Why is socialism a bad thing?

Oh, yeah! I may be out of a job but I have great teeth and good healthcare! =D

I’m living the American dream!!!

I’m not describing socialism. I’m pointing out what will happen. ;)

I think the ideal society would have a balance of socialism and capitalism. We already do have limited socialism in many areas; schools, infrastructure maintenence, police, fire fighters, postal service, etc… And thanks to the GOP, the banks are now nationalized.

The free market works very well for some industries and for others it does not. I think any essential public services like utilities & energy, healthcare, education (college inlcuded), should be socialized.

Conservative will have you believe the government can’t do anything right, and that the free market will always work itself out. But government can and does do many things very well, as long as there aren’t republicans in charge of it to sabotage it.

Matt1809, your description of socialism isn’t even close. I suggest you educate yourself a little.

Socialized medicine - in many countries with it, people who can afford it obtain insurance coverage. They do so because they do not want to be treated by doctors who are paid a wage, no matter how good their care, or how many patients they see. And as with all aspects of capitalism, the doctors who are better remain outside the system and treat those who can pay or have insurance, so they can make more money.

There must be some things run by the government, military, police, fire and the infrastructure that we depend on, water, sewer, street repair etc.

.So is socialism a bad thing? If so, why? Socialism to an extent is not a bad thing. However, to have the government run everything is not. Having social give-away programs and government intervention in every aspect of life is not. There are many things the Democratic party stands for that I agree with. However, they have long been known as the “tax and spend” party. Taxes are increased and government socialized programs are implemented.

And no there is little the government does that could not be done better and usually a hell of a lot cheaper if done in a capitalistic environment. There are tons of examples. The U.S. postal service had a monopoly on mail. That ended and we gave rise to FedEx, UPS and many lesser knowns. Cheap efficient and fast. The U.S.Postal Service had to compete and get better - they did.

Bell Telephone at one time had a virtual monopoly on telephone service in the United States. There were many small companies around but “Ma Bell” was the giant. Little innovation occurred during that time. Bell was broken up in competing companies and we now have unbelievable innovation and better quality service. And if the company you are with doesn’t keep up the good service, you switch carriers. It’s capitalism. If cell phones service were run by the government there would only be a few cell phones from which to choose. In the free market that industry operates, companies are constantly improving their phones adding new innovations to compete in the market for your purchase and using their service.

Socialism has its place, but it is not the cure-all by any means. And yea jimal, Matt pretty much nailed the end results of a socialistic state.

thebeam, very well said …

Socialism is too broad a category to simply label “bad.” Sure, Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s USSR were bad examples of socialism…but if you look at the countries with the highest per capita income, highest education, best health care, and a whole host of other different measures of a nation’s fitness, several socialist countries (including Norway, Sweden and Denmark) are near the top of the heap in almost all categories–usually besting the United States.

I think we could learn a thing or two from socialism. I’m not saying that doing away with capitalism makes sense, but there are some aspects of socialism that could be incorporated into our own system to improve it.

I have mixed feelings on socialist programs. On the one hand, I really don’t want to see people - particularly children or those unable to care for themselves - thrown to the wolves in a society which is rich almost beyond measure. It seems just to me to guarantee a minimal outcome for all; basic food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and a high quality education.

On the other hand, human nature is such that without incentives and threats, a large portion of the population will do nothing. This is one of the reasons socialist societies tend to fail. There has to be a carrot, and there has to be a stick.

To me, if we’re going to have social programs, the fair way to do that is to provide them to everyone regardless of economic position. If education is free for some, it should be free for all. If subsistence food is free for some, it should be free for all, and so on. Done like this, those who are better off will not feel like they are being punished for it.

Taxes need to be fair as well then. If the basics are provided for all, then there is no longer a social justice argument to be made for taxing “the rich” at a higher rate then everyone else.

…so bottom line is, some degree of socialism does not seem inherently bad, but it’s possible to get carried away with it to a destructive point, and it’s also possible to implement lesser degrees in a way that is deemed unfair by and causes class conflict.

Because the government will control how much money you make. They want to bring everyone down to an even level. For example, lets say your an eye surgeon. And Your the best surgeon in the U.S. If you live in a socialist government you’ll make the same profit as any other eye surgeon in the U.S.

For this reason then there will be no point in striving ahead and making something out of your life. For the people who try and make something out of there life will be punished. The rich people’s taxes will go up and the poor people’s taxes will go down. Over time, this will bring everyone down to an even level. The money has to come from somewhere. Steel from the rich and pay the poor…

Then since everyone’s making the same amount of money, people will not be able to pay there employs and millions of people will lose jobs putting us in a worst state then we are now…

This is why socialism is a bad idea and this is why I’m against Obama’s views.

There’s seems to be belief that if you impliment a social idea or two (social, as in, aware of other people…is that bad??) then you’re wanting to completely control the government and all people in a totalitarian way.

Can you offer some form of healthcare without dictating what everyone makes? Absolutely. You can do this in a system that still has competition.

I’m pro-competition…it does improve things and it’s part of the game that makes things fun.

But the current capitalist ‘free market’ isn’t all that free. That’s an illusion. The corporations are on far more welfare and get billions and billions more than all the individuals on welfare combined. If you want to go strict free market, then stop handing out corporate welfare!!!

But the reality is, giving out some money is good for the people of the country…so we give it to some corporations to help them. And we COULD give it to people who need it. And it won’t break the system. It’ll make our lives better.

The reason this gets such bad press? The richest 1% (who pay less taxes than their secretaries…google the ultra-rich Warren Buffet on that one) own the media (duh!) so they get a big say in what goes out on the airwaves. They are just protecting their own interests…because making them pay tax might actually generate income for the country.

“Obama is a socialist, and our country will go down in shambles if he takes office.”

Yeah, I would hate to see an Obama administration ruin the Golden Age the US has experienced under Bush.

Anyway, the Red Scare and the Cold War left American society with a deep suspicion of anything resembling communism, or socialism. That is why many people try to marginalize social welfare policies, portraying them as “communist”. What Americans have forgotten is the Industrial Revolution, when unbridled capitalism didn’t work out for a lot of people, and was creating oppressive conditions.

There is far less aversion to social welfare policies in Europe than in the US. Different history, different culture. But if Americans would examine many European “socialist” policies, they would find them to be sensible and beneficial, and not as reliant on the government as one might think. A good example is the French health care system. Universal coverage, relying on both private and public funding.

I actually grew up in Eastern Europe in a socialist regime. The bad things were the fact that there is less incentive to work hard, but that doesn’t mean that there are not many who work very hard with motivation of helping others, or gaining reputation and status. This type of system does not support invention and progress. There is a single party that dictates how things will be in a country, and stronger industries and sectors pull the weaker industries and sectors. An individual usually gets ahead through the party affiliation (such as being a member of a communist party). It is difficult to become wealthy. The system is prone to corruption. It restricts freedom of religion and Marxist philosophy generally ridicules religion. It functions on the premise: if you do me a favor, I’ll do you a favor.. etc.

The good things are the following: The wealth is distributed more and there are hardly any homeless. Single mothers, blind people, handicapped are provided for and accepted by the society. Schools are generally free and available to anyone who can pass entrance exams to get into a specific school. Healthcare is available to anyone. The value system is usually competition free and there are no social classes. Differences do exist but generally everyone is accepted. People tend to help and interact more. The stress level is lower as jobs are more secure and flexible.

There are obviously benefits of both socialism and capitalism. The ideal system would possibly have characteristics of both.

As I have spent 1/2 of my life in socialism, and 1/2 in capitalism I can say that socialism is more “social” type of society, and capitalism is more “material” type of society. Neither is really good and both have problems. American capitalism is really crude and it does need to soften a bit, perhaps to pick up some of the things already modeled in Scandinavian societies such as Norway and Sweden. They are capitalist societies run by a social democrat party. I am an Obama voter and I like the changes that are being proposed and implemented. In the long run people will realize the benefits will outweigh any negatives they may perceive today.

The problem with social programs is the definition of need. Who gets to dole the goods out?… Who is above corruption? Read “Animal Farm.”

In lieu of leaving every minutiae to a vote of the collective… it would soon be argued that an elite board should be established that would mete out the needs of the people in an orderly and timely fashion. The board would be composed of people. People are human and susceptible to the desires of the flesh. If the fleshly desire sways the favor of a boardmember a particular way… then we have what could reasonably be assumed form the get go… an established hierarchy in service towards its own interest. This… in my opinion… is much worse than a trust operating in a truly capitalist society… because it enjoys a legitimacy of governmental decree and the immunity therein. It has the voice of the people to excuse itself from incrimination.

We should not condone the corporatism that the U.S. has degenerated into either. This requires the people of this country to shed the willful ignorance blinders that direct our politial actions. We are sold on banker bailouts by media owned by the bankers… Is there any surprise that the bailout is being used by the big banks to acquire the competition rather than sure up the derivatives they milked for all they were worth and left the common people holding the empty carcass?

If you are fed up with the surprises… vote out any incumbent that passed this lethal legislation.

There are no pure economic systems. There is no purely capitalistic or socialistic system.

Capitalism as an ideology is the idea that competition and the free markets are the best means of generating and distributing wealth. Those who are more productive will profit the most and those who are less productive are less deserving.

Socialism as an ideology is the idea that the means of production is owned or at least controlled by the state and the distribution of goods is controlled so everyone can benefit.

Capitalists feel the free enterprise and the free market is the best system.

Socialists feel that the free market unfairly concentrates wealth and power among a small group who is able to control capital and industry.

Capitalists believe that the free market is a meritocracy where hard work and innovation are rewarded with success and those less worthy are punished with failure.

Socialists believe that the downtrodden can not compete in the market place because industrialists have too much power and influence.

As I said, there are no pure systems. Most Americans view capitalism as their economic ideology but have no problem with socializing certain important parts of the economy (military, police, firefighters, etc.) Most Americans also believe that the governmetn has to regulate the market to prevent the worst abuses so there are rules against monopolies, misleading financial statements, selling ineffective or dangerous products, etc.

I personally consider myself to be a pragmatist. In certain areas a free or loosely regulated market seems to work. Other places it doesn’t and the government has to step in more. I’m all for socializing medicine because the system we have now does not work. We pay more than other industrialized countries yet our health is worse than theirs. Moreover medical bills are the most common cause of bankrupcies; why should someone loose their life savings just because they are unlucky enough to have a major injury or illness? I think this is one area where the state can step in and make life fairer.

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples money.

it isn’t I belive that we should be entitled to certain rights like to get medical treatment with out going in to bankrupcy if you are working you should be able to feed you family and have a warm safe place to sleep at night and if you are willing and able to work they should put you to work that is the most general overview of socialism and if any one thinks those things are a bad thing then they must be republicans

look at the soviet union… O WAIT! ITS GONE!

The answer has many facets involving morality, politics and religion. It all boils down to whether you were designed to be a truly unique individual endowed by your Creator with inalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -or- are you just a worker bee in the hive?

The other problem with socialism is that I value my FREEDOMS much more than I value government handouts. If I take everything the government wants to give me, it means that I have to, in turn, behave the way they expect. I simply do not wish to be owned by any other entity than myself - or God.

“And no there is little the government does that could not be done better and usually a hell of a lot cheaper if done in a capitalistic environment.”

Absolutely false. Adding a profit motive does not make it cheaper. The governement provides medical coverage much cheaper than private insurance. In the average of private insurance company, about 70 cents of every dollar collected goes to pay for actual medical care. For the government run Medicare System, 97cents of every dollar goes to medical care.

And fedex and ups do not deliver normal mail. They primarily do overnight and courier services. They couldn’t even begin to handle normal mail delivery, nor do at as cheap.

Basically, socialism is good in its meaning because it shares all welfares and benefits to all classes such as medicare, food supplies, shelter, etc. However, the communists have been taking advantages to the so-called socialism in order to confiscate all the private properties of the rich and also exploit the labor (poor) people by forcing them to work hard and to make productions for the government but giving them very little to survive. Presently, communist governments such as China and Viet Nam have reformed the economy system and let the people to have the right to own high valued properties; however, it has created a big gap between the rich and the poor because the government systems are inconsistent in locals and also corruption is contributing to ruin the social system.

I actually grew up in Eastern Europe in a socialist regime. The bad things were the fact that there is less incentive to work hard, but that doesn’t mean that there are not many who work very hard with motivation of helping others, or gaining reputation and status. This type of system does not support invention and progress. There is a single party that dictates how things will be in a country, and stronger industries and sectors pull the weaker industries and sectors. An individual usually gets ahead through the party affiliation (such as being a member of a communist party). It is difficult to become wealthy. The system is prone to corruption. It restricts freedom of religion and Marxist philosophy generally ridicules religion. It functions on the premise: if you do me a favor, I’ll do you a favor.. etc.

The good things are the following: The wealth is distributed more and there are hardly any homeless. Single mothers, blind people, handicapped are provided for and accepted by the society. Schools are generally free and available to anyone who can pass entrance exams to get into a specific school. Healthcare is available to anyone. The value system is usually competition free and there are no social classes. Differences do exist but generally everyone is accepted. People tend to help and interact more. The stress level is lower as jobs are more secure and flexible.

There are obviously benefits of both socialism and capitalism. The ideal system would possibly have characteristics of both.

As I have spent 1/2 of my life in socialism, and 1/2 in capitalism I can say that socialism is more “social” type of society, and capitalism is more “material” type of society. Neither is really good and both have problems. American capitalism is really crude and it does need to soften a bit, perhaps to pick up some of the things already modeled in Scandinavian societies such as Norway and Sweden. They are capitalist societies run by a social democrat party. I am an Obama voter and I like the changes that are being proposed and implemented. In the long run people will realize the benefits will outweigh any negatives they may perceive today.

Socialism on paper looks fantastic. A society where everyone gets everything they need and all they have to do is work. The government gives them their neccesities. However, when applied to any country with any type of economy, it fails. The key is the lack for work incentive. Naturally, people are going to want to work hard reagardless of their position, but Newton told us that there will be an equal or opposite force. There will inherently be lazy people who will not work and still be provided for. When others in the middle of the two see that both are being equally provided for, the work force will become lazy. One common misconception about socialism is that everyone will make the same salary; this is quite false. There is still a seperation of class…but much smaller. Yet, they all recieve the same benefits and live virtually identical. So where is the motivation to be a doctor when the used car salesman down the road is making just a little less than you but has the same benefits? There is none. We slowly lose our specialized labor force to basic jobs which require little skill, forcing our economy to crumble and become succeptable to all sorts of other issues. Im not saying capitialism is perfect; its far from it. There is too much power with the big corporations, but those things are easily fixed. Yet capitialism is the one type of economy which works 100% of the time. Anywhere where there is capitialism, there is success.