Why Excessive Socialism Doesn't Work

originally posted by: NthOther
Your qualifier "excessive" is the problem.

Well if I didn't include that I would have made some people even more upset than they already are. I think some degree of socialism can be a good thing but it's clearly very easy for them to take it too far, a went a little deeper into that issue in a thread a made a few years back:

Once the government gets a taste of the power that socialist policies bring, they never stop wanting more, and that is the key point I want to make in this thread. In todays age, the governments of many nations are up to their eyeballs in debt because they just love spending money so much, and the only way they can pay off much of that debt is to take more and more money from individuals and businesses. They are always looking for new ways to siphon money from every possible source.

On The Expansion of Government

Btw it seems like it's always the same old argument when I make a thread like this... "capitalism is so evil, the people who build a business get to decide their own wages, man it's so unfair the whole system is just so crap we should abandon it despite the fact I cannot clearly show any other system that has been proven to work better".

Excessive anything doesn't work, it's pretty much the definition of excessive.

The best country's in the world to live in tend to use balanced economies that use both state & market based approaches depending on the best fit for the circumstances.

Belief that state or market is always best is just another form of ill informed extremism.

originally posted by: NthOther
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.

Modern computing and the Internet originally developed by governments. Hypocrisy apparently works both ways...

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
Btw it seems like it's always the same old argument when I make a thread like this... "capitalism is so evil, the people who build a business get to decide their own wages, man it's so unfair the whole system is just so crap we should abandon it despite the fact I cannot clearly show any other system that has been proven to work better".

There are the same number of true capitalist economies as there are true socialist ones. Neither works in a pure form.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Yet the Soviet Union never produced a computer worth a s#.

Go figure.

a reply to: NthOther

are you trying to say that computers couldn't be created in alternative economic systems?

before we continue this conversation, do you honestly believe "Capitalism" is responsible for creation?

a reply to: TrueBrit

Your immediate escalation to insults and screaming are making you look foolish.

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
a reply to: NthOther
do you honestly believe "Capitalism" is responsible for creation?

I certainly believe, or rather know, that Capitalism is responsible for more innovation than any other economic system. It naturally generates competition between businesses and drives them to constantly beat their competitors with a better product at a lower price, and there are laws to prevent unfair collusion between businesses so they don't fix prices, although it obviously doesn't always work. Heavy socialism and communism have no such mechanism which drives innovation and competition because everyone is guaranteed to get what they need, until the entire system collapses due to a lack of innovation and product diversity.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I notice you say “excessive socialism.” Excessive capitalism, while popular as an ideology, also has its downfalls in terms of what happens if you are not a “big fish,” as you get left for dead.

But capitalism appeals to the American macho glamour of “rugged individualism” - I say “glamour” for the double meaning of “making something seem attractive and exciting” as well as “an illusion.”

I think that what we largely struggle with in the US is the tug-of-war between collectivism (seen positively as ‘community support’ and negatively as ‘dependence’) and individualism (seen positively as self-actualization or self-reliance, innovation and negatively as ‘selfish, greedy and lacking compassion — narcissism.’)

From a psychological standpoint, too much community prohibits individual growth, and trades individual accomplishment for collective security and mutual benefit. It is “government as the parent” and “ citizen as the child.”

On the other hand, too much individualism casts aside the benefits of collective security and lays waste to the vulnerable. It is the immature adolescent, still thinking only of themselves while casting aside parental restraints as well as parental wisdom and experience.

It is a stage of growth, and part of the maturation process to break away from the control and safety of one’s parents. But it is intended to be a phase, a necessary individuation process before one grows up and makes an adult realization: humans are both individual and collective beings.

In terms of government, that means finding a mature balance between self and community, between self-governance and the benefits of collective security. We thrive when we have both. Too much of one or the other is regressive and stifling to the whole.

So we fight over the balance, struggling between more or less of each.

True maturity lies in Interdependence. Neither dependent nor selfish, both participating in one’s own destiny and self-actualization, and communal responsibility in the context of creating a compassionate and secure society. Individual worth and determination balanced with contribution to the betterment of the whole.

I think most of our real political battles are about HOW to become a mature society, but that isn’t as sexy as all the tribal team stuff, and so we are stuck with a football game mentality win/lose competition. As a result, it is my opinion that we all lose. We fight over which side has the “grownups” while not seeing that what we desire is something new, something barely on the horizon.

I hope we grow up soon. Survival as a species requires our maturation.

a reply to: XAnarchistX

No, but I do know that if I'm going to get paid the same as the guy next to me no matter how hard I work or how smart I am...

...I'm not going to work very hard and I'll keep my ideas to myself, thanks.

Therein lies the rub.

And, given the choice "work or die", I choose my middle finger up the guard's ass.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

People create things, people created "Capitalism" and other economic systems, those "systems" are not responsible for creating anything, people are, individuals are

a reply to: NthOther

Have you ever used a Microwave?

Checkmate!

a reply to: XAnarchistX

I stopped, actually.

Another thing the Russians f# up--cooking.

Socialism for our needs

Capitalism for our wants.

Actually pretty simple.

a reply to: AboveBoard

Excessive capitalism, while popular as an ideology, also has its downfalls in terms of what happens if you are not a “big fish,” as you get left for dead.

Yes with unhinged capitalism it may be very difficult to get ahead, but it's still certainly possible. And I wouldn't say there's excessive capitalism in the U.S., there are plenty of laws and regulations in place, too many in fact, although Trump helped a bit with that. A small fish always has the opportunity to become a big fish with effort, I mean you don't need to invent the next big thing, become a doctor, a physicist, a programmer, a lawyer, a biologist, whatever happens to peak your interest and is more like a hobby than a job. Yes it will be hard and a lot of work, but wealth doesn't come without work. I just don't really buy into this notion that it's impossible to get ahead in a capitalist system, there are more opportunities now than ever before, but you cannot expect to go anywhere if you have a mindset that the world is against you and never try.

In terms of government, that means finding a mature balance between self and community, between self-governance and the benefits of collective security.

As I said to TrueBrit, "It's the balance between the two ideologies that matters, if either gets out of control it can be a bad thing". However I would argue that an economic system should be more capitalistic than communistic, and that comes down to the fact that free market capitalism simply functions more effectively and produces higher living standards, but socialist policies can help balance out the weaknesses and create some safety nets for those people who have trouble succeeding in the capitalist system. It's a question of how much of our liberty are we willing to trade in the name of the greater good. Clearly some people are willing to hand over everything whereas I would argue we should hand over the minimal amount possible in order to maintain our individual rights and not harm the functioning of the economy.

True maturity lies in Interdependence. Neither dependent nor selfish, both participating in one’s own destiny and self-actualization, and communal responsibility in the context of creating a compassionate and secure society.

I always try to be nice to strangers despite the cold attitude people in public often have and where possible I help people in need. But excessive socialism forces compassion, it makes it my lawful responsibility to give up some substantial amount of wealth or liberty for the greater good. Instead of relying on people naturally showing compassion it assumes we aren't capable of that and so the government must make it happen through force via wealth redistribution or what ever else. It's no longer my individual responsibility to help those in need but a legal obligation, and I take issue with that.

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

People create things, people created "Capitalism" and other economic systems, those "systems" are not responsible for creating anything, people are, individuals are

Yes people create things but they do so under certain economic systems which have different repercussions. As I explained capitalism arises naturally when a society engages in free trade, it's not so much an invention as it is a naturally emergent system which we use simply because it's the most logical and most ethical in terms of wealth distribution, when free of corruption. When people first started trading food it was natural for people to create farms (businesses) and cultivate large crops and herds of animals, then trade the crop harvest and the meat for items that would be more useful to them. Eventually buyers discovered that they didn't need to carry around the items they wanted to trade with, they could use a commonly accepted item of value such as gold coins, thus the effort the farmer put into the produce is compensated.

If we were to ever interact with other intelligent species in our galaxy the same thing would apply in order for us to conduct trade, we would need to agree on some commonly accepted currency, some type of interstellar cryptocurrency would be really cool. You can bet they aren't going to just give us everything we ask for and hold our hands singing songs, unless maybe they've figured out a way to create anything they need at the click of a button. Even if technology could magically meet all our material needs we'd still have the problem of space scarcity, because habitable planets are rare and terraforming isn't easy or fast. We cannot all live on a river side mansion, it's just not possible. Capitalism isn't going anywhere any time soon: Debunking Post Capitalism

Top 5 happiest conutries to live in
1. Finland (7.632) 25-68% sliding tax scale
2. Norway (7.594) 25% and didnt really understand the other bits
3. Denmark (7.555) 23-51.5% tax
4. Iceland (7.495) 37-46% tax
5. Switzerland (7.487) avg 40% is different in each canton

So looks like high taxes to provide social welfare lead to the happiest places to live.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder
Now write a thread, to be equal, "Why excessive capitalism doesn't work" and give capitalism the same vitriol that you give socialism.
TrueBrit, I've never heard a truer word spoken.
Oldcarpy, you remember the BS from the 60s and 70s. The unions this and the unions that, the unions bought a government down.
First let me get this out of the way. You tell ME with all the strikes how many companies went bankrupt because of the strikes? Certainly no car factories, certainly no steel mills, certainly no pits, certainly no shipyards.
What everybody really forgets, looking through rose coloured glasses, is that the unions were the people, not the union bosses, THE PEOPLE. THAT was the only reason for a certain woman to break all the unions up(and in doing so castrated the British people and economy) not because they were unions but because the unions was the mechanism to get thousands of people to agree to defend whatever. Even bring a government down.
Isn't this what they keep parroting " the power is in the peoples hands" BS, BS, BS.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

any ideology - or maxim - taken to excess doesnt work - a civilised society needs a multi doctrinal approach

but hey carry on