mandated vacations for all classes, break time during work, etc. For a period they even mandated a 6-month community service program for all high school graduates. To encourage a sense of community and partnership with your fellow countrymen.

Of course I have to wonder if something like this is completely dependent on the population. I'm not even sure it could work within a multicultural nation.

[–]IGOA2BBYKEEPINGITG [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

That's a good question. Don't know if we'll be able to find out though.

[–]burgeoning_philosoph [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

All of what you mentioned is the case in modern-day Protestant Europe, without the disgusting racism and militarism

[–]Day_C_Metrollin [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Not in America. The public school system is a perfect example of this.

[–]unkz [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Mmm, tell me more about how much you love the Nazis and high IQ Europeans.

[–]citizen_beyond [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

It is a legitimate question that I have been thinking about. I was hoping for reasoned discussion and not inaccurate character attacks.

[–]unkz [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Is it really a legitimate question when there are literally thousands of books detailing how Hitler's social policies operated? Or are you mostly just trying to spread your alt-right dark enlightenment nonsense into other subs that you think might be friendly to your ideas?

In case I'm wrong, this is a pretty good overview of what is wrong with your characterization of Hitler's "success" in economic planning:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/tch_wjec/germany19291947/2economicsocialpolicy1.shtml

Tl;dr: economic stats juked by massive rearmament, excluding women, Jews and other undesirables from being counted. A totally unsustainable plan reliant on a combination of conquest and genocide.

[–]JimminyBibbles [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

Liberal here, OP is right, this is exactly why socialism fails. But there appears to be a bit of misunderstanding here. Some conservatives think that liberals want pure socialism. Personally I have never met an american, liberal or otherwise, who proposes Stalinist style socialism. I have, on the other-hand, met a tons of people, both liberal and conservative, who feel that we should pay for healthcare services in the same way we pay for firefighting. In a sense this is socialism, but its a type of socialism that we are already using successfully.

[–]gizayabasu [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

Personally, almost every college student I've met advocates for pure socialism. They want the government to pardon every loan, have no intention to work or contribute to society, and feel like they're serving justice by protesting the alleged corrupt.

[–]RedditJusticeWarrior [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Personally, almost every college student I've met advocates for pure socialism. They want the government to pardon every loan, have no intention to work or contribute to society, and feel like they're serving justice by protesting the alleged corrupt.

My experience, granted having graduated before the SJW madness, is that they are advocates of socialism but they believe they ARE contributing to society. It's just an extension of the hippie shit that sitting around pondering things is "better" for society than the engineer or the doctor or the scientist etc.

And that's not a swipe at humanities people per se, it's just that almost universally these people come from humanities degrees and convince themselves they're "smarter" somehow. Because sitting around circle jerking about how great it would be if your 160K gender studies degree was just paid off is somehow smart.

In any case, they think writing articles on length about how important the gender of BB8 is to society is somehow contributing.

[–]gizayabasu [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

And I agree. They do indeed believe they're contributing to society by sticking it to the patriarchy and the corrupt system.

[–]RedditJusticeWarrior [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

And I agree. They do indeed believe they're contributing to society by sticking it to the patriarchy and the corrupt system.

It's hard to take these special snowflakes seriously when they have cat 5 meltdowns over the most trivial shit. There are certainly things that they can be right about us needing to fix but when they talk about them in the same breath as MUH WAGE GAP and OMG MANSPREADING it's hard to even listen to their shrill nonsense.

[–]gizayabasu [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I totally agree that they may see some of our things as meltdowns as well (transgender bathroom, abortion), but I'd like to think we tend to at least have logical arguments vs. emotional arguments. Of course, I might be biased.

[–]RedditJusticeWarrior [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Liberal here, OP is right, this is exactly why socialism fails. But there appears to be a bit of misunderstanding here. Some conservatives think that liberals want pure socialism. Personally I have never met an american, liberal or otherwise, who proposes Stalinist style socialism. I have, on the other-hand, met a tons of people, both liberal and conservative, who feel that we should pay for healthcare services in the same way we pay for firefighting. In a sense this is socialism, but its a type of socialism that we are already using successfully.

Well do it without taxing me an extra 8K fucking dollars a year (which is how much more I'd pay under Bernie) and I am by no means rich. It's fucking absurd how much money the left wants from me for their "reasonable" social programs.

And please don't give me the reddit approved Bernie calculator again I've already determined that I lose money under his health plan and my company loses much much more.

[–]nicksvr4 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Additionally, the more that go into the right lane, the higher the tax rate rises on the left, which make more go to the right, which raises taxes more, and so on.

[–]desertfoxz [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Why are "socialist" countries doing well like Germany? No high unemployment there. It shows democratic socialism works...

[–]storminnormies [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

If anything it shows Rhineland capitalism at work, not democratic socialism.

[–]RedditJusticeWarrior [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Why are "socialist" countries doing well like Germany? No high unemployment there. It shows democratic socialism works...

It's almost as if the Germans have a good work ethic and a completely different culture than we do!