Why do you think Socialism doesn't work?

To insure the economic freedom of all individuals limiting economic freedom is necessary.

The earth is given to humans as a common stock not for one human to hog.

No one creates their own money/market unless you are a hermit.

 

But do you even own, what you have now?
by that i mean many people buy there cars with loans, same with houses and finnace their education with loans that basicly indenture them, to pay for something that you should have a basic right to have
(A place to live) house
and i belave that the sum of human knowdgle should not be held up in secrect in the university system, there to only those that can afford it
because simply, it is not there's to withhold

and well i think you should still have to work for a car as it is not nessicary

. but i think ive gotten a bit off track

 

I agree, but what about Tribal Communism?
That continues to thrive all over the world, and is generally assumed to be
stage 1 in the ladder of human progress,
so who's the one who sold out for that 'better life'
and sent his tribe off to take care of themselves?

 

^^^^^^

The above is closer to anarchism.

 

96% is about the percentage of the population whos standard of living will increase in socialism and communism. So thats a better life and more "money" right there, even if you eventully abolish money. Also, the people would have more power because a democracy would be formed.

Theres no proof that what you said is human nature. Even if it is: There is no reason the top few percent of the population should own over 90% of everything. That just doesn't make sense.

 

Economic freedom is a fundamental aspect of human freedom if your rich. If your poor, it means you get to sell your labor by the hour. The proletariat would be gaining freedom and the bourgeois would be losing it in socialism.

Communism means taking the wealth from the few and dividing it up. The fact that you are calling it tyranny means your siding with the top few percent. It sucks to be in the top few percent, but for the majority of the people it will be bringing freedom.

 

There's plenty of proof it's human nature, it's called reality. And perhaps it doesn't make sense that the top few percent should own so much, but you know what, it seems to be working, in all these so called capitalist countries where the rich are said to own almost everything, the one thing that is constantly ignored is that the vast majority of people while may not be in the upper class in their country, by world wide standard are extremely wealthy and live good lives.

 

Libertarian socialism is the opposite of authoritarian socialism, but authoritarian socialism isn't really socialism, so theres no point of calling socialism libertarian because it is implied. In "libertarian" socialism the market is controlled like in authoritarian socialism but its controlled democratically, making it socialism.

Also, I guess people would have the freedom of speech, and not be mass murdered.

No government will last unless the general will accepts it. People are ignorant of Capitalism, due to propaganda and ideology, but once those things are cleared away (probably once polarization is complete or almost complete [the rich get richer, the poor get poorer]) the general will is going to change and real socialism is going to be established.

It could happen in 5 years or it could happen in 80 (5 at the rate we're going). Trotsky predicted that Japan and England would go socialist before the United States, but if the U.S. did go socialist before them they wouldn't attack (I think that was a fear in the 1940s or something).

 

Ted Turner owns property in the United States equivalent in size to the country of Luxembourg (sp?) in Europe.

The arguement of human nature is unfounded and pessimistic, and your not going to prove it to me by having me read Lord of the Flies.

Its really not working for most people. The immigrants, the sweatshop workers in Jamaica and Asia and other counties, the people who have to choose between food and health care. Its not working for them. Its not working for the people on the streets, or the people who died of poverty.

Something you have to acknowledge about capitalism is the global economy. We are all connected. So even though things might be peachy for many people in western Europe and the United States and Canada, they aren't for people in other counties. Those counties are getting screwed over by the "capitalist" counties, because of Capitalism.

Those counties are Capitalist too, but they can't compete so they get screwed. Jamaica is the best example I can think of. They got screwed by the world bank because they needed a loan.

The United State could easily become socialist, but things are "good" as you say.

Well, we will soon be out of jobs because of competition. People in other counties will work for less, so we can either work for as much as they are getting or not work. You hear about that bill in France which aims to destroy workers rights and allows employers to fire employees who form trade unions? The bill they had a huge demonstration over is the one I am talking about.

Americans standards of living and job protects are going to continue to worsen because of competition.

 

But 96% isn't the percentage of people who are willing to live peacefully together, let alone become communists...
And abolish money?
I doubt that can be done on a scale as large as modern economics necessitates.
I mean, Castro and The Che couldn't even go that far, and they had
an entire population supporting their every movement.

How much less can be achieved when materialists have that power of majority?

 

There is a significant practical disadvantage of socialism and planned economies generally.

The Soviet Union, for example, had over 20 million prices for various commodities. In a planned economy like with socialism it is some Central Planning office the govt. that sets these prices. Now, that sounds very nice, doesn't it? The govenerment keeps an eye on everyone to make sure the "little guy" isn't being gouged, and consumers are well looked after.

But look more closely at this. Who sets these prices and how many is he responsible for setting? If this was the job of 20,000 people, they would be responsible for 1,000 prices each. But this is completely ridiculous. 1,000 prices is next to impossible to keep track of both for the sheer number of prices involved and most especially because prices are interrelated (e.g. if the cost of manufacturing and delivering rubber to tire companies goes up this can affect everything from frozen vegetables to the steel used in building construction).

But if each person is only responsible for keeping track of a few prices, as is the case in a market economy, this becomes much more manageable (though it's still no walk in the park, even for, say, the owner of a small retail business). This is one of the major practical advantages of a market economy and one of the main (and often overlooked) reasons that market economies have succeeded while planned economies have failed.

Price controls (which is what you have in a planned economy) have a very long and very unsuccessful history.

 

Saying it's unmanagable sounds nice,
but it seems to be working pretty well in
good old Cuba, eh?

The main problem with the Soviet system,
from my point of view, was simply it was
too beurocratic. That's pretty close to
what you're saying, but I think the point
you're using to explain it is flawed.

 

Not really, no.

 

How so?

 

Cuba is more of a quasi-military dictatorship. Not that I'm unaware of the Democratic Fallacy (i.e. merely because the majority of people think that some claim is true, doesn't make it so), but the average Cuban would disagree that things were going along smoothly.

Not sure what you mean by 'the point you're using to explain it is flawed.' How can a planned economy not become an unwieldy burocracy, given the number of commodities, the scarcity or abundance of resources needed to manufacture those commodities, and the sheer number and interrelatedness of the prices involved?

It is not the case that the Soviet Union failed merely because the folks in charge were incompetent or corrupt or both (though those factors did contribute to its failure). Rather, they sought to fashion an economy based upon an unworkable model put forth by a second-hand intellectual who not only had no business experience (neither from the side of the worker nor from the side of the owner) but had never even been in a factory before.

 

The interviews with Cubans I have seen indicate that things are going beautifully down there.
It isn't exactly east germany,- if a person is unhappy, they can easily become a
capitalist again.
So, the people remaining by now are, for the most part, true communists
who want nothing more than to live happily and to see this thing succeed.

 

Socialism doesn't work because it is often hijacked by insane megalomaniacs, sadly

 

isn't Libertarian Socialism a form of anarchy?

 

Isn't socialism different from communism? I'm puzzled as to why it is in this subforum

 

I get it. This is one of those let me find the perfect political system threads, right?