• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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 Socialism Fails

bongsaway

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
12,274
Reaction score
5,234
Location
Flori-duh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I suppose it hasn't occurred to you that Democratic Socialism is merely a stepping stone toward Authoritarian Socialism which, ultimately, is a stem toward outright Communism. The state constantly requires more and more authority to implement and ENFORCE their plans for a "better, healthier society".
Is that like our fake president declaring everything is fake news and we should not believe what we are seeing or hearing and only listen to him? That sort of thing?
 

bongsaway

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
12,274
Reaction score
5,234
Location
Flori-duh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
and I call Bull****. It is NOTHING but class envy. They have been successful, and they make too much money and we plan to redistribute it is all you've said.
And all the right keeps saying is I agree with the transfer of money from the bottom to the top. It's all wonderful until the 'free markets' crash and government has to step in to save the same thieves who caused the crash of the 'free markets' with taxpayer money.
 

devildavid

Phlegmatic
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
15,030
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The alternatives are not better. The answer isn't to scrap capitalism but to unleash it to its full potential. If government has gotten involved to "rig" it, why would we want them even more involved, regardless of what you want to call it?
Pure capitalism means extremes of success and failure. It means accepting failure that is life threatening.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
105,503
Reaction score
49,664
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
There is no difference other than the name attached to it. Central planning is central planning and the left has become enamored of it to a great degree. This is a discussion of the economics of it. The totalitarianism is a necessary adjunct to force people to comply, whether the plans are failing or not.
Oh for ****s sake that is the most ignorant thing I have read in some time. Every country on earth engages in some level of “central planning”. Socialism is not defined as “central planning”. Many countries far more socialist than the US are doing quite well with their central planning and have not failed. Learn your ****ing history and what words mean before trying to lecture anyone.
 

Mach

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
20,388
Reaction score
11,954
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Why do "we" expect that medical care would be more efficiently managed by the federal government than the MIC or public education now is? Pointing out that governments of other countries do a god job should not make us forget what a substandard job our own governments are doing with 'cost control' of things currently under their total control.
Why do you expect anything at all? You're asking from skepticism. Skepticism isn't a way to make choices, it's a way not to make choices. At an extreme, it's a contradiction...and you should discard contradictions as not worth following as a general rule.

What's the issue with MIC and public education that Republicans have been running on a platform of reforming? I must have missed it.
Are you on federal health insurance/care?
I pay an increasing 20-30% rates each year no private health care (And for all employees...as a tech business.. subsidizing insurance costs...) just curious how your experience differs.

Also, why are you only one of like 3 or 4 conservatives I can recall of late who post regularly on these forums, who are not complete nutters? :)
 

Mach

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
20,388
Reaction score
11,954
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Well isn't that high and mighty of you? You 'think' you make 20x what I do (which puts you in the .001 category, which is highly doubtful), yet you want to 'Adjust taxes' to take from those who make much less than you to fund YOUR ****amamie "Slightly Liberal" ideas? GFY, and get your hand out of all of our wallets. Write your own check to the IRS, and put your money where your mouth is. I figure to get you down to me, you'll need to divest yourself of upwards of $80K this year.
So you accept that you were wrong to claim it was class envy.
Now you're claiming that I should "write a check to the IRS", rather than promote change to the tax system, for no apparent reason.

This is why I feel compassion (and pity, sorry), for so many.
 

Mach

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
20,388
Reaction score
11,954
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I see you're using the Fox News method of dealing with any criticism of the American Capitalist system, which is to shout "Class Warfare".
It was followed up with "then write a check to the IRS for more". It hurts my brain to realize these are presumably adults, and that some are actually serious.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
62,132
Reaction score
35,768
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Why do you expect anything at all? You're asking from skepticism. Skepticism isn't a way to make choices, it's a way not to make choices. At an extreme, it's a contradiction...and you should discard contradictions as not worth following as a general rule.

What's the issue with MIC and public education that Republicans have been running on a platform of reforming? I must have missed it.
Are you on federal health insurance/care?
I pay an increasing 20-30% rates each year no private health care (And for all employees...as a tech business.. subsidizing insurance costs...) just curious how your experience differs.

Also, why are you only one of like 3 or 4 conservatives I can recall of late who post regularly on these forums, who are not complete nutters? :)
I have not had medical care insurance for over a decade. My medical care costs are about $350 to $400/year (paying cash at the time of service for a 25% discount at the Austin Regional Clinic) and I will soon (next week) have Medicare coverage costing about $1600/year.

The last time I checked (about two years ago) I could get a PPACA exchange "silver plan" for $101/month (with a $608/month subsidy) but decided not to do so. That decision ended up saving the taxpayers and myself plenty.
 

FreedomFromAll

Post Political parties
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
15,710
Reaction score
4,271
Location
New Mexico USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
A good article detailing why the Soviet system failed and why any similar system will fail. As he says, the problem isn't the jockey but the horse.



Why Socialism Fails | Hoover Institution
Once you have read the Communist manifesto and other works of Marx it is easy to understand why that **** will never work. Karl Marx was a fanatic with very low understanding of the human condition. Its a very good example of why confirmation bias is a bad thing.

It reminds me of sitting around and getting stoned with my buddies back in the day; we came up with some stupid idea went with it and it got more stupid as we went. In other words Socialism/Communism in all its forms, was never rational and Karl Marx in all of his writings sounded like a complete nut that made me and my stoner friends sound legit compared to him. At least at some point we think "nah thats stupid". Karl Marx instead just kept going with a stupid idea never once thinking it was stupid. And like it or not the USSR, Cuba, Venezuela etc all the so called "not real socialism" are the direct result of Karl Marx's stupid ideas. Without Karl Marx none of those systems would have existed.

Of course the far left will chant that real Communism has never been tried, we just need to give it a chance. I guess that trump supporters sound just like far leftists with their "Just give him a chance" chant, yep confirmation bias sucks.
 

veritas1

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
15,301
Reaction score
5,170
Location
Old Line State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The ultra-wealthy Republicans and corporations love you fighting for their ever-decreasing taxes, which will downstream be paid more by the middle class. Preach it brother.
If we can just keep middle class wages stagnant, that will grow middle class wages!! Brilliant.
How is taxing the top more and giving that money to government going to grow the middle class? It's a nice sounding cliche but only really grows government.
 

veritas1

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
15,301
Reaction score
5,170
Location
Old Line State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Everything you have said in this thread is worthy of mocking. Including the above comment. :lol:

If you want that mocking to stop, maybe you could stop inciting it? Maybe you could admit that you were wrong from the get-go and actually educate yourselves on the differences between democratic and authoritarian socialism? You don't need a Ph.D. understanding here. A simple summary that even a child could be expected to understand will do.
I don't care about being mocked when you have nothing to defend your position. Again, please define "social ownership of the means of production". I'll wait.
 

veritas1

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
15,301
Reaction score
5,170
Location
Old Line State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Oh for ****s sake that is the most ignorant thing I have read in some time. Every country on earth engages in some level of “central planning”. Socialism is not defined as “central planning”. Many countries far more socialist than the US are doing quite well with their central planning and have not failed. Learn your ****ing history and what words mean before trying to lecture anyone.
Hilarious. The libs want to take over healthcare and energy for starters and you think it's a good idea. Yea, what could go wrong? Sheesh...:roll:
 

veritas1

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
15,301
Reaction score
5,170
Location
Old Line State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Pure capitalism means extremes of success and failure. It means accepting failure that is life threatening.
That would be laissez faire capitalism which hasn't existed here for well over a century. That is not what anyone is advocating.
 

devildavid

Phlegmatic
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
15,030
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I have not had medical care insurance for over a decade. My medical care costs are about $350 to $400/year (paying cash at the time of service for a 25% discount at the Austin Regional Clinic) and I will soon (next week) have Medicare coverage costing about $1600/year.

The last time I checked (about two years ago) I could get a PPACA exchange "silver plan" for $101/month (with a $608/month subsidy) but decided not to do so. That decision ended up saving the taxpayers and myself plenty.
It only takes one serious health issue to make your choices look foolish. Are you willing to die rather than cost yourself or the taxpayers?
 

devildavid

Phlegmatic
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
15,030
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
That would be laissez faire capitalism which hasn't existed here for well over a century. That is not what anyone is advocating.
Then you should understand how we got where we are today. More capitalism means moving toward more laissez faire.
 

veritas1

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
15,301
Reaction score
5,170
Location
Old Line State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Then you should understand how we got where we are today. More capitalism means moving toward more laissez faire.
No it doesn't. Do you have any idea how many laws and regulations already govern every facet of business at all levels? All growing capitalism means is expanding opportunities for business which creates jobs which creates wealth and lifts people up. It is the only system that can work because it is the only one that takes human nature into account. By having individuals striving to improve their own lot, they lift the whole. Take away incentive and people fail to produce. That is why socialism fails.
 

Mach

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
20,388
Reaction score
11,954
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
How is taxing the top more and giving that money to government going to grow the middle class? It's a nice sounding cliche but only really grows government.
But you're not even making any sense.
Taxing the wealthy more doesn't necessary mean giving it to the government.

Surely you can understand that if we set some particular tax revenue number X, that if we got more of that from the wealthy, we might be able to do with less from the middle class.

In Trump's case, it appears he's just given the wealthy/corporations the big benefit, and shifted the cost to "national debt". Who pays that national debt Vertias1? We all do. Are the wealthy shifting their gains to you?

Lastly, even if it doesn't include either of these scenarios, it matters what government *spends* the money on.
You do know that the U.S. government spends maybe 20%+ of our GDP? You understand that this goes to a wide range of people and businesses?
If it's paid to infrastructure/education/healthcare, for example, that most Americans benefit from, it would have a lot bigger impact than if it went to say, tax rebates for the wealthy.

It's sad that you don't seem to understand these very, very basic ways in which government interacts with the economy. An economist would make this 100x more complex an nuanced, how can you expect to participate in a democracy if you don't know anything about what you're writing about?
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
62,132
Reaction score
35,768
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It only takes one serious health issue to make your choices look foolish. Are you willing to die rather than cost yourself or the taxpayers?
The idea that I would be left to die if I lacked medical care insurance (like 12M to 20M illegal immigrants and millions of other folks?) ignores reality. Would you rather pay for part of my life saving medical care if any is required or pay $608/month (on my behalf) just in case?
 

devildavid

Phlegmatic
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
15,030
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
No it doesn't. Do you have any idea how many laws and regulations already govern every facet of business at all levels? All growing capitalism means is expanding opportunities for business which creates jobs which creates wealth and lifts people up. It is the only system that can work because it is the only one that takes human nature into account. By having individuals striving to improve their own lot, they lift the whole. Take away incentive and people fail to produce. That is why socialism fails.
You are not contradicting me at all. There are reasons for all those laws and regulations, just as there are for product safety and traffic laws. Removing them is moving toward laissez faire.
 

devildavid

Phlegmatic
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
15,030
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The idea that I would be left to die if I lacked medical care insurance (like 12M to 20M illegal immigrants and millions of other folks?) ignores reality. Would you rather pay for part of my life saving medical care if any is required or pay $608/month (on my behalf) just in case?
If you refuse to pay for insurance, why should society pay for any catastrophic health issues you may encounter? What would happen if everyone did as you do?
 

veritas1

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
15,301
Reaction score
5,170
Location
Old Line State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
But you're not even making any sense.
Taxing the wealthy more doesn't necessary mean giving it to the government.

Surely you can understand that if we set some particular tax revenue number X, that if we got more of that from the wealthy, we might be able to do with less from the middle class.

In Trump's case, it appears he's just given the wealthy/corporations the big benefit, and shifted the cost to "national debt". Who pays that national debt Vertias1? We all do. Are the wealthy shifting their gains to you?

Lastly, even if it doesn't include either of these scenarios, it matters what government *spends* the money on.
You do know that the U.S. government spends maybe 20%+ of our GDP? You understand that this goes to a wide range of people and businesses?
If it's paid to infrastructure/education/healthcare, for example, that most Americans benefit from, it would have a lot bigger impact than if it went to say, tax rebates for the wealthy.

It's sad that you don't seem to understand these very, very basic ways in which government interacts with the economy. An economist would make this 100x more complex an nuanced, how can you expect to participate in a democracy if you don't know anything about what you're writing about?
The top 1% is already paying 40% of the taxes. The top 20% pays 87%. The bottom 45% pay nothing. So, the answer we're supposed to believe will solve the problem is to tax the top more, funnel it through government and hope that somehow improves the lot of the bottom 45%. No, their lot improves when economic conditions improve and the government having more tax money, while it may allow them to redistribute wealth or pay for projects which temporarily juice the economy, is not a long term answer. The answer is for the people without wealth to be able to accumulate some and the answer there is a simple one which is work, delayed gratification, dedication and frugality. It sounds harsh but it is how people succeed. If you want to live off a government check, don't complain that those who strive to succeed have more than you do.

The ONLY way to lift up the middle class is to make capitalism stronger and more widely available, not to put fetters on it. Just as an example of the nuttery we've been hearing, what do you think would happen to the energy industry and the living standards of its millions of employees if the government were actually running it? I shudder to imagine. Now, there will always be poor people but only a wealthy nation can take care of its poor properly and only vibrant capitalism can build such wealth. Any moves toward a centralized economy will end in disaster. That I DO know.
 
Last edited:

veritas1

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
15,301
Reaction score
5,170
Location
Old Line State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You are not contradicting me at all. There are reasons for all those laws and regulations, just as there are for product safety and traffic laws. Removing them is moving toward laissez faire.
Who said anything about removing them? No doubt, some are overly burdensome and should go but the idea that we will ever, ever be anywhere near laissez faire capitalism again, is a rather ludicrous one.
 
Top Bottom