Why Excessive Socialism Doesn't Work

I've written long threads about why I disagree with the collectivist ideologies that socialism promotes but now I want to discuss things on a slightly more technical level. For people who live inside the U.S. and see a problem with wealth inequality, it's very easy to view socialism as a quick easy fix because it appeals to their sense of morality and it's a system which focuses more on the greater good so it couldn't possibly fail could it?

It's kind of odd that I even have to explain why excessive socialism and communist ideals are flawed when history clearly shows us a common trend among most nations who try it and even now there are nations suffering from wide spread poverty due to an overzealous adoption of ideologies based on emotions rather than logic. As I've said several times before, I think some level of socialism is justified and can help balance the flaws of capitalism.

The true threat of socialism arises when we decide that individual liberty no longer matters and that people should be forced into a certain way of living and a certain way of conducting business. Free market capitalism will always be superior to hardcore socialism for a simple reason: capitalism is something that arises naturally when a society of people engage in free trade, whereas excessive socialism requires governmental force to ensure some degree of equality.

Capitalism encourages people to make products that other people want and drives the economy, whereas overly taxing the productive citizens forces them to pay for things that they don't want, which is not fair to those creating the wealth. This will harm the economy if taken too far because it will force businesses to cut costs by letting go of people or lowering the quality of their product, resulting in less people buying that product.

It may seem to work at first but over the long term it will result in even greater problems and even wider spread poverty then what you started with. I've provided stats several times before showing how the nations which have the lowest taxes and highest degree of economic freedom have the highest standards of living and their poorest citizens have much higher standards of living compared to the more socialist nations with less economic freedom.

How much of your labor is owed to society? Would it be fair to give up 75% of your paycheck if that's what it took to have true wealth equality? It's for the greater good right, so why wouldn't you? Does it even matter how much each person contributes to society? Critics of capitalism say it's based on selfishness, but what is more selfish is to expect that one should have a right to the same amount of wealth as everyone else even if they contribute nothing.

When we decide that increasing taxes and expanding the size of the government is always a good thing we are heading down a very dangerous path, and I'm seeing that type of thinking from the left now more than ever because Trump is lowering taxes and trying to get a handle on government debt by cutting costs and trimming unnecessary fat. This according to their fantasy economics is a bad thing despite all the clear indications the economy is thriving.

What taxes really do is take spending power from individuals and businesses and give it to the government. Excessive socialism always leads to a nanny state and it truly boggles my mind that so many people believe such a huge bloated government could spend money more effectively than the private sector. It really doesn't take much analysis to understand why over-taxing and over-regulating an economy can harm it and destroy a nation in the long run.

Ultimately it's a choice between liberty and freedom, or governmental coercion and intrusions into the way we live our lives. This is the core difference between people who promote a one world government and those who oppose it. Those in favor of it may say "oh but it's for the greater good, it's an all powerful government that can care for every person on Earth". They are willing to put all their faith in one highly centralized authority.

The "greater good" is not always the right choice. For example would you want to live in a society where everyone is assigned an occupation by the government in order to most efficiently meet the needs of the population? It would be for the greater good, there would never be a shortage of doctors, but would you actually be willing to give up that amount of liberty? At what point does your own desires and aspirations outweigh the need of the greater good?

I've had many debates with people about fluoride and it always seems to come down to one argument "it helps protect the teeth of those less fortunate who cannot afford to brush their teeth", obviously I disagree strongly with this argument. The Wikipedia page titled water fluoridation controversy has a very interesting paragraph under the section about ethics which I think is quite an apt demonstration of how these two different mind sets view the world:

Water fluoridation pits the common good against individual rights. Some say the common good overrides individual rights, and equate it to vaccination and food fortification.[4][5]Others say that individual rights override the common good, and say that individuals have no choice in the water that they drink, unless they drink more expensive bottled water,[6] and some argue unequivocally that it does not stand up to scrutiny relative to the Nuremberg Code and other codes of medical ethics.[5]

The argument is that a large fraction of the population should have to ingest fluoride despite all the health risks and the fact it only works when applied to the surface of your teeth, because there is some evidence it reduces cavities among the poorer population, we're all medicated for the "greater good". Lets just forget the fact most other developing nations have seen the same rates of decline in cavity rates despite not fluoridating their water.

I mention this topic because I find it to be a very analogous to the arguments made in favor of excessive socialism, and shows how intellectuals can easily be swayed by appealing to the "greater good". They only look at the short term benefits without really considering the long term costs and they allow their emotions to win against logic. At the end of the day it harms more people than it helps and that is why I'll always oppose these naive ideologies.

What's truly ironic is that they cling to every world the MSM says and appeal to big government authority, while simultaneously yelling about Trump abusing government power, not seeing the obvious risks imposed by a totalitarian nanny state... "oh it's based on an ethical foundation so it couldn't possibly become corrupt". What nonsense. In my experience the most corrupt politicians are those who yell the loudest about their unmatched virtue.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Could of just summed it up,as history has proven"Socialism doesn't work"

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Hmmm... all very well I suppose, in theory.

Of course, your attitude to what is and is not socialism is likely broken, from lack of experience of it, and only having lived in a debauched hellish hypercapitalism, where no one is supposed to be moral in the way they conduct business, and in fact amorality is rewarded more voluminously than any other trait.

But you fail to take into account the systems in nations you would call socialist, like Denmark, and others which are run according to the Nordic model. Now, those nations are not socialist by REAL measures, but by the standards of your common or garden right wing, barely veiled fascist apologist piece of effluent, get called socialist all the time. That model happens to work very well for the citizens of the nations concerned. Its not perfect, because its impossible for any system to be perfect, but its not amoral and evil in its outworking or intent, which holds it apart from the sort of runaway free market insanity that those in the US favour.

a reply to: Oldtimer2


According to our Jeremy Corbyn Venezuela was a shining example of Socialism.

Indepent Article

Mind you, he has gone a bit quiet about that lately.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Of course, your attitude to what is and is not socialism is likely broken, from lack of experience of it, and only having lived in a debauched hellish hypercapitalism, where no one is supposed to be moral in the way they conduct business, and in fact amorality is rewarded more voluminously than any other trait.

Well I don't live in the U.S. for a start, as I've stated many times before, and what I was alluding to with the statement "for people who live inside the U.S. and see a problem with wealth inequality, it's very easy to view socialism as a quick easy fix". They have never truly experienced it and don't know the real threat it poses. Living in Australia I've watched first hand as the slow creep of socialism has slowly eroded our economy and put us in a position where the cost of living is exploding due to rising food costs and a poor energy infrastructure, all non-green solutions must be opposed for the greater good. And if you live in the U.K. you should be more than aware of the damage these nanny state ideologies can have on a nation, although I obviously don't expect you to admit it.

a reply to: TrueBrit


Interesting article on Denmark and the Nordic model:

Danish PM: Denmark is not Socialist

You are right, the Nordic model is not true Socialism with a bonkers planned economy etc. So, when has full on Socialism ever worked and not turned into a disaster?

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

ABSOLUTE CRETINOUS NONSENSE!

Australia is about as socialist as Ronald Bloody REAGAN!

Its politics is a skewed, broken capitalism, dressed up as a socially progressive entity, while having none of the traits of such a thing, and there is no way in the world that a realistic and objective examination of it could find otherwise! A socialist country would not have food price rises, because it would control what things can cost, including energy and food, including infrastructure and housing! As it is, this is not the case, so please, take your funhouse mirror view of the world, and cram it somewhere it belongs, like the sewer. When you have educated yourself somewhat on the topic, and have a realistic view of what socialism is and isn't, we can discuss it till doomsday. Till then, stick it, you don't know what you are talking about.

a reply to: oldcarpy

It really doesn't matter whether I can find an example, because no one has ever suggested a fully socialist nation, where no one can earn anything, where no motivations are present to get anything done, would ever work. What has been suggested, is that a bootheel be pressed against the necks of the amoral capitalist fraternity, so that the people who have been making their goods and their profits for them for generations, can finally benefit from their labours and those of their forefathers, which is entirely legitimate, and needs doing, preferably before the people doing the real work have to start eating the flesh of the rich purely to survive.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Australia is about as socialist as Ronald Bloody REAGAN!

Admittedly we're not one of the most socialist nations relative to many others but the rise of so called "democratic socialism" is rapidly overcoming our politics and way of living. It's the reason why when Stefan and Lauren visited AU and NZ our MSM had a fit and they were prevented from even speaking in NZ, which is very much like AU in terms of how we think and our politics. Also AU is part of the Commonwealth Realm and it's clear to me other nations in the CR such as Canada and the U.K. are rapidly becoming more socialist every day, in order to espouse how much virtue they have.

A socialist country would not have food price rises, because it would control what things can cost, including energy and food, including infrastructure and housing!

Ah no, the government out right dictating prices of commodities would be more akin to communism because it's an extreme level of control over the economy. If anyone needs to properly understand the definition of socialism it's you, as I said I have no problem with some healthy amount of socialism, but it does become a problem when we decide to discard our liberty along with all free market principles and let the government dictate important aspects of our lives and the economy.

Furthermore, a communist nation clearly can suffer from out of control prices along with energy shortages and food shortages, we know this because we've seen it happen many times throughout history. This is the core point I'm trying to convey, you can try to manipulate the market all day long but if you're lacking innovation and a drive for production the economy will stagnate and suffer and everyone suffers at the end of the day because of it. It does nothing to help the poor in the long run, whereas capitalism demonstrably does.

a reply to: TrueBrit

The elephant in the room regarding any political ideology is corruption. You could take the most perfect system in the world and institute it and within a few years there will be people that will find ways to exploit it for themselves . In 10 or 20 years the corruption will start to permeate everything. Eventually, the system will implode from within, much like we are seeing in the US and actually all over the world. With human consciousness at it's current state of development this will happen to any system. Some will take longer to implode and some will fall quicker, but they will all fall.

It's really easy to pick sides and ideologies, I do it myself, but in the end corruption is going to happen lending it's own kind of hell, socialism will lead to mass control of every aspect of peoples lives, capitalism will create huge and ridiculous wealth gaps and on and on.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

There is NOTHING, REMOTELY socialist about the way the UK government has behaved toward the citizens, and hasn't been since the bloody seventies, which you would know without having to be told, if you had the slightest bloody clue what you are talking about.

You rocked up to an artillery fight with a Derringer here, that much is clear. If you want to rag on socialism, you had better get your facts PERFECTLY straight before uttering a single pissing word on the subject, otherwise you are going to get sliced to ribbons in discussion. Let me give you a head start.

Since the Thatcher era, my nation and its people have been labouring under a system which only rewards people for doing what most REAL workers call soft work. You can (mis)manage your way to a million in a few short years, but work your fingers to the bone on real work, with your hands and your back, and earn not a bloody thing at the end of it, because? Because our government has kept the unions from standing up strong enough for the common worker, and because the companies who take advantage of the collapse of collective bargaining in this country, a socialist ideal if ever there were one, have taken FULL advantage of that, decreasing the amount of pay, relative to company profit, of anyone who actually produced goods or services, and increasing the pay given to the pointless droves of executives and management types, whose sole purpose is to accrue bonuses they did not earn, and pay packets they do not deserve, for work which only the most terminally pathetic, dense, and witless peons actually call work.

The rest of us have been TOTALLY disenfranchised by our corporate sponsored governance, and continue to be so. This is evidenced by the fact that it is legal for an employer to offer a person work that does not pay adequately, the fact that it is necessary for people who are terminally ill to fight legal battles so as not to be forced to shorten their already rapidly evaporating lives by going to work, battles which all too often cost them money, regardless of the fact that we are supposed to have access to free legal counsel in extremis.

No, you can get on your bike of you think that anything about the governance or the society we live in, here in the UK, is socialist right now. Even the NHS, a bastion of socially responsible policy since its creation, has been infected with profiteering by corporatist, capitalist scum whose intention is to charge us all through the nose for services they barely deliver anyway. No, again, get a grip, get real, and do your research. You are WRONG, and you need to get right before you sleep walk into an American style, near fascism, where only the already rich will ever prosper, and everyone else will die decades early.

a reply to: TrueBrit


Come off it! That's the politics of envy right there. Basically it is a rosy tinted socialist pipedream that in reality leads to crushing oppression, poverty and the dragging down of everyone to the lowest common denominator.

What about the many who would not want your brand of Socialism, like me? How would you deal with them? State oppression and coercion is how. That is where your bootheel would come into it.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

The good thing about bloated welfare states is that they are still liberal democracies, and not the socialist paradises Americans pretend they are. They almost act as a bulwark against full-blown socialism (where workers own the means of production) because the state softens the difficulty of living in a free society by offering services for poverty, healthcare, etc.

We are told the welfare state is more compassionate, and sometimes it is, but only because it can supplement the compassion of its people, those who would much rather pay a tax and have some bureaucrats take over where they themselves refuse to engage. Having so many safety nets allows one to do less for his fellow man.

So I think the welfare state breeds a contemptible people, those who pretend to care for others, virtue-signal about it, but in reality do nothing but pay a tax and go about their day.

a reply to: TrueBrit

There is NOTHING, REMOTELY socialist about the way the UK government has behaved toward the citizens

Of course the U.K. is still far more capitalist than it is socialist, that's why it's not completely dirt poor yet. So let me get this clear, you believe the U.K. economy isn't a mix of socialism and capitalism? I'm sure you wouldn't argue that, so I hope you now see what I'm saying. It's the balance between the two ideologies that matters, if either gets out of control it can be a bad thing, which it seems you fail to recognize so long as it's rampant out of control socialism. Also, take note that nations which were mostly communist in the past, have slowly over time adopted a lot of capitalist ideologies in order to engage in free trade with the rest of the world, and it has done nothing but enhance their living standards compared to when they were ruled by fundamentalist communist leaders.

and increasing the pay given to the pointless droves of executives and management types, whose sole purpose is to accrue bonuses they did not earn, and pay packets they do not deserve, for work which only the most terminally pathetic, dense, and witless peons actually call work

No one is forcing people to work in a crappy job for a crappy boss who overpays themselves, if the wage is truly unacceptable then don't accept it. Under excessive socialism or communism you may be forced into a job you don't like and you probably will still get a crappy pay. I'm not saying Capitalism is perfect or immune to exploitation but at least people have the freedom to choose and they can always educated themselves, practice at a skill to get good, in order to reach the level they want to be at. You can't expect every job to have the same pay and easy low skill jobs will pay less. Put in the time and effort and it's far from impossible to build yourself a successful career. Seems to me people just want wealth handed to them without having really done anything to earn it.

a reply to: TrueBrit


Sorry, but do you have any idea how much the unions have screwed out of London Underground for their tube drivers who earn silly money for "driving" an automated train?

Union leaders are on a pretty good screw, too.

Blaming Thatcher? Still?

Free Legal Counsel. Pretty much done away with by the ironically named Access To Justice Act 1999. Brought in by a Labour Govt. I know, I know, Blair doesn't count, according to you.

We are all going to die decades early? What? All because of evil Tory scum who want to kill us all and send children up chimneys etc? Are you in the pub by any chance?

Your qualifier "excessive" is the problem. Once you start feeding the damn thing it won't stop growing, and once it's big enough it won't let you stop feeding it or it will kill you.

It's the slow creep Kruschev always talked about; nay, predicted.

You can't let it into your house at all, because like a terrible guest it will never leave if you do. And eat all your food.

a reply to: TrueBrit


I remember the seventies in the UK. Not good - (leaving aside the clothes and hairstyles)

&0's Strikes and Blackouts

When the uncurbed Unions brought the country to it's knees. Strikes, electric blackouts, the three day week and uncollected rubbish rotting on our streets. Workers afraid to change a bog roll in case they were accused of doing someone else's job.

Yes, those were the days, eh?

If Capitalism is the superior economic system.. why is it not only failing but look at the poverty and inequality it has created, look at the corruption, Greed, Corporatism etc

I am not advocating Socialism or Communism, I have been outspokenly against ALL economic systems

but, this utopic statement by people that "Capitalism" is liberating, and Free is false

a reply to: XAnarchistX


Pretty much agree. Life's a bitch and then you die.

a reply to: XAnarchistX

The computer you posted that message on was created by our quasi-capitalist system.

Stop using your computer, hypocrite.

This is the problem with ideologues (and anarchists in particular)--none of them have the balls to live by their own convictions.