Socialism - The Motive Powers of Destructionism - Ludwig von Mises

OtherSideOfTheCoin
Something i never really quite get about Americans as a European is this fear of socialism.

Yet i still fail to understand this almost national fear of any kind of socialism.

It started when Hitler fall. The allied dissatisfied with Russia beat them to Hitler. Later it turn into Communism is bad bad bad.
Americans is pretty much mild with Communism, some other country, you mentioned about communist, you might get beaten or even killed, but they weirdly can tolerate socialism. It so much a brainwash that people get annoyed over something they dont understand at all.

Same goes with OWS movement, they go against capitalism, yelling unequal wealth distribution, asking for better government benefits, talking about how the corporate ignoring the social welfare BUT reject socialism.

Its like watching the Tiananmen student voting session once again - a LOL. (the students dont have any idea about how democracy works during the voting, they keep voting to get it 100% unanimous)
OWS - hate corporate, want equal wealth distribution and better social welfare but no to socialism - another LOL

OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by greencmp

 

There is no evidence that socialism has or will result in happiness and prosperity despite the frequent claims of success from socialist policies.

Well take socialized health care for example, in the UK the NHS is free, universal and comprehensive, now it is by no means perfect, it has lots of problems, but if my old dad has a stroke he will receive the care he needs free of charge, if i need a operation i will get that also free of charge and i will receive a high standard of care.

We could do the same with education, why is it fair that a child born into poverty can expect a worse education than someone born with a rich mummy and daddy. That is just wrong.

And i could say the same about capitalism, the success of capitalism seems to only be measured by the dollars in your pocket, much of which comes down to luck and external before hard work as influencing factors. that does not seem very fair either.

The idea that the care you receive is "free" is part of the problem, it is not free, you pay much more dearly as a society for it and the quality of that care is only as accessible as it is available. Same goes for public education.

I think your final point reflects the vast majority of public opinion, the idea that it isn't so much the tangible improvement in the lives of the impoverished that is of concern as much as it is the "fairness" of the distribution of the totality of the resources. When you believe that the sum of all wealth in a society is fixed, this is an understandable position. The truth is that it is not a zero-sum game and by restricting entrepreneurship the whole is reduced resulting in an overall decrease in wealth for all which happens to negatively affect the poorest among us the most.

reply to post by greencmp


Fair enough I pay for it through my taxation which is about £600-700 per month, but if i have 5 kids all needing to go to school, paying out that per month is a hell of a lot less that paying for putting 5 kids though school, thats before we get on to having to pay for health insurance.

if you are happy with capitalism, as i think you are, then that is fine, but dont go about bashing socialism like its something bad, both socialism and capitalism have there merits and there problems (just look at the state of capitalism just now). Saying that Socialism means the end of the free society is ridiculous, socialism if followed correctly can promote a very prosperous free society.

reply to post by greencmp

is it possible for you to read and respond to the content?

I did.

greencmp

Pax Marxiana, eh?

Thank you for clarifying the position of the militant socialist.

You're welcome..........glad I could help.

It's not militant though. Once you put that action in place to get a desired result, you belie the very society that you want to keep peaceful. There are other ways to get people to change their behaviour than violence. Like education for example.
Show them what a lifetime of unchecked choices gets them.
Show them how those choices ultimately distort the very laws that were meant to give people those choices in the first place.
Show them how one growing society that is a patchwork of the worlds different societies, leads to everyone trying to one-up each other in terms of putting ideas on the table for the sake of societal advancement.
And how that leads to arguments, lawsuits and skirmishes between those different peoples because no one tried to understand the others' point of view in the first place. They didn't have the time. They were too busy making
choices because that's what you do in a Democratic society.

Show them America circa 2014 versus a projected, yet realistic, model of a peacefully socialist country.

If that doesn't scare them away from the idea of a Democracy run by people who were bought and sold from before their parents were born........they're hopeless and I wouldn't want them beside me in a foxhole.

ColCurious

Depends on the laws within the respective community, and whether the behaviour of those "certain people" is against the framework of existing legislation.

edit on 22-2-2014 by ColCurious because: (no reason given)

I thought I clarified that. The laws would state that anyone acting outside of the framework of the community would be dealt with. Swiftly and decisively. This is a very black and white hypothesis with a very simple framework. The laws and actions of the people are very basic. They are so for a reason. The reason being is that a person doesn't have to waste their time worrying about rules and the consequences for breaking them. They can spend their days being creative, working on personal development, playing with their kids, having block parties........just being good folks who have more time on their hands to do positive things for themselves and others.

Sounds like the by-gone days doesn't it? Barbarians.

The 40 hour workweek
Over time pay
Social Security
Medicare
Labor laws

A mixture of progressive and socialist programs is what led to the massive growth of the American middle class in the middle of the last century.

Do yourself a favor and read up on what Socialism really is. You might be surprised that the most advanced nations in the world are very socialist.

The Netherlands
Finland
Norway
Switzerland
France

You get the point.

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

-

Dwight D. Eisenhower----1952

NullVoid

OtherSideOfTheCoin
Something i never really quite get about Americans as a European is this fear of socialism.

Yet i still fail to understand this almost national fear of any kind of socialism.

Americans is pretty much mild with Communism, some other country, you mentioned about communist, you might get beaten or even killed, but they weirdly can tolerate socialism. It so much a brainwash that people get annoyed over something they dont understand at all.

Same goes with OWS movement, they go against capitalism, yelling unequal wealth distribution, asking for better government benefits, talking about how the corporate ignoring the social welfare BUT reject socialism.

OWS - hate corporate, want equal wealth distribution and better social welfare but no to socialism - another LOL

Why do you have to see things so black-and-white...

Socialism is an economical model, where everything is owned by the government. Communism is extreme version of socialism, absolute equality. I currently live in a post-soviet country. Anybody over 30 knows what communism is like and hate it. Yet people love certain socialistic elements - universal healthcare, social benefits, free higher education, 3 years paid mother leave, free public transport. Having socialistic elements in otherly capitalistic system is not socialism/communism.

OWC does not want socialism. Equal wealth distribution is not about absolute equality - it is about everybody getting enough to live, while the top still earns well. I do not see it right in any way, when a few in the company earn millions, while the rest can barely survive. Rather let the CEOs make 300-400k a year, while everybody else gets 50k+, rather than paying the CEO 10s of millions a year, while the rest of the company gets minimum wage. Isn´t that enough of a reason to work harder to earn 10 times more than the rest? There is a difference, for one person the salary cut means losing a yacht a year, the other one can barely survive.

I personally prefer system where luxuries are the capitalistic part, while government runs the essential services - services needed for any civilized person to survive, while being granted the same opportunities, whoever ones parents are - the son of a billionaire is considered equal when it comes to university standards- whatever you pay, you cant get in, when the places are gotten by smarter people.

At the end I would have to pay times more when corporations were running the same systems. My salary is lower due to reasonably high taxes, but if I got the same stuff from corporations, private companies, I would pay times more - free higher education, universal healthcare (maximum fee 7,5 dollars), strong social safety network, 3 years of paid mother leave + lots of other services. Currently I am happy for paying the taxes, as I get back so much more. I have no need to worry about future, as whatever happens, I know I will do fine. I have several degrees from respected universites, I have had serious health issues, yet I have 0 debt. There is no stress when it comes to future. I can lose my job, I know I will get by fine and get trainings, so I can get back on track faster. That is what matters to me. And well, I still have motivation to work hard, as hard work is still being rewarded well.Even when it comes to children, I know that even when I had some financial issues, they would get quality dinners from schools (government provided), they would get higher education, they would have the opportunities. Unfortunately there are parents who dont care, why should the children suffer because of this, why should they have less opportunities, than the other kids...

What many people want is simply making the system work well enough so that everybody, whoever they are, whatever their intelligence, skills, health, can survive easily, not suffer from health issues due to not having money, getting a good education, while the hard working ones still earn well. The difference simply isnt that extreme.

reply to post by Taupin Desciple


Well, if they disobeyed the laws that the people have set up for themselves, then I guess "certain people" would have to face the consequences for their actions, as porbably prescribed by law.

Even in a minarchistic society people have to abide the law... which has nothing to do with socialism though, so I don't really see your point here.

greencmp

It is important to reiterate that it is not the goals of socialism that raise the ire of capitalists like myself. We want the same result that is desired by socialists, happiness and prosperity for all.

However, it is the results that we measure, not the goal. There is no evidence that socialism has or will result in happiness and prosperity despite the frequent claims of success from socialist policies. Capitalism has resulted in the uplifting of the impoverished wherever implemented, is it evil that while doing so some have become wealthy?

I can't help but question this assertion. I live in one of the countries that is considered very Socialist by the Americans, and having been a brainwashed american myself, expected a mess when I came here.

I simply cannot say that is true now, though. I have seen no goal of equal "wealth" for everyone- what the majority seems to value and want (I have yet to meet a citizen of this country without this desire) is that all people have the basic essential necessities to survive available to them. Beyond those, they don't seem to have any problem with people earning and creating further wealth. It is still a capitalist economy.

But I experience the evidence that this is effective! Healthcare, higher education, financial aid to help me start up my business, or while my husband was in medical school. I have two kids currently at university- and they will be able to graduate without an enormous debt on their shoulders! The quality of healthcare has been determined to be of the best in the world, and I can bear witness to that- better than any I have had in the US.

There is no illusion about it being "free"- that is a purely american terminology. It is considered "social" here- everyone knows they are paying for it, and it is voluntary in the sense that the people want and choose to do that. It is part of their cultural values upon solidarity. Their history has taught them that sticking together and taking care of each other is important. They have been through wars on their own land in recent memory. They all voted to do this.

The idea that Socialism promises "wealth" for everyone doesn't sound at all like anything that comes out of the socialists here; I am sorry if I offend, but that sounds like a typical american type of exaggeration. There is more to life than being either rich or poor.

Taupin Desciple

greencmp

Pax Marxiana, eh?

Thank you for clarifying the position of the militant socialist.

You're welcome..........glad I could help.

It's not militant though. Once you put that action in place to get a desired result, you belie the very society that you want to keep peaceful. There are other ways to get people to change their behaviour than violence. Like education for example.
Show them what a lifetime of unchecked choices gets them.
Show them how those choices ultimately distort the very laws that were meant to give people those choices in the first place.
Show them how one growing society that is a patchwork of the worlds different societies, leads to everyone trying to one-up each other in terms of putting ideas on the table for the sake of societal advancement.
And how that leads to arguments, lawsuits and skirmishes between those different peoples because no one tried to understand the others' point of view in the first place. They didn't have the time. They were too busy making
choices because that's what you do in a Democratic society.

Show them America circa 2014 versus a projected, yet realistic, model of a peacefully socialist country.

If that doesn't scare them away from the idea of a Democracy run by people who were bought and sold from before their parents were born........they're hopeless and I wouldn't want them beside me in a foxhole.

I am truly glad that you recognize the folly of state violence but, in principal, all laws must ultimately use the threat of state violence in order that they may be enforced.

I started this thread on chapter 33 of "Socialism" by LvM as it is provocative enough to generate some debate but the whole title is philosophically deep and intellectually penetrating. It isn't as long as "Human Action" but it isn't exactly short either.

The fact that it reads like it was written this year though he authored it almost 100 years ago lends extra credibility to what I consider to be a determinative assessment.

Thanks again for your thoughtful engagement.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


The problem I have with socialism and socialized systems is that when you let something go socialized then you have no recourse to anything else if you aren't satisfied with what you have ... unless you are one of the power elite or very, very wealthy in your own right.

You mention that there are problems, or things could be better ... well, when I am thinking of my health care or my son's education, I don't want to think about a system where there are problems or things could be better. If at all possible, I want the best I can access. I don't want to have to settle.

I get that it's cheaper and you don't have the added stress and responsibility of having to figure out how to pull money directly out of pocket for it, but well, you get what you pay for and when you wind up settling, you get systems where there are problems and things could be better.

Someday, will you be surprised if you medical care comes out with the added caveat of there are problems ... or your son did well and might have qualified for so much but ... things could have been better?

ketsuko


You mention that there are problems, or things could be better ... well, when I am thinking of my health care or my son's education, I don't want to think about a system where there are problems or things could be better. If at all possible, I want the best I can access. I don't want to have to settle.

Well, I'm afraid you are going to have to settle unless you are one of the elite or very wealthy you mentioned.
Are you comfortable with the healthcare for profit by the insurance companies and providers we have in America. I'm not.

Public education in America is terrible unless you live in a wealthy neighborhood with the taxbase to support good schools. That sucks!

I'm not saying socialism is a remedy to these problems but you can't hold up our system as the shining example of capitalism and fairplay either.

reply to post by Cabin


I dont understand much what you are saying, but I think I get the point.

What you are describing, is pretty much current America. Currently at the social healthcare problem.


Offtopic rant, not directed to the post

I really really dont get it how American think. Honestly, I really dont get why people bashing Obama.
Hes doing good, but he have to obey the plan set up long before he even a president. People even bash him for the debt stuff, which he "inherit" instead of "create".

Do you know the guy who bully everyone at school when you are kids ? Thats how I see America and Americans. Proud, strong, popular, decision maker, people actually do what he say but at the same time stupid, nobody likes him, no one actually agree with him, have to do what he said and in the end, nobody really care about him.

Britain is a conqueror but nobody hate British, you dont see anywhere people bashing Britain,
Japan and Germany are invader, but people dont hate them that much,
Al-Qaeda (supposedly) do terrorism, but no one actually give a damn about them, except America.
Russia is bad, isnt it ? Everyone hate Russia, but weirdly, hating them without much reason, the brainwash working here.
China, they say its communist, closed country, but, people trading with them for eons and doesnt have much problem.
North Korea, ok this guy is bad, nobody like NK, but we dont see people bashing that much, in fact, most nation pity with the people living there, and we leave that boy alone.

America, do nothing and actually helping (really really ?), but most non Americans hate it, why ?

Think deep about it without bias and you will become wiser. You can and may deny, but the truth always there. Not just Americans hate the government, other people too, but who are they to change it.

Change the government or change it policies and the alien might land happily

A little socialism with people who are capable of implementing it correctly is good.

But lets be real, socialism in the real world is used by the wealthy to confiscate wealth and enslave the masses. It's much easy to control a economy disguise as socialism than compete in a free market system. This is the reason why the billionaires bankroll socialism in America. If u control the government than u can take out your competitors by using the state and selectively enforce laws thousand of pages deep which no business can meet.

This whole debate of 'socialism' vs 'capitalism' is ill-defined. The real question is 'individual capitalism' vs 'social capitalism'. In 'individual capitalism' the idea is to accumulate as much wealth as you can, whereas in 'social capitalism' the idea is have everyone's wealth raised together. Both scenarios require a 'capitalism' of some sort - any modern civilization does.

greencmp

It is important to reiterate that it is not the goals of socialism that raise the ire of capitalists like myself. We want the same result that is desired by socialists, happiness and prosperity for all.

Are you suggesting that capitalism or to capitalize another wishes for all to have happiness and prosperity for all? Capitalism only produced happiness and prosperity to the percentage at the top. Its just another failed system waiting for its ultimate demise.

amfirst1
A little socialism with people who are capable of implementing it correctly is good.

But lets be real, socialism in the real world is used by the wealthy to confiscate wealth and enslave the masses. It's much easy to control a economy disguise as socialism than compete in a free market system. This is the reason why the billionaires bankroll socialism in America. If u control the government than u can take out your competitors by using the state and selectively enforce laws thousand of pages deep which no business can meet.

The reason I go with communist.
If socialism have "the wealthy", what are the differences from full blown capitalism ? Pretty much nothing.

To properly address the lower income need, the differences must be eliminated. There should be no "the wealthy" exist at all. If it exist, better pick full blown capitalist, none the better.

Socialist + "the wealthy". If it exist, I would be the wealthy, I'll make the government go to war, then make weapons and junk to sell to the government and public, everything else (welfare, tax, pension, infrastructure) is handled by government tax from the public. Of course I'll evade tax or pay the minimum. Who doesnt want free slave ? If all else fail, I'll just move on to cheaper wage country but keep the HQ in non tax paying area, just like what Apple doing. Healthcare/pension/infrastructure/etc is not in the dictionary.

Sounds familiar isnt it ? Its the capitalist nation that we all know.

I'll say it only once.

Doesn't matter the system (socialism, or other *ism) as long as you have some few individuals (most psychopaths) who will use the system for their own benefits it will never works.

Read ancient politics, is always a cycle of power. And power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Limit the power, limit the destruction.

My opinion is very simple the human is the cell of the system. Bad humans = Bad society.

If it was not the corrupted humans all the systems would be perfect.

Solution ?! I don't know... perhaps "Modify the humans, modify the world" ?
but then it will not be humans anymore... tough decision.

ketsuko
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

 

The problem I have with socialism and socialized systems is that when you let something go socialized then you have no recourse to anything else if you aren't satisfied with what you have ... unless you are one of the power elite or very, very wealthy in your own right.

Well, the country I live in is considered "socialist" by american terminilogy- and yet I have the freedom to choose who and where I get my medical care! I can go to a private or public institution, it is paid by Social Security. Both the private and public sector exist and compete. I am one of those that has a good mutual and a high income, and I still choose the state hospitals when I need one because they are better. From where I sit, I see no evidence to back up that claim.