• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • 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!

Basic Errors of Socialism

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The idea that

  • People will work hard to provide others with goods and services with no expectation of personal gain; i.e., one may work a lot or a little, but one will get only what he needs.
  • People will care about property owned in common.
  • Only that market system which is specifically designed can be most efficient.
  • Supply and demand in the market can be successfully controlled by the government.
  • Socialists are less selfish than capitalists.
  • Capitalists do nothing to gain the wealth they have, they just sit back and collect the returns on their investments. Therefore no special skills are needed by the government when it takes control of industry from the private sector.
 

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,310
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
The idea that


[*]People will work hard to provide others with goods and services with no expectation of personal gain; i.e., one may work a lot or a little, but one will get only what he needs.
Individuals still have personal gain under socialism. But I see you are abusing a slogan coined by Marx here, 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’.. Many commentators abuse this phrase, they state a socialist state would seize property and redistribute it according to ones perceived needs. This is not true. In socialism the workers would collectively decide how to divide the proceeds of labor democratically.


[*]People will care about property owned in common.
There is a difference between personal property (your bed, your chair, your computer, your fridge, etc) and private property (the means of production to make profit AKA the workplace). Socialists believe that those who work should own the means of production either democratically, syndicaly, communal, etc.

[*]Only that market system which is specifically designed can be most efficient.
Market socialism...

[*]Supply and demand in the market can be successfully controlled by the government.
To a degree it can and is.

[*]Socialists are less selfish than capitalists.
Petty and irrelevant point.

[*]Capitalists do nothing to gain the wealth they have, they just sit back and collect the returns on their investments.
The definition of a capitalist is one who owns the means of production and makes profit off those means of production and his workers labor.

Therefore no special skills are needed by the government when it takes control of industry from the private sector.
Uhhh what?
 

blaxshep

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
16,875
Reaction score
7,666
Location
St. Petersburg
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
To a large degree Capitalism has been blended with the idea of socialism. Publically traded corporations are in fact a public ownership of the means of production.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Individuals still have personal gain under socialism. But I see you are abusing a slogan coined by Marx here, 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’.. Many commentators abuse this phrase, they state a socialist state would seize property and redistribute it according to ones perceived needs. This is not true. In socialism the workers would collectively decide how to divide the proceeds of labor democratically.

So what happens when it is decided democratically that some people earn a considerable more than others? What happens when the group decides to maintain this while the little guy complains?


There is a difference between personal property (your bed, your chair, your computer, your fridge, etc) and private property (the means of production to make profit AKA the workplace). Socialists believe that those who work should own the means of production either democratically, syndicaly, communal, etc.

Personal property is private property, you know. In a capitalist system you can own a business collectively or individually. The workers can even be owners if you want.
 

Glen Contrarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
17,688
Reaction score
8,046
Location
Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, he
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
The idea that

  • People will work hard to provide others with goods and services with no expectation of personal gain; i.e., one may work a lot or a little, but one will get only what he needs.
  • People will care about property owned in common.
  • Only that market system which is specifically designed can be most efficient.
  • Supply and demand in the market can be successfully controlled by the government.
  • Socialists are less selfish than capitalists.
  • Capitalists do nothing to gain the wealth they have, they just sit back and collect the returns on their investments. Therefore no special skills are needed by the government when it takes control of industry from the private sector.

You do realize that what you're referring to is NOT the kind of socialism found in first-world democracies, right? You do realize that ALL first-world democracies (including America) are significantly socialized...yet we STILL remain first-world nations, right?

What you're referring to is a heck of a lot closer to communism (in the way the Chinese government wants to believe) than it is to the socialize democracies found in ALL first-world democracies, including America.

You're arguing that socialism per se is wracked with inherent errors, which means that you're ignoring the fact that the socialized first-world democracies are the most successful nations on the planet in terms of standards of living, freedom, and stability...

...in other words, you're arguing against success. In order to validate your claims, you need to show why it is that ALL first-world democracies are actually utter failures, since ALL first-world democracies work in just the way that you believe they shouldn't.
 

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
You do realize that what you're referring to is NOT the kind of socialism found in first-world democracies, right? You do realize that ALL first-world democracies (including America) are significantly socialized...yet we STILL remain first-world nations, right?

I'd draw a distinction between governments that merely tax a lot and have a lot of government services and those that own and control the means of production. The former isn't really socialism, it's social policy. The success of social policy in no way justifies socialism.

What you're referring to is a heck of a lot closer to communism (in the way the Chinese government wants to believe) than it is to the socialize democracies found in ALL first-world democracies, including America.

Socialism doesn't exist on a continuum that goes from capitalism to communism. Either the state owns and/or controls most of the means or production or it doesn't. Communism adds classlessness, equal access to needed goods and services, and equal treatment while socialism isn't necessarily needs based.

You're arguing that socialism per se is wracked with inherent errors, which means that you're ignoring the fact that the socialized first-world democracies are the most successful nations on the planet in terms of standards of living, freedom, and stability...

The idea that societies with social polices that provide a lot of welfare and services are "socialist" is nothing but socialist propaganda. They are not socialist, and their success is in no way a success of socialism.
 

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,310
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
So what happens when it is decided democratically that some people earn a considerable more than others? What happens when the group decides to maintain this while the little guy complains?
Thats fine. Socialism does not automatically equate to everyone makes the same amount of money.




Personal property is private property, you know.
In the literal sense sure. In a philosophical sense not so much. Personal property are items that are intended for personal use. The owner of this personal property has a right to exclude others from using it, possessing it, etc. Private property is a social relationship between the owner and other persons deprived of that property. Private property refers to capital of the means of production. Examples are factories, mines, oil wells, office space, warehouses, etc. When socialists talk about private ownership being "abolished" one means that abolishing the private possession of the means of production not the abolishment of personal possessions.

In a capitalist system you can own a business collectively or individually. The workers can even be owners if you want.
This is true. But socialism is overturning an economic system, not just part of the economic system.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Thats fine. Socialism does not automatically equate to everyone makes the same amount of money.

Did you read what I said all the way through? The group is ignoring the guy on the bottom. Democracies actually ignore people all the time, so it's entirely possible people at your democratic workplace will be ignored.

In the literal sense sure. In a philosophical sense not so much. Personal property are items that are intended for personal use. The owner of this personal property has a right to exclude others from using it, possessing it, etc. Private property is a social relationship between the owner and other persons deprived of that property. Private property refers to capital of the means of production. Examples are factories, mines, oil wells, office space, warehouses, etc. When socialists talk about private ownership being "abolished" one means that abolishing the private possession of the means of production not the abolishment of personal possessions.

Private property is personal property and personal property is private property. They are in fact exactly the same thing. In both cases the property acts in exactly the same way. Property is always, and I mean always, the right to exclude others from use. Yes, the people allowed to use the property might be a larger group, but the owner or owners always retain the right to exclude.

This is true. But socialism is overturning an economic system, not just part of the economic system.

Yes, and it's not even needed to happen. You can allow people to own their own business while you're part of a business owned by the workers.
 

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Individuals still have personal gain under socialism. But I see you are abusing a slogan coined by Marx here, 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’.. Many commentators abuse this phrase, they state a socialist state would seize property and redistribute it according to ones perceived needs. This is not true. In socialism the workers would collectively decide how to divide the proceeds of labor democratically.

Of course socialists would seize property. How else do they get it? How did Chavez nationalize industries in Venezuela if not by just taking them? The whole point is to gain wealth that they haven't earned and use it according to their own lights. Given the history of most of these leftist governments the idea that distribution is decided democratically is a bit of a giggle. It never seems to work out that way. Do you think that government officials or the army are having trouble getting food in Venezuela?
 

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,310
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Of course socialists would seize property. How else do they get it?
Where did I ever say socialists wouldnt seize a type of property? They would seize the means of production....
 

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,310
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Did you read what I said all the way through?
Yes I did.

The group is ignoring the guy on the bottom. Democracies actually ignore people all the time, so it's entirely possible people at your democratic workplace will be ignored.
Yup. Very well possible and very well could and will happen in cases.

Private property is personal property and personal property is private property. They are in fact exactly the same thing. In both cases the property acts in exactly the same way. Property is always, and I mean always, the right to exclude others from use. Yes, the people allowed to use the property might be a larger group, but the owner or owners always retain the right to exclude.
Again, "In the literal sense sure. In a philosophical sense not so much."

Yes, and it's not even needed to happen. You can allow people to own their own business while you're part of a business owned by the workers.
Problem is, were talking about creating a whole other economic system than just capitalism. Sure worker run enterprises can exist in capitalism, but that is not the end goal, to establish a few worker run eterpises when the overall economic system is still capitalism.
 

Hawkeye10

Buttermilk Man
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
45,404
Reaction score
11,744
Location
Olympia Wa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
My socialism believes that markets tend to work often especially in the more minor matters and uses markets so long as they work. But if they dont work in some area then we the people take them over, either disbanding them or reforming them. My socialism does not desire to have collective ownership but when private owners fail they get removed, with the intent that the operation or the property will be reformed by the collective, hopefully to be sold off again. In order for this to work property which is taken must be paid for, but the failed owners are going to have to wait for their money. As things stand right now the people should take over the railroads and the medical system...all of it. The railroads we should be able to sell off in 10 years, the medical system will take 20 to reform. In most cases it is government that is going to have to do the heavy lifting, I believe that government can work, but I think we need a lot more talent in government than we have now. Running good government is one of the most important endeavors of this society, but what we have currently very little regard for government in some cases and active disdain for government in too many others.
 

blaxshep

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
16,875
Reaction score
7,666
Location
St. Petersburg
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
My socialism believes that markets tend to work often especially in the more minor matters and uses markets so long as they work. But if they dont work in some area then we the people take them over, either disbanding them or reforming them. My socialism does not desire to have collective ownership but when private owners fail they get removed, with the intent that the operation or the property will be reformed by the collective, hopefully to be sold off again. In order for this to work property which is taken must be paid for, but the failed owners are going to have to wait for their money. As things stand right now the people should take over the railroads and the medical system...all of it. The railroads we should be able to sell off in 10 years, the medical system will take 20 to reform. In most cases it is government that is going to have to do the heavy lifting, I believe that government can work, but I think we need a lot more talent in government than we have now. Running good government is one of the most important endeavors of this society, but what we have currently very little regard for government in some cases and active disdain for government in too many others.

I have no doubt in my mind at all that the government simply can not run the medical system or the rail roads. It would be an absolute disaster.
 

Hawkeye10

Buttermilk Man
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
45,404
Reaction score
11,744
Location
Olympia Wa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I have no doubt in my mind at all that the government simply can not run the medical system or the rail roads. It would be an absolute disaster.

ConRail was a huge success. The Cuban Government medical system is a marvel.

It CAN work.
 

Hawkeye10

Buttermilk Man
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
45,404
Reaction score
11,744
Location
Olympia Wa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
:doh I'm just glad we're never going to find out.

Dont discount people changing their minds after they suffer enough pain of failure.

And this country is failing.
 

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
50,568
Reaction score
34,883
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
You do realize that what you're referring to is NOT the kind of socialism found in first-world democracies, right? You do realize that ALL first-world democracies (including America) are significantly socialized...yet we STILL remain first-world nations, right?

What you're referring to is a heck of a lot closer to communism (in the way the Chinese government wants to believe) than it is to the socialize democracies found in ALL first-world democracies, including America.

You're arguing that socialism per se is wracked with inherent errors, which means that you're ignoring the fact that the socialized first-world democracies are the most successful nations on the planet in terms of standards of living, freedom, and stability...

...in other words, you're arguing against success. In order to validate your claims, you need to show why it is that ALL first-world democracies are actually utter failures, since ALL first-world democracies work in just the way that you believe they shouldn't.



The bolded is what always kills me about these threads. The countries that have historically called themselves "communist" are nothing of the sort. They're socialist economies (government owns means of production) with totalitarian leadership. There never has been nor ever will be a communist country, because pure socialism will never produce an economy so awesome that government will disband and because whomever came to power so as to enforce a transition to pure socialism will never give that power up so long as they can. (And if they do give it up, it's because the country tore itself apart, like the USSR.....and not so as to transition to actual communism)

Meanwhile, they spent seven years calling Obama as "socialist". Oy vey.




It furthers baffle me that people will rant against the very concept of regulation (nevermind the absurdity of calling it "socialist"). We've seen what virtually unrestrained capitalism produces in the late 19th and early 20th century, and it isn't pretty. Well, I suppose the barons think it's pretty but that's about it.
 

Glen Contrarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
17,688
Reaction score
8,046
Location
Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, he
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I'd draw a distinction between governments that merely tax a lot and have a lot of government services and those that own and control the means of production. The former isn't really socialism, it's social policy. The success of social policy in no way justifies socialism.



Socialism doesn't exist on a continuum that goes from capitalism to communism. Either the state owns and/or controls most of the means or production or it doesn't. Communism adds classlessness, equal access to needed goods and services, and equal treatment while socialism isn't necessarily needs based.



The idea that societies with social polices that provide a lot of welfare and services are "socialist" is nothing but socialist propaganda. They are not socialist, and their success is in no way a success of socialism.

Hm. If the social policies that began being put in place during the FDR administration until today are not socialism, then you're going to have to convince just about every conservative politician, pundit, and blogger that they aren't...because doggone near every one of them have accused the social programs - including Social Security, Medicare, public schools, Obamacare, and every other part of our social safety net - of BEING socialism. Among the conservatives, it's only you who has said that they're not. So either you're right and ALL the other conservatives are wrong...or you're simply wrong.

YOUR problem, sir, is that you personally have a perception of what socialism is and is not...and you simply haven't realized that just as there's more than one kind of republic, and there's more than one kind of democracy, there's more than one kind of socialism...and what we in the first-world democracies have is closer to (but certainly is not exactly) "social democracy"...

...and they're the most successful governments - in terms of standards of living, freedom, and stability - in all human history. As I said before, you're arguing against success.
 

blaxshep

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
16,875
Reaction score
7,666
Location
St. Petersburg
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
A social democracy is as good a term as it gets for what you are describing, but true Socialism is defined by the public ownership of the means of production. Social democracy is prevellant in all the most successful countries but Socialism is not. Unless you call the Venezualian experiment a success.
 
Top Bottom