Why Socialsm and Communism Fail Epically

[FastTadpole]

Quote:Why Socialism Fails

An economics professor said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism.

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied only a little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied less than what they had. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great; but when government takes all the reward away; no one will try or want to succeed.

- A post from Reddit.com by rLibertarian

Quote:InfoLib Commentary

America used to be about equal opportunity, not the equal redistribution of wealth. The second you have a government which concerns itself with wealth redistribution is the second your government turns into a tool of corporate conquest and privilege, whoever can game the system best gets all the stolen loot which is supposed to 'help the poor' or whatever other excuse they give. It doesn't work, it never will, and it never has.

Freedom on the other hand means a completely voluntarist society in which all services are provided by the free market based off actual demand. To put it another way, imagine if no one payed any taxes and there was no warfare/welfare state wasting trillions on bombs instead of computers, housing, food, and whatever else consumers actually demand. The society would be easily 5-10 times wealthier overall. The poor would be making 100k a year and we'd hear socialists griping even then about the evils of capitalism because the rich are making 100 billion.

In a free society you have to enrich others and provide a service others want in order to make money. Not so with government, all you have to do is lobby for corporate welfare and subsidies etc. or you can just loot the treasury directly like the 2.3 trillion which went "missing" from the Pentagon right before 9/11.

Socialism is not a way to help the poor, that's just a front they use to get the poor to go along with the government robbing everyone. The poor actually get hurt the most under socialism because goods are drastically more expensive (due to the "rich" being taxed 50%+ on all their income) and all the subsidized industries keeping prices high (think housing and health care).

There is an idiotic comic which says "Libertarianism is just Anarchy for rich people", despite libertarianism being a form of anarchy (anarcho-capitalism), the idea behind it is libertarianism is some scam for rich people. In reality, libertarianism is just freedom and a society without government coercion. It's freedom and equality and a utopia for all people.

It's a society where there is no upper class who gets to rule over everyone else for their own good. All services would be voluntary and dependent on public support to exist, just as is your local baker, so would be your local private mediation court and your private policemen (who would have to compete endlessly for your support). The only people who should be against it are the corporate welfare pimps who live off government handouts and government subsidies and obviously the federal reserve and their whole criminal cartel. - Chris, InfoLib

http://digg.com/political_opinion/Why_Socialism_Fails_2
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=31279

A few case study threads:

Squeezing in socialism (Chavezism)
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=4060

Putin Warns US About Socialism
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=4844

Not a big fan of Griffin but I suppose this belongs here too:

Edward Griffin - The Truth About Communism
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=29380

Types of Government

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhG4yJByfrE

It gives anarchy a bad name but it's pretty good overall. We'd need a stronger moral base for that to keep from the brink of chaos to have a plausible anarchy. A republic is good only if it provides adequate representation in all levels of government and represents unique local interests and provides leeway for individuals self determination. People like socialist values because they think it is good to get shit for what they think is free but there is a price there is always a price. Anything 'given' by the government comes from you first.

[Infinite]

What fails the worst in my opinion is authoritarianism and hierarchy, i.e. 'representative' government. No such thing in my view. Also I think that state capitalism, which historically is what capitalism has always been, is one of the worst systems.

[---]

(07-22-2010 11:40 PM)Infinite Wrote:  What fails the worst in my opinion is authoritarianism and hierarchy, i.e. 'representative' government. No such thing in my view. Also I think that state capitalism, which historically is what capitalism has always been, is one of the worst systems.

well said, infinite rep +1

[TheQleaner]

Are You a Socialist or Capitalist?

http://www.blogthings.com/areyouasociali...alistquiz/

My Results..

You Are 0% Capitalist, 100% Socialist

You see a lot of injustice in the world, and you'd like to see it fixed.
As far as you're concerned, all the wrong people have the power.
You're strongly in favor of the redistribution of wealth - and more protection for the average person.

To Me, It's Capitalism and Communism That Are The Failing Economic Systems..

[Darius]

Changing the politico-economic system only changes the branches the problem(s), not the root. The root problem are the control structures that work behind the scenes and infiltrate all major systems that have existed throughout history with their own stooges.

[FastTadpole]

Any system or no system at all can work with a good helping of morality and respect. It just depends on how much you want to concentrate power. Socialism is high centralization with government as shown in Maoist China and Soviet Russia. Corporate Multinationism hasn't worked out too well either with cartels and monopolies running the show because governments are given power to allocate laws, money, land use rights, infrastructure, media, education even military resources to these cartels to create a symbiotic parasite.

The free market is a altruistic and so is the communist utopia both seem to work on paper but the way people are, manipulated or forced or inherently, they allow a vehicle for perversion and corruption to rise whether it be through economics or government or military might.

It really comes down to how much power people give over (through money or representation), what checks they have on them and how much control they are allowed to have over resources, land, energy, children..

[pax681]

FastTadpole Wrote:Any system or no system at all can work with a good helping of morality and respect.

starts so well ........then

fastTadpole Wrote:Socialism is high centralization with government as shown in Maoist China and Soviet Russia.

sorry FT but AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!"!!!!!
when oh WHEN are people going to make the distinction between a totalitarian communist state and a country that has some socialist principles????!!
socialism != communism
where i live... democratic elections, a Scottish Nationalist Government, we have Social healthcare and are VERY proud of the fact that people don't even have to pay a penny even for their prescription medicines. why do we have this? becausew we give a fuck about our own people (not saying you don't)
BUT
there is a fucking country MILE between some socialist principles/sense of social justice and totalitarian communist states.
i am not even a socialist myself.. seriously.. but i do have a sense of social justice, as do my party of choice (SNP) and thus we have a national health service and a welfare state system.
and before some blatant ignoramus says "oh welfare state.. that's communist"
is it fuck...
see above
we just give a fuck about our own people enough to make sure that if they are sick.. they get treatment, if they are out of work... they don't starve... after all.. what use is a sick/starving workforce/potential employee?????

Even Lee Harvey Oswald knew the difference when he explained , on TV, the difference between communist states and those that aspects which were buitl round socialist principals but were not communist.

when is the rest of NA going to catch up with a man who died nearly 50 years ago?
has corporate propaganda from the HMO's really worked that well?
i am not trying to flame , by a long long way.. i just see the term socialist/socialism so often thrown in with communism incorrectly it is frustrating.

[FastTadpole]

I agree and I can admit when I'm wrong lumping the ideologies together communism is oft-sold as communism and socialism is Utopian but can work in small well communes. I've seen good results and bad ones that operate as a hierarchy. The original socialist principle has gotten construed since its inception and the fundamental principles of the socialist principle have been difficult to discern through all the rhetoric, buzzwords and hijacking of the concept to centralize power through a mediated, managed welfare state.

Any good books that cut through the crap you can recommend to perhaps apply to a modern voluntary social framework - as opposed to a political construct?

[Hans Olo]

So your socialist sense of social justice makes you forcefully take money from some people and hand it over to the government. Interesting.

[FastTadpole]

I couldn't get past that part either. How can a society be both socialist and voluntary -- the social contract (perhaps termed by consenting members) is the only way I can see around that.

A hybrid system would require a sort of a hall pass (show your papers!) for public infrastructure use but they seem to so that anyways (pay fees to go to national parks, pools, a library card, school fees, road tolls ...). Not saying communal infrastructure doesn't have it's place along with other community needs and it could easily become a boon to a town provided it's done with proper voluntary support.

You could go totally socialist while making it voluntary only if everyone was all in for it and that is utopian when we can't even get ten people to decide on pizza toppings, or maybe if everyone.

I dig the group buy system, it's a bit tribal but it has the best of both free market, voluntary and socialist system.

[pax681]

(07-06-2011 07:01 AM)Hans Olo Wrote:  So your socialist sense of social justice makes you forcefully take money from some people and hand it over to the government. Interesting.

our sense of social justice means we don't mind a small percentage of our earnings to help us "insure" against medical treatment , dental treatment and unemployment/disablement.
it's only about 5% of your pay as i recall and worth every penny.

we all pay it and i would genuinely say , we don't mind at all as it's not just my own personal benefit but also me fellow Scots as well.

in Scotland we don't even pay for prescription changes any more. i think Wales is the same too.

In England i think it's about £7 an item, where each item is each different drugs no matter the amount of the drug.

i genuinely don't think i've ever heard anyone..EVER complain about paying their "national insurance" contributions.

FastTadpole Wrote:Any good books that cut through the crap you can recommend to perhaps apply to a modern voluntary social framework - as opposed to a political construct?

i'll have a checksee of my books and get back to you on that bud

[R.R]

pax681 Wrote:we just give a fuck about our own people enough to make sure that if they are sick.. they get treatment, if they are out of work... they don't starve... after all.. what use is a sick/starving workforce/potential employee?????

In my view that is how socialism exacerbates existing problems. In a cynical way I see it as 'perfected' capitalism; afterall an aspect of what goes under the name of capitalism is the trickery involved in obtaining an efficent workforce, part of which demands a healthy workforce too. Socialism plays the role of 'giving a fuck' while in reality ensuring the masses are able to work for someone else who doesn't really care about them. Socialism combats the symptoms of capitalist tyranny, but perpetuates the cause; working for somebody else rather than people/individuals/communities doing what they reasonably want to do in their own localities. Not just that but it perpetuates or maintains the use of a monetary system that the people themselves have no control over literally leaving them at the mercy of outside forces who put their own wishes ahead of everyone elses.

In very basic terms, recorded human history is predominantly minority elites that are leisurely classes living off the labour of the majority poor - the poor are kept that way in order to ensure the elites have a steady supply of workers who'll work on whatever experiments or projects their freetime has led them to want to investigate, freetime which is obtained via an elimination of the rigmarole of their own sustenance. Thus worker morale and management is an essential factor in ensuring this remains the case. In earlier times it was accomplished via whips and chains, but over time the workers were allowed to partake in certain activities and obtain liberties not out of some altruism or revolutionary demands, but out of the cold logic of efficiency. Slavery was not abolished because of the opinions of activists, it merely became too costly in light of other procedures such as the transition from slavery to serfdom where a single 'free' serf was more productive than several beaten slaves. Even with slavery in Brazil, worker output was increased by allowing the black slaves some time to sing and dance.

In modern times, most people see/view/derive their sense of self via their occupation. It is the predominant thinking behind the activities of the vast majority of people who live in 'advanced' countries and even in history through the various class systems of Europe down to the hereditary caste institutions set up in India. Humanity's problem has always been employment rather than work. Work is a necessity in the sense that we have to find/produce food/shelter etc but employment is a very different kettle of fish where basically the most necessary human requirements are in effect monopolized and we as people are thus forced to work for an outsider of our community to obtain the very legal tender that allow us to survive by essentially rewarding us for putting our thinking faculties towards the creation of items that greatly benefit the fatcats who then give more rewards to the 'smarter' members of our communities for developing the very technologies which will put our grandchildren out of work in the future such as more efficient machinery or robots.

As pertains to socialism then, it is essentially monopolistic theoretically, which has always apparently been the 'motive' of capitalism. The criticism both ideologies label at each other though are really criticisms against imperialism but both systems contain enough loopholes for imperialist motives to direct each system.

The other thing with socialism is that although its adherents tried to distance the philosophy from Hegelian philosophy, it forgot a key tenet that gave socialism its credibility in the first place; by assuming history followed laws ('established' by Hegelianism) the early socialists said that because an opposing force to capitalism had arrived, it would essentially takeover and eliminate capitalism. What they forgot to factor in was the very idea of synthesis between opposing systems leading to what would amount to a hybrid of capitalist and socialist principles - principles that demand the maintenance of an elite which is essential to the system surviving. We can call this the bureaucratic class or big, intrusive government which usually follows unchecked socialism. Modern China is perhaps the greatest example of this hybrid or Hegelian synthesis of opposing movements.

Quote:In the essay Black argues for the abolition of the producer- and consumer-based society, where, Black contends, all of life is devoted to the production and consumption of commodities. Attacking Marxist state socialism as much as Liberal capitalism, Black argues that the only way for humans to be free is to reclaim their time from jobs and employment, instead turning necessary subsistence tasks into free play done voluntarily – an approach referred to as "ludic". The essay argues that "no-one should ever work", because work - defined as compulsory productive activity enforced by economic or political means – is the source of most of the misery in the world. Black denounces work for its compulsion, and for the forms it takes – as subordination to a boss, as a "job" which turns a potentially enjoyable task into a meaningless chore, for the degradation imposed by systems of work-discipline, and for the large number of work-related deaths and injuries – which Black typifies as "homicide".

He views the subordination enacted in workplaces as "a mockery of freedom", and denounces as hypocrites the various theorists who support freedom while supporting work. Subordination in work, Black alleges, makes people stupid and creates fear of freedom. Because of work, people become accustomed to rigidity and regularity, and do not have the time for friendship or meaningful activity. Most workers, he states, are dissatisfied with work (as evidenced by petty deviance on the job), so that what he says should be uncontroversial; however, it is controversial only because people are too close to the work-system to see its flaws.

Play, in contrast, is not necessarily rule-governed, and is performed voluntarily, in complete freedom, as a gift economy. He points out that hunter-gatherer societies are typified by play, a view he backs up with the work of Marshall Sahlins; he recounts the rise of hierarchal societies, through which work is cumulatively imposed, so that the compulsive work of today would seem incomprehensibly oppressive even to ancients and medieval peasants. He responds to the view that "work," if not simply effort or energy, is necessary to get important but unpleasant tasks done, by claiming that first of all, most important tasks can be rendered ludic, or "salvaged" by being turned into game-like and craft-like activities, and secondly that the vast majority of work does not need doing at all. The latter tasks are unnecessary because they only serve functions of commerce and social control that exist only to maintain the work-system as a whole. As for what is left, he advocates Charles Fourier's approach of arranging activities so that people will want to do them. He is also skeptical but open-minded about the possibility of eliminating work through labour-saving technologies. He feels the left cannot go far enough in its critiques because of its attachment to building its power on the category of workers, which requires a valorization of work.

Black, an anti-Marxist, takes a swipe at Karl Marx in the final line: "Workers of the world ... relax!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Abolition_of_Work

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Bob_..._Work.html

I would just reiterate that socialism combats the symptoms of capitalist tyranny, but perpetuates the cause; working for somebody else rather than people/individuals/communities doing what they reasonably want to do in their own localities. This is why socialism is a part of the older power structures when you scratch its superficialities. It conforms more to Huxley's dystopia where methods were invented to get people to love their servitude.

[Telecaster72]

It is not about socialism or capitalism, that is just smoke and mirrors...

Socialism is usually defined by a big tax funded sector, such as medical care, unemployment, social services and such.
Does military go under the same definition? What if a country used a really big chunk of tax money on its war machine but less on it's citizens? What would you then define that country as?
Where do you draw the line? Is it where the taxmoney goes to that defines it,
tax to military = good capitalism
tax to healthcare = bad socialism

I rather have my tax money go back to the population i the form of basic services for everyone than feed the war pigs and in the end the corporations feeding on the business of war. I do understand that any system is easily corrupted though and we are getting f**ked anyway...

The american perspective on socialism is as skewed as it's use of the word "liberal" and does not get taken seriously by anyone outside that continent.
It is not either or.
But that polar thinking has been imprinted in the conciousness of the american people for decades, and it shows all too well.
The bogeyman is not real, sorry...

[Hans Olo]

(07-06-2011 06:09 PM)pax681 Wrote:  our sense of social justice means we don't mind a small percentage of our earnings to help us "insure" against medical treatment , dental treatment and unemployment/disablement.

Your sense of social justice means you can have somebody put a gun to my head, take my money and give it to the state, and I pretend it's voluntary.

Quote:we all pay it and i would genuinely say , we don't mind at all as it's not just my own personal benefit but also me fellow Scots as well.

Voluntary, then. Buy private insurance. Why make it mandatory? If it's so good, then everybody would buy it anyway.

[Infinite]

Socialism and Communism are forms of collectivism. Individualism is the only way that people can have equal rights in my opinion. I disagree with some elements of what's called capitalism though, such as copyrights. But I feel that a market in general is preferable to a centrally planned system. A lot of what's bad about 'capitalism' is actually the result of government intervention in the market, favoratism of big corporations who can buy off the politicians. Like McDonald's being exempt from Obama's healthcare requirements for example. Or Google paying a 2% tax rate. To me government is the core problem, not the market in itself.