Socialism Is Always Doomed to Fail

[bilby]

There has been a big push to get crack, heroin, and meth legalized?

Those drugs are such a small problem compared to some really dangerous drugs.

Nicotine and alcohol.

Maybe they're smaller problems because they're illegal?
I don't think so, but that's the obvious rejoinder.
I think (and I'll keep repeating this until someone takes issue with it) Portugal got it right.

It's going on 15 years that they decriminalized drugs, and all the associated problems that persist in the US are either entirely gone, or hugely mitigated. Why are we still in the stone age?

View attachment 15693

For comparison, according to Statistia, The US figure for drug deaths per million population is 185.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You really have a problem understanding the concepts of democracy and a majority.

So if 90% majority vote to strip the rights of the 10% minority, it isn't democracy?

It is because capitalism is opposed to democracy.

Wrong and irrelevant.

 

[untermensche]

You really have a problem understanding the concepts of democracy and a majority.

So if 90% majority vote to strip the rights of the 10% minority, it isn't democracy?

It's a delusion that has never happened which in your mind justifies allowing a minority of dictators to screw over the majority over and over.

There seems to be nothing too deluded for you to justify allowing immoral economic dictators to exploit the majority and destroy the planet.

It is because capitalism is opposed to democracy.

Wrong and irrelevant.

There is no connection between capitalism and democracy.

Democracy has absolutely no part in capitalism. Thus capitalism thrives in China.

It is insanity to claim to want democracy and have capitalism as your economic system.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It's never happened if you ignore all the times it has happened. Therefore you can dismiss reality as a delusion.

If 90% votes to strip the voting rights of the 10%, you can say "since the 10% cannot vote this isn't an example of a democracy so my ideas aren't challenged".

 

[coloradoatheist]

It's a delusion that has never happened which in your mind justifies allowing a minority of dictators to screw over the majority over and over.

There seems to be nothing too deluded for you to justify allowing immoral economic dictators to exploit the majority and destroy the planet.

It is because capitalism is opposed to democracy.

Wrong and irrelevant.

There is no connection between capitalism and democracy.

Democracy has absolutely no part in capitalism. Thus capitalism thrives in China.

It is insanity to claim to want democracy and have capitalism as your economic system.

Democracy toward the government is fine in capitalism. Democracy in the workplace. That's up to each company to decide how they want to run their business.

 

[Tristan Scott]

Regulation is a form of control. Regulation to the point where an owner is not free to do much of anything with his property approaches socialism. Regulation around the edges of capitalism is not "socialism".

I agree, however successful socialist governments recognize this and adjust accordingly. One of the axioms of regulation is to help a broad spectrum of businesses succeed and to maintain higher employment levels as well as wage levels. We used our tax system to regulate these aspects of our economy for 65 years in the twentieth century through progressive taxation. Businesses thrived as well as workers.

In socialism the government owns the means of production.

That statement is not accurate. In most countries the practice socialism, including the US, the government does not own production.

 

[dismal]

In socialism the government owns the means of production.

That statement is not accurate. In most countries the practice socialism, including the US, the government does not own production.

That's the definition of socialism: the government owns the means of production.

Definition of socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

 

[Tristan Scott]

That's the definition of socialism: the government owns the means of production.

Definition of socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

I guess you missed this part on your Webster link?

socialism vs. social democracy

In the many years since socialism entered English around 1830, it has acquired several different meanings. It refers to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control, but the conception of that control has varied, and the term has been interpreted in widely diverging ways, ranging from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal. In the modern era, "pure" socialism has been seen only rarely and usually briefly in a few Communist regimes. Far more common are systems of social democracy, now often referred to as democratic socialism, in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments (as in Sweden and Denmark) in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth.

 

[untermensche]

It's never happened if you ignore all the times it has happened. Therefore you can dismiss reality as a delusion.

If 90% votes to strip the voting rights of the 10%, you can say "since the 10% cannot vote this isn't an example of a democracy so my ideas aren't challenged".

It has never once happened.

Slavery was forced upon the nation by a few rich people.

That is what you like.

A few rich people deciding everything.

That is called dictatorship.

- - - Updated - - -

Democracy toward the government is fine in capitalism. Democracy in the workplace. That's up to each company to decide how they want to run their business.

Wrong. Capitalists work to undermine democracy, not enhance it.

 

[dismal]

That's the definition of socialism: the government owns the means of production.

Definition of socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

I guess you missed this part on your Webster link?

socialism vs. social democracy

In the many years since socialism entered English around 1830, it has acquired several different meanings. It refers to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control, but the conception of that control has varied, and the term has been interpreted in widely diverging ways, ranging from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal. In the modern era, "pure" socialism has been seen only rarely and usually briefly in a few Communist regimes. Far more common are systems of social democracy, now often referred to as democratic socialism, in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments (as in Sweden and Denmark) in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth.

So, again, why are we fucking with a word to dilute its meaning to the point of meaninglessness?

What purpose is served?

How is rural Alabama (or anyplace, anywhere) not socialism under this definition? Isn't property there subject to "social control"?

 

[coloradoatheist]

It's never happened if you ignore all the times it has happened. Therefore you can dismiss reality as a delusion.

If 90% votes to strip the voting rights of the 10%, you can say "since the 10% cannot vote this isn't an example of a democracy so my ideas aren't challenged".

It has never once happened.

Slavery was forced upon the nation by a few rich people.

That is what you like.

A few rich people deciding everything.

That is called dictatorship.

- - - Updated - - -

Democracy toward the government is fine in capitalism. Democracy in the workplace. That's up to each company to decide how they want to run their business.

Wrong. Capitalists work to undermine democracy, not enhance it.

We have a representative democracy, not a democracy. And people who created understood very well the problems we would have no. Their solution was to limit the power of government, and not expand it.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It's never happened if you ignore all the times it has happened. Therefore you can dismiss reality as a delusion.

If 90% votes to strip the voting rights of the 10%, you can say "since the 10% cannot vote this isn't an example of a democracy so my ideas aren't challenged".

It has never once happened.

Because every time it has, you said it wasn't a True Scotsman.

Now answer the question. What is to stop the majority from voting to violate the rights of the minority?

 

[dismal]

What is to stop the majority from voting to violate the rights of the minority?

It happens every second of every day. Unless you really twist the phrase "rights of the minority".

If I'm a pacifist I don't have the right not to pay taxes that go for the army, etc., ad infinitum.

Democracy is nothing but the majority imposing its preferences on the minority. Even when the majority allows the minority some select minority right, that is not an exception. Allowing that right is the preference of the majority.

 

[arkirk]

What is to stop the majority from voting to violate the rights of the minority?

It happens every second of every day. Unless you really twist the phrase "rights of the minority".

If I'm a pacifist I don't have the right not to pay taxes that go for the army, etc., ad infinitum.

Democracy is nothing but the majority imposing its preferences on the minority. Even when the majority allows the minority some select minority right, that is not an exception. Allowing that right is the preference of the majority.

I think the key can be found in the level of education allowed the average man along with the right to vote. The purpose of social democracy is to improve the condition of civilization, not strip people of their means of surviving. Are you saying that if YOU WERE in a socialist setting you would be voting to strip minorities of their rights? Are you implying or outright stating that the average man would fall into a pattern of ripping off his fellow men through voting? I think democracy only works with people who are clearly informed and perhaps they have to avoid listening to Fox "news" and Rush Limbaugh and Trump. Your argument is with democracy. Socialism implies in a modern sense some redefinition of ownership. It should be applied to environmental and human rights. That does not mean we take everything away from everybody and give it immigrants or any other group. It does mean that government should be guaranteeing the quality of our environment regardless of who owns lands that can be polluted and ecosystems that can be destroyed. We are a product of nature. If we alter nature to the point it can no longer support us, we are killing ourselves and our children. Let's stop playing tough guy personality games. Tell me how we will cope successfully with global warming without regulation of fossil fuels. What we are looking at today is a bevy of Trump political supporters who are trying to put an end to the government of by and for the people telling them they cannot pollute.

 

[untermensche]

Wrong. Capitalists work to undermine democracy, not enhance it.

We have a representative democracy, not a democracy. And people who created understood very well the problems we would have no. Their solution was to limit the power of government, and not expand it.

A representative democracy is a democracy. It is supposed to be a democracy.

Not a dictatorship of the rich through a corrupted system.

 

[untermensche]

It's never happened if you ignore all the times it has happened. Therefore you can dismiss reality as a delusion.

If 90% votes to strip the voting rights of the 10%, you can say "since the 10% cannot vote this isn't an example of a democracy so my ideas aren't challenged".

It has never once happened.

Because every time it has, you said it wasn't a True Scotsman.

Now answer the question. What is to stop the majority from voting to violate the rights of the minority?

What will happen if Superman drinks all the oil?

What will happen if gravity just stops?

Worrying about something that has never happened so a tiny few with wealth can rule the system and exploit all the rest is a sign of a very corrupted mind.

Anarchists are interested in human rights. The way you protect them is though a Bill of Rights and with the courts. Not by destroying democracy.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Because every time it has, you said it wasn't a True Scotsman.

Now answer the question. What is to stop the majority from voting to violate the rights of the minority?

What will happen if Superman drinks all the oil?

What will happen if gravity just stops?

Worrying about something that has never happened so a tiny few with wealth can rule the system and exploit all the rest is a sign of a very corrupted mind.

Anarchists are interested in human rights. The way you protect them is though a Bill of Rights and with the courts. Not by destroying democracy.

Don't usually say it, but the irony meter of an anarchist waiting courts and a bill of rights. At least you talked a little about Jason's question.

 

[dismal]

What is to stop the majority from voting to violate the rights of the minority?

It happens every second of every day. Unless you really twist the phrase "rights of the minority".

If I'm a pacifist I don't have the right not to pay taxes that go for the army, etc., ad infinitum.

Democracy is nothing but the majority imposing its preferences on the minority. Even when the majority allows the minority some select minority right, that is not an exception. Allowing that right is the preference of the majority.

I think the key can be found in the level of education allowed the average man along with the right to vote. The purpose of social democracy is to improve the condition of civilization, not strip people of their means of surviving. Are you saying that if YOU WERE in a socialist setting you would be voting to strip minorities of their rights? Are you implying or outright stating that the average man would fall into a pattern of ripping off his fellow men through voting? I think democracy only works with people who are clearly informed and perhaps they have to avoid listening to Fox "news" and Rush Limbaugh and Trump. Your argument is with democracy. Socialism implies in a modern sense some redefinition of ownership. It should be applied to environmental and human rights. That does not mean we take everything away from everybody and give it immigrants or any other group. It does mean that government should be guaranteeing the quality of our environment regardless of who owns lands that can be polluted and ecosystems that can be destroyed. We are a product of nature. If we alter nature to the point it can no longer support us, we are killing ourselves and our children. Let's stop playing tough guy personality games. Tell me how we will cope successfully with global warming without regulation of fossil fuels. What we are looking at today is a bevy of Trump political supporters who are trying to put an end to the government of by and for the people telling them they cannot pollute.

No, my point is entirely in definitions. "Government" is one group forcing its preferences on others. In "Democracy", the group that does the forcing is the majority.

Whether you view the particular policy in question to be good, bad, or indifferent the above remains true. It's just math.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Worrying about something that has never happened so a tiny few with wealth can rule the system and exploit all the rest is a sign of a very corrupted mind.

The only reason you say it has never happened is because it wasn't True Scotsmen doing it,

Anarchists are interested in human rights. The way you protect them is though a Bill of Rights and with the courts. Not by destroying democracy.

Those are all government, not anarchism.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

We had the disaster in the USA of the Great Depression. And of course that hit hard in German and elsewhere. Do we then conclude capitalism is bad? We have the systems of the Scandinavian nations some call socialism that work rather well. So what represents socialism? Venezuela or Sweden? Zimbabwe was not socialism as per se. It was confiscation of white farms on the grounds that whites had dispossessed black farmers and that was theft being undone. whether that was correct or poorly handled is not really an issue of socialism. And we can point to the problems here in the USA with the poverty and incompetent systems of red Southern states, Alabama, Mississippi, Kansas and Louisiana. Capitalism right wing style is not really that successful there is it? If it wasn't for large sums of money sent to these parasite states from the blue donor states we would have Venezuela happening there. Mismanagement isn't really about socialism vs capitalism.

Of course capitalism can lead to dramatic depressions and recessions that correct or cool down a heated market. But four or five years in a down capitalist economy is still far better than a lifetime in a socialist one for most people. The Scandinavian countries have bigger safety nets than the US. The Scandinavian countries still have recessions also, but their safety net blunts their impact and protects citizens better than the US system.

My complaint is not the red states activities during a recession. It is about the failure of such states generally over decades. Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama. Rock bottom in the states' education achievements. Bad health care. High rates of poverty, especially in the rural areas. It is the long term incompetence that bothers me. All the politicians have to do to win is mewl "Lower taxes!". We have here a bastard form of capitalism and politics that is comfortable with low aims and low accomplishments. This situation has been in place so long, people there do not see how anything could be different. All these states get large sums of money from the Federal government, but that is just squandered money. It just props up failed states.