Socialism: Why It Inevitably Fails

Socialists continue to rally for the cause of "community ownership" of goods and services. This ownership, formally called the command system, but called socialism by the majority of people, relies on a national or global community all agreeing on what is publicly and privately owned (privately owned items, or even property, are not at odds with socialism) and how it should all be managed and distributed.

However, there is a central "planner" for this economic system, and that planner is always government (if anyone says differently they are not talking about socialism, and need to pick a different word). From Socialistaction.org:

The chief means of production should be socialized, that is, taken out of the private hands of the capitalists and put under public ownership, that is, government ownership.

This is how economists define socialism. A completely centrally planned economy, where a government owns and manages every aspect of transaction and distribution. "Publicly owned" does not mean "communally owned". It means that the government, not individual (or groups of) citizens, owns the means of production of goods and services.

...the economy should be planned to meet the needs of the people—in employment, education, nutrition, health care, housing, transportation, leisure, and cultural development.

Emphasis mine.

This is where socialism fails, and does it magnificently. Here's why:

Take a deck of 52 cards and shuffle them. There are a set number of possibilities that the order of cards can become. The number of possibilities is expressed as 52! What that number represents is the following:

52 * 51 * 50 * 49 * 48 * 47 * 46 * 45 * 44 * 43 * 42 * 41 * 40 * 39 * 38 * 37 * 36 * 35 * 34 * 33 * 32 * 31 * 30 * 29 * 28 * 27 * 26 * 25 * 24 * 23 * 22 * 21 * 20 * 19 * 18 * 17 * 16 * 15 * 14 * 13 * 12 * 11 * 10 * 9 * 8 * 7 * 6 * 5 * 4 * 3 * 2 * 1

All of which equals 8.0658X10^67.

Now, imagine that the government had more than 52 things to manage at the same time...

This is why capitalism works. It is actually more "social" than socialism, as the community of business owners and consumers organically set prices, distribute goods, and decide what is and isn't good for the community, nation, and world as a whole.

Socialism would be like one computer attempting to solve a complex equation. Capitalism would be a distributed network of computers attempting to solve the same equation.

Capitalism is not perfect. But it's not perfect because people are not perfect. This is true of any system run by humans. But if allowed to grow and exist by self-regulation, by consumers choosing what they want or don't want, and businesses supplying them with those goods and services regulated only by the buying power of consumers, the market will drive itself fairly and equally far better than a market controlled by a central planner can ever even hope to do.

/TOA

Or the fact that people are greedy, selfish and don't care for their fellow man only about themselves.

We need a mix of democracy and socialism like the Nordic countries do (and to a lesser extent the UK) we have to get rid of this "Iam alright Jack screw you" attitude. Its the only way forward as a species.

reply to post by boymonkey74


Yes, humans are corruptible. That's also why socialism fails. When government has the power to control all aspects of the society it governs, it inevitably begins to believe it has the power to control the people themselves.

/TOA

reply to post by The Old American


Unfortunately Capitalism can no longer operate in the way you outlined. You out line a system of Capitalism advocated by Adam Smith. Now we live in a world of Global Capitalism, where the balance of power has shifted so far in the direction of the producer and away from the consumer.

The idea of Capitalism being a social good, relies on the business's to improve the lives of the people in their society or community, with well paid jobs and competitively priced goods.

In Global Capitalism, the work is outsourced to the cheapest labor, which produces more profit for the owner, but of no benefit for the people in the community where the business began.

reply to post by The Old American


Socialism or any form of government will inevitably fail because of the abuse of power, even the power to obscure incompetence or maleficence.

Orwell's 'Some animals are more equal than other animals' neatly sums this up for the so called left leaning philosophies but the priniciple remains the same at the right end of the political spectrum. Those charged with organising and administering the construct will reward themselves over and above those they minister to.

Capitalism may well produce happier slaves but when we see the world's most prolific capitalist state hypocritically deny other states recourse to a truly free market and attempt to dictate trading terms or risk sanction, we can see there is no such thing as egalitarian governance that is truly free of government interference within the power construct.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by The Old American

 

Unfortunately Capitalism can no longer operate in the way you outlined. You out line a system of Capitalism advocated by Adam Smith. Now we live in a world of Global Capitalism, where the balance of power has shifted so far in the direction of the producer and away from the consumer.

The idea of Capitalism being a social good, relies on the business's to improve the lives of the people in their society or community, with well paid jobs and competitively priced goods.

In Global Capitalism, the work is outsourced to the cheapest labor, which produces more profit for the owner, but of no benefit for the people in the community where the business began.

edit on 19-3-2012 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-3-2012 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)

"No longer operate"? It has never been allowed to operate freely. Regulation on top of regulation has been piled so high upon it that it has crumbled under the weight of greed and government corruption.

If allowed to work like it needs to, business will have to pay higher wages because nobody will be available to work for anything less than what they feel they are worth (within reason, and under what the market will bear).

/TOA

Socialism doesn't work? Try telling that to the European countries where it does work. European socialism works American socialism doesn't work.

Capitalism only works for some people and unfortunately not enough of us.
Some of you may say "get a better job" or "you should have been better at school" or "Its your fault you have not got a good job".
BUT thats all well and good for people to say that but many of us work in jobs that are essential but do not get payed well at all. I work in care and get minimum wage for a job that is hard and emotional and the drop out rate is around 60% after a year.
Is it fair? no, can I do anything about it? yes I can vote for someone who will help the little man (none about).
I know nurses and teachers who can not afford to buy a house for themselves (me included) and they have to pay rent to someone who is getting rich of their back.
We are all cogs in a great wheel and I respect anyone for the job they do but some people judge you on what work you do and how much you get payed.
Do I have the answer? no I wish I did but like the old saying "A fair wage for a fair days work" and that should be for everyone on the planet

Want to be happy? Move to Norway. A mix of Socialism and an entrepreneurial culture. It seems to work well for them.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

I will admit that Socialism probably works better in a smaller, more homogeneous community, but to say that Socialism will always fail, is in my opinion, not an accurate statement.

I think a mix of the two is the way to go. Look at the scandinavian countries to make my point. Norway and Sweden have some of the highest living standards in the world. But maintain socialized safety nets for there people.

socialism is simply "workers' control over the means of production", which can occur in a free market, ie worker cooperatives. capitalism =/= free markets, it is "private ownership of the means of production". anyone telling you otherwise about either ideology is lying, idc if it is the most prominent and respected economist in the world. your thread has been rebutted.

and to the people claiming the Scandinavian countries as examples of socialism, stop. they are not. they are capitalist countries with heavy government regulation.

Originally posted by eboyd
socialism is simply "workers' control over the means of production", which can occur in a free market, ie worker cooperatives. capitalism =/= free markets, it is "private ownership of the means of production". anyone telling you otherwise about either ideology is lying, idc if it is the most prominent and respected economist in the world. your thread has been rebutted.

and to the people claiming the Scandinavian countries as examples of socialism, stop. they are not. they are capitalist countries with heavy government regulation.

Perhaps Social Democracy is the better term for the Scandinavian countries? Whatever you call it, it seems to work for them very well. If it wasn't so cold over there, I'd move.

Social democracy Main article: Social democracy

Traditional social democrats advocated the creation of socialism through political reforms by operating within the existing political system of capitalism. The social democratic movement sought to elect socialists to political office to implement reforms. The modern social democratic movement has abandoned the goal of moving toward a socialist economy and instead advocates for social reforms to improve capitalism, such as a welfare state and unemployment benefits. It is best demonstrated by the economic format which has been used in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland in the past few decades.[60] This approach been called the Nordic model.

en.wikipedia.org...

I would love to credit the author but he/she is anonymous. This has floated around the net for years. For those of you continuing to argue the merits of socialism, take heart:

As the late Adrian Rogers said, "you cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

An economics professor at a local college said that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class.

That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich - a great equaliser.

To counter this, the professor said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.

The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little, studied even less and those who had previously studied hard, decided they wanted a free ride. So they too studied little.

The second test average was a D!

No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.


Since no one has the ability to change human nature (Nor should they!) this is the reality. it is also why Socialism has failed in EVERY nation where it has been fully implemented.

Originally posted by kozmo
I would love to credit the author but he/she is anonymous. This has floated around the net for years. For those of you continuing to argue the merits of socialism, take heart:

As the late Adrian Rogers said, "you cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

An economics professor at a local college said that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class.

That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich - a great equaliser.

To counter this, the professor said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.

The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little, studied even less and those who had previously studied hard, decided they wanted a free ride. So they too studied little.

The second test average was a D!

No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.


Since no one has the ability to change human nature (Nor should they!) this is the reality. it is also why Socialism has failed in EVERY nation where it has been fully implemented.

Obama has NEVER said he wanted this to be a socialist or communist country. He NEVER said that all people should have the same amount of money. What he HAS said is that the rich can give a little more in taxes, because they have so much more to spare. The rich can still be rich, they can still have that 2nd, 3rd, and 4th home. They can still have much more than the poor. It will not break them to pay 5%, 10%, 15% more in taxes. He doesn't want to give everybody a free ride. He DOES want to make higher education more affordable to the poor, not so they can sit on their butts and take handouts, but so they can WORK for a living at higher-paying jobs, so they can SUCCEED.

He IS trying to make healthcare affordable for all, not just for the rich. How is any of that taking away the will to want to succeed?

reply to post by kaylaluv


If you cannot see the problem with this, then clearly you are part of the problem. Why should anyone be forced to give more than someone else? If government is going to simply confiscate greater and increasing amounts of the spoils of my labor, then why bother? I am not interested in taking capital risk to invent something or start a business to benefit the government and its minion of hangers-on.

This country was founded on the belief that all men were created equal and that each should be treated equally. If one is taxed at 50% while another pays no taxes, explain to me how they are being treated equally?

I think that Socialism fails because there are too many people who, given the chance, will sit on their duff and collect benefits.

Socialism only works when the entire population is willing and able to work, and basically won't sit around collecting benefits.

Really?

en.wikipedia.org...

This explains how things work in Northern Europe.

To any American, Northern European countries are better than yours. There better than my country, they are socialist countries. There people are healthier, live longer, they are bigger, stronger and better educated than you and they enjoy a far higher standard of living.

Oh and socialism worked for America during World War 2, so I am unclear as to why it doesnt work, history has shown it does.

Originally posted by kozmo
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

If you cannot see the problem with this, then clearly you are part of the problem. Why should anyone be forced to give more than someone else? If government is going to simply confiscate greater and increasing amounts of the spoils of my labor, then why bother? I am not interested in taking capital risk to invent something or start a business to benefit the government and its minion of hangers-on.

This country was founded on the belief that all men were created equal and that each should be treated equally. If one is taxed at 50% while another pays no taxes, explain to me how they are being treated equally?

How about if everyone pays 15%? Someone making $20,000/yr pays $3,000 in taxes, while someone making $2,000,000/yr pays $300,000 in taxes. Seems fair to me. The way it has been, is that the rich have so many loopholes, that they end up paying little to nothing in taxes. Look at what Romney paid in taxes. Why should the rich pay less than everyone else? Obama wants to stop that. If you are rich, I can see why you would be against that.

oops! double post, sorry