• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

Why is socialism a bad thing?

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I've known all my life that the United States, in general, is against socialism.

However, we mostly did not oppose socialism so strongly until the Cold War, when everything that the Soviet Union did was evil, and if you so much as had a neutral position, much less a sympathetic one, against any kind of Soviet policy, you were instantly labeled a (potential) traitor, per the terms of McCarthysm and the Red Scare.

However, both McCarthysm and the Red Scare are frowned upon by us, now that we have the luxury of hindsight. We were largely overreacting to the possibility of letting the USSR even a toe inside our doors.

However, the biggest reason that we hated the Soviets during the cold war was not because of our conflicting opinions about economics; it was about our conflicting opinions about human rights. Stalin would instantly kill any Russian he even thought, much less coud prove, was not totally supportive of his regime. No trials, no appeals. The government was largely oligarchic in terms of political influence, and they used terrorism to keep most of the citizens in line.

This totally conflicted with everything that the United States held dear: That all men are created equal, that they are bestowed upon them by their creator with certain, unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Stalin's regime violated at least those first two, and therefore, they were natural enemies of the United States.

The Red Scare and McCarthysm caused one thing to lead to another, and before we knew it, anything that could even be remotely tied to the Soviet Union was the belief of a US traitor, and socialism was one of them, but that doesn't mean that it is inherently bad.

I will now go down the list of the most common criticisms of socialism, and provide explanations against them, in the favor of socialism.

Effect on individual freedom.
Who said we have to be like Stalin? People can have recourses with which to address their grievences. In fact, current capitalism only allows for the right to petition the government. Private organizations, such as employers, are not required to respect any first-amendment rights except religion, including the right to free speech, the right to peacefully assemble ("You want to rally in front of City Hall? Fine, but do it off shift, or you're fired for no-showing"), and they might even fire you because you peititioned the manager for a wage increase. You have almost no right to privacy that your employer cannot make you sign away, and you have to sign it because you lack the bargaining power to refuse it.

With socialism, you can have your own company; you can have profits, but you'll have a lot more rights that you must respect if you're going to do it.

Distorted or absent price signals

So, basically, companies can no longer set their prices as they like, meaning no more fine print, no more retarded rebate schemes, no more ommitting the S&H from infomercial pricing? Oh my god, the world's gonna collapse in on itself!

Reduced incentives for workers

Not necessarily. If workers received a commision bonus, instead of an hourly wage, then they would have an incentive to work as hard and as much as they could. This is commonly referred to as "independent contractors," and some people don't like that because they aren't entitled to various things, such as workers' compensation and civil rights protection. See my section on individual freedom for my answer to that.

Also, they can have a fixed, familiar procedure for getting promoted, based solely on job performance, and nothing else. Computers, not people, decide who has performed the most adequetly. Computers, not people, conduct the interviews and oversee the training regiment. This seems scarey at first, but it will eliminate people "politicing" their way to the top, so it just might be worth it. You can become a CEO, or a Congressman, as long as you don't sleep and politic your way to the top. You'll have to earn your success, rather than have it handed to you on a silver platter. Success will be based on what you know, rather than who you know.

Reduced prosperity and slow technological advancement

Who says? People can have their small businesses, and even publicly-traded corporations. People can have their patented inventions; socialism merely regulates how they can be abused (not used, but abused). If someone invents a pill that can cure cancer, should they be allowed to charge $50,000,000 for it?

"If you don't give me that pill, my daughter will die!"
"Give me fifty million dollars and I'll give you the pill."

That sounds like a ransom to me. "If you want your daughter to live, I want fifty million dollars, or she'll die! MWAH HA HA HA HAAAAAA!"

These are the most common issues I've found against socialism. Do any of your capitalist extremists still have anything to say?
 
Mention socialist and all hell breaks loose in USA but Obama been courting the communists.
 
Mention socialist and all hell breaks loose in USA but Obama been courting the communists.
Why pursue socialism is to me a better question.

Why, when as a capitalist nation you are the most prosperous, most powerful, must freedom loving nation in the history of the world?

Free markets do produce a fair share of problems. But the incentive to work hard, the freedom to do with your hard earned money what you please,- these are benefits that we should not even consider sacrificing on the altar of make everybody equal and nobody goes hungry platform.

Let the man who works extremely hard get extremely rich. Let him know that his prodigy will be rich for generations, that his good name will endure for decades after his death.

Then let others see it and be inspired to greatness as well. The more great people we have the greater our nation and the better our society.

This is what made one of the youngest nations on earth the wealthiest and most powerful and arguably most benevolent nation in the history of the world.

Why change? Just keep addressing the problems as they come up. Deal with the growing pains of capitalism. That's the answer to me.
 
Socialism and Capitalism all lead to the same thing; All the power consolidated in a very few. It doesn't matter what pill you swallow it all ends with a Plutocracy.
 
Why is socialism a bad thing?
Because it's proven not to work.

Socialism and Capitalism all lead to the same thing; All the power consolidated in a very few. It doesn't matter what pill you swallow it all ends with a Plutocracy.
No it doesn't. the power of capitalism is equally split between the supply, and the demand. Capitalism, when allowed, will bring markets into equilibrium because capitalism functions on human nature.

Where the problem with capitalism arises is when there is a high demand of its abolition, which usually increases and decreases with the business cycle because, you know, power hungry individuals like to use mere slumps for their own political gain which, in turn, induces plutocracy within the government and, as generations go by without checks, finally destroys capitalism and replaces it with plutocracy.
 
Last edited:
Because it's proven not to work.

As has capitalism. It is capitalism that has brought the US economy to its knees after all.

Plus under the American definition most of Europe is socialist, and their economies are doing far better than the US.

Just because certain individuals took the theory of socialism and twisted it into a dictatorship does not mean it is good or bad. There has been plenty of "capitalistic" dictatorships throughout history. The whole British Empire was basically a capitalistic dictatorship in many ways. Funny how that did not tarnish capitalism in the same way....

No it doesn't. the power of capitalism is equally split between the supply, and the demand. Capitalism, when allowed, will bring markets into equilibrium because capitalism functions on human nature.

In a right wingers theory book sure, but in reality no. The free markets requires full knowledge from both sides and that is impossible. One side will always have more information than the other and will exploit this knowledge to gain the upper hand and this means that an equilibrium is impossible. It is human nature to exploit others if allowed and unregulated capitalism encourages this greed aspect.

Where the problem with capitalism arises is when there is a high demand of its abolition, which usually increases and decreases with the business cycle because, you know, power hungry individuals like to use mere slumps for their own political gain which, in turn, induces plutocracy within the government and, as generations go by without checks, finally destroys capitalism and replaces it with plutocracy.

At least you can admit it.
 
Didn't you guys watch how the crony dectructive capitalism brought abt a debt of $12T to USA and Obama had to bow so low in Japan and carry the chinese president's balls?
 
Command economies only work when you have a fairly simple goal to focus your nation upon. For example, total war works very well with a command economy, as its relatively easy to optimize for maximum production of munitions. Running a typical peace time economy requires you become some kind of oracle who can predict demand for consumer. Supply and demand may be a somewhat sloppy system for producing the correct number of goods, but it is far more accurate than trying to calculate it manually.
 
As has capitalism. It is capitalism that has brought the US economy to its knees after all.
Petey boy, you have no idea what you are talking about again, do you? Or is our economy really so easy to understand that a mere spaniard can figure it all out. :)

Oh and, Knowledge is also a market. It has a supply and demand so, your little model doesn't work outside of your little european playbook, not in the real world.
 
Last edited:
Socialism (at least not decentralized socialism) doesn't work well because it is literrally impossible for an organization (like a government) to have all of the information necessary to run an economy effectively. It can never know the needs and wants of millions or even thousands of people. And even if they do get the information, it'll change quickly.

Socialism is also a blatant violation of individual liberty, chaining one to a collective, unless vountary. If people want to live together in communes or start a worker owned business, I'm fine with that as long as no one is forced into it.
 
Confusion abounds. Socialism is not the same thing as Democratic Socialism. The US has a mixed economy. We should all be happy about that.
 
No it doesn't. the power of capitalism is equally split between the supply, and the demand. Capitalism, when allowed, will bring markets into equilibrium because capitalism functions on human nature.

Where the problem with capitalism arises is when there is a high demand of its abolition, which usually increases and decreases with the business cycle because, you know, power hungry individuals like to use mere slumps for their own political gain which, in turn, induces plutocracy within the government and, as generations go by without checks, finally destroys capitalism and replaces it with plutocracy.


I would love to see an example of this Capitalism (or this Socialism) that has, or ever will, reach its idealistic plateau. As soon as companies were able to, in America, they would eat other companies and (in Steel's case) destroy any competition. We cannot allow true monopolies because they are "un-democratic", but monopolies are a characteristic of Capitalism.
Thus all the money will consolidate with the few; there's no way around this you can only make populist legislation (Sherman Anti-trust), but we've seen time and time again that the aristocrats and businessmen find way around these acts.
 
I would love to see an example of this Capitalism (or this Socialism) that has, or ever will, reach its idealistic plateau. As soon as companies were able to, in America, they would eat other companies and (in Steel's case) destroy any competition. We cannot allow true monopolies because they are "un-democratic", but monopolies are a characteristic of Capitalism.
Thus all the money will consolidate with the few; there's no way around this you can only make populist legislation (Sherman Anti-trust), but we've seen time and time again that the aristocrats and businessmen find way around these acts.

Big government is big business's best friend. Regulations, higher taxes for big business, and tax exemptions often hold back small businesses and allow big business to crush their competition due to their ability to go around or absorb the impact of Uncle Sam. A monopoly in a largely free market with very few restrictions will find it almost impossible to form a monoploy. The trusts of a century ago where largely a product of land giveaways, tarrifs, and corruption in government. Market Capitalism, isn't a perfect system, there will still be poverty, however countries with largely free economies have industrialized far faster than those with a large state hindering them
 
Big government is big business's best friend. Regulations, higher taxes for big business, and tax exemptions often hold back small businesses and allow big business to crush their competition due to their ability to go around or absorb the impact of Uncle Sam. A monopoly in a largely free market with very few restrictions will find it almost impossible to form a monoploy. The trusts of a century ago where largely a product of land giveaways, tarrifs, and corruption in government. Market Capitalism, isn't a perfect system, there will still be poverty, however countries with largely free economies have industrialized far faster than those with a large state hindering them

You make industrialization sound like a good thing.

It still doesn't object to the fact that Capitalism and Socialism lead to a Plutocratic or Oligarchic government.
 
You make industrialization sound like a good thing.

Yeah a higher standard of living sucks

It still doesn't object to the fact that Capitalism and Socialism lead to a Plutocratic or Oligarchic government.

How so? A big government is more likely to protect the interests of big business. When people are richer, they can stop worrying as much about how poor they are and how they'll make a living and more at how their government is screwing up.
 
I've known all my life that the United States, in general, is against socialism.

However, we mostly did not oppose socialism so strongly until the Cold War, when everything that the Soviet Union did was evil, and if you so much as had a neutral position, much less a sympathetic one, against any kind of Soviet policy, you were instantly labeled a (potential) traitor, per the terms of McCarthysm and the Red Scare.

However, both McCarthysm and the Red Scare are frowned upon by us, now that we have the luxury of hindsight. We were largely overreacting to the possibility of letting the USSR even a toe inside our doors.

However, the biggest reason that we hated the Soviets during the cold war was not because of our conflicting opinions about economics; it was about our conflicting opinions about human rights. Stalin would instantly kill any Russian he even thought, much less coud prove, was not totally supportive of his regime. No trials, no appeals. The government was largely oligarchic in terms of political influence, and they used terrorism to keep most of the citizens in line.

This totally conflicted with everything that the United States held dear: That all men are created equal, that they are bestowed upon them by their creator with certain, unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Stalin's regime violated at least those first two, and therefore, they were natural enemies of the United States.

The Red Scare and McCarthysm caused one thing to lead to another, and before we knew it, anything that could even be remotely tied to the Soviet Union was the belief of a US traitor, and socialism was one of them, but that doesn't mean that it is inherently bad.

I will now go down the list of the most common criticisms of socialism, and provide explanations against them, in the favor of socialism.

Effect on individual freedom.
Who said we have to be like Stalin? People can have recourses with which to address their grievences. In fact, current capitalism only allows for the right to petition the government. Private organizations, such as employers, are not required to respect any first-amendment rights except religion, including the right to free speech, the right to peacefully assemble ("You want to rally in front of City Hall? Fine, but do it off shift, or you're fired for no-showing"), and they might even fire you because you peititioned the manager for a wage increase. You have almost no right to privacy that your employer cannot make you sign away, and you have to sign it because you lack the bargaining power to refuse it.

With socialism, you can have your own company; you can have profits, but you'll have a lot more rights that you must respect if you're going to do it.

Distorted or absent price signals

So, basically, companies can no longer set their prices as they like, meaning no more fine print, no more retarded rebate schemes, no more ommitting the S&H from infomercial pricing? Oh my god, the world's gonna collapse in on itself!

Reduced incentives for workers

Not necessarily. If workers received a commision bonus, instead of an hourly wage, then they would have an incentive to work as hard and as much as they could. This is commonly referred to as "independent contractors," and some people don't like that because they aren't entitled to various things, such as workers' compensation and civil rights protection. See my section on individual freedom for my answer to that.

Also, they can have a fixed, familiar procedure for getting promoted, based solely on job performance, and nothing else. Computers, not people, decide who has performed the most adequetly. Computers, not people, conduct the interviews and oversee the training regiment. This seems scarey at first, but it will eliminate people "politicing" their way to the top, so it just might be worth it. You can become a CEO, or a Congressman, as long as you don't sleep and politic your way to the top. You'll have to earn your success, rather than have it handed to you on a silver platter. Success will be based on what you know, rather than who you know.

Reduced prosperity and slow technological advancement

Who says? People can have their small businesses, and even publicly-traded corporations. People can have their patented inventions; socialism merely regulates how they can be abused (not used, but abused). If someone invents a pill that can cure cancer, should they be allowed to charge $50,000,000 for it?

"If you don't give me that pill, my daughter will die!"
"Give me fifty million dollars and I'll give you the pill."

That sounds like a ransom to me. "If you want your daughter to live, I want fifty million dollars, or she'll die! MWAH HA HA HA HAAAAAA!"

These are the most common issues I've found against socialism. Do any of your capitalist extremists still have anything to say?

Well, I agree with your post exept for one small detail.

I think there should be a balance betwwen socialism and Capitalism.
Maybe alittle bit of both.

Look at China over the past decades the progress that was made.
Most of this was through trade and hard deals with other nations.
In my opinion this was not done by straight socialism nor by the individual socialist Chinese, but a combination of a socialist government and a Capitalist forum.
 
Last edited:
Socialism doesn't work well
Social Security has worked very well, bro.

Socialism is also a blatant violation of individual liberty
Show us where Thomas Jefferson said that an essential element of individual liberty is the right to suffer in poverty when we're elderly?
 
To me, the biggest reason socialism is a bad thing is that it is inconsistent with natural laws. Evolution itself depends on weeding out what does not work. Nature does not play favorites and is immune to moral reasons why something should survive. Humans (as all the other creatures in nature) are competitive by nature, and expect that adaptive and superior qualities will succeed.
 
To me, the biggest reason socialism is a bad thing is that it is inconsistent with natural laws. Evolution itself depends on weeding out what does not work. Nature does not play favorites and is immune to moral reasons why something should survive. Humans (as all the other creatures in nature) are competitive by nature, and expect that adaptive and superior qualities will succeed.

Well, Capitalism hasn't done that great either.

You recall of course how Capitalism was booming and then the stock market crashed, that was exactly good times for any individual at that time in history.

Then there's today what is it 6 trillion in debt?

Also a Capitalist nation America oweing money to a Socialist nation China.

Some individuals might start to ask why?
 
Yeah a higher standard of living sucks
"Standards of living" don't give me that bull****. We work more hours and are more stressed than Bushmen.




How so? A big government is more likely to protect the interests of big business. When people are richer, they can stop worrying as much about how poor they are and how they'll make a living and more at how their government is screwing up.

The percentage of population within the poverty line is growing, not decreasing. There are more poor than there's rich. The rich will always make up a very alien class.

Big Government and Big Business are so intertwined, now-a-days (notice that I was talking about previous generations in the earlier post), that you can barely determine who is who. Watch how Goldman Sachs played the revolving door, especially during the recession and the bail outs.

Obama and Bush won being "more like you!", but it's neither Bush nor Obama who are the masterminds of their regimes. You think Obama actually makes policy with other leaders during the G-20 or G-8 summits? The Country is pretty stupid, but not that stupid-- The policies are made behind the scenes with other economists and "experts" from other countries (most of whom came in through a revolving door as well). Obama is just the clown that keeps on laughing while the serious douchebags are doing their serious work.
 
The U. S. is one of the best examples of that.

It would be my guess at present te U.S. is about 85% Capitalist and 15% socialist.

Look at who has the biggest % of the wealth.
 
Back
Top Bottom