• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Another little-known reason why socialism sucks.

A reason not discussed much regarding why a mixed economy sucks so bad is because the workers on the socialist side use their political influence to make their lives easier while making society much worse off. I'll provide two prominent examples, but it's everywhere on the socialist side.

Two socialist institutions are police and government-run schools.

1. You'll notice that police luv drug laws. They always lobby against marijuana legalization laws. Drug laws are great for cops because it's much easier and safer to criminalize peaceful people and arrest them for possession of plant material or illegal gardening than it is to go after actual criminals. The drug war greatly ramps up police budgets, and allows the pigs to buy military equipment. The pigs also luv civil forfeiture laws and no-knock warrants, both of which are products of the drug war.

Cops lobby for bad laws which benefit them but harm society in general.

2. Teacher's unions luv adding social justice into the school curricuculum. Why? Because it benefits teachers. It's much easier to teach kids woke bullshit than it is to teach them math and English. As far as the teachers are concerned, the more woke bullshit in the curriculum the better. They would prefer to spend the entire day teaching kids that white people are villains and black people are victims. What could be easier? So again, like the cops, you have the workers in a socialist institution using their political power to make their jobs easier and society much worse off.
 
Look at the prosperous democracies that have a high standard of living and they all employ a sensible mix of socialism and free market. This includes Canada, the EU, Britain, Scandinavia, Australia, NZ, Singapore, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and even America is on the list, but not so high when it comes to standards of living and equality. None of these are perfect, but they all work, even America to a lesser extent, which at least has Medicare and social security.


Many of the countries with successful systems and safety nets that the OP considers 'socialism' including labor laws, unions and welfare spending, rank much higher than the US in economic freedom regardless. 'Conservatives' like to tell us a rising tide lifts all boats, when they're really talking about a private lagoon for members only; these countries show what an actual rising tide looks like.

Now look at the countries that employ ether full on Marxism like North Korea, or corrupt, nepotistic "free market" reign like Pakistan, Myanmar or Nigeria. Petro-states, Narco-states, feudal lords, Juntas and strongmen. Unbridled inequality and hoarding of resources corrupts immeasurably no matter whether it's 'left' or 'right'.
 
Look at the prosperous democracies that have a high standard of living and they all employ a sensible mix of socialism and free market. This includes Canada, the EU, Britain, Scandinavia, Australia, NZ, Singapore, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and even America is on the list, but not so high when it comes to standards of living and equality. None of these are perfect, but they all work, even America to a lesser extent, which at least has Medicare and social security.

Yes, they all have problems, and all of the problems are on the socialist side of their economies.
 
Yes, they all have problems, and all of the problems are on the socialist side of their economies.

Are they? They have more political stability, less poverty, decent social cohesion, robust safety nets that help people with healthcare and education and recirculate this success back into the economy via productivity. Those safety nets help support innovation and capitol by promoting a stable, healthy and innovative workforce.

Yes they are not perfect. But I challenge you to demonstrate how they are as a nation materially worse off than the US. I mean the metrics should be simple: rates of poor health, drug abuse, education, poverty, etc. There are numbers for those. Show us how a robust, stable, 'socialist' country' is worse off than America. Start with Canada, it's right next door, culturally and economically very similar and frankly the obvious choice.
 
Are they? They have more political stability, less poverty, decent social cohesion, robust safety nets that help people with healthcare and education and recirculate this success back into the economy via productivity. Those safety nets help support innovation and capitol by promoting a stable, healthy and innovative workforce.

Welfare statism is not socialism. I'm talking about socialist institutions - the part of the mixed economy that isn't capitalist. Things like government-run schools, the military, government run courts, government law, police, Freddie and Fannie, the federal reserve, and on and on.

Yes they are not perfect. But I challenge you to demonstrate how they are as a nation materially worse off than the US. I mean the metrics should be simple: rates of poor health, drug abuse, education, poverty, etc. There are numbers for those. Show us how a robust, stable, 'socialist' country' is worse off than America. Start with Canada, it's right next door, culturally and economically very similar and frankly the obvious choice.
 
Welfare statism is not socialism. I'm talking about socialist institutions - the part of the mixed economy that isn't capitalist. Things like government-run schools, the military, government run courts, government law, police, Freddie and Fannie, the federal reserve, and on and on.
1659846329010.png
 
You know - unions are not exactly socialism. Unless you are an insane anarcho capitalist or something.

Look at this from The Iron Heel -



Its pretty much how things went hey. My Grandfather was a unionist. He was a boilermaker which made him a member of the 'Labour Aristocracy'. I dont think he cared too much about teachers or cops. Everyone is out for themselves - especially the workers. So you could never have a general strike. Especially not now. Unions do more to prevent socialism than promote it. Are some workers worth more than others? Sure - but there is little unity among unions. Each union is out for themselves - they arent trying to bring about socialism.

1659916504615.png
 
Public control of the means of production regarding the service of security.

People need their lives and their property protected. This is what private security firms do. Police are the public counterpart.

So whoever can afford to hire the biggest gang gets the most "protection"?

Yeah, I don't see how that could ever be a problem... /s
 
Welfare statism is not socialism. I'm talking about socialist institutions - the part of the mixed economy that isn't capitalist. Things like government-run schools, the military, government run courts, government law, police, Freddie and Fannie, the federal reserve, and on and on.
So you only admit the parts which are dysfunctional to your mind to your "socialism" label. Socialist things which work are excluded.
 
Back
Top Bottom