[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 25 KB, 400x300, 1299998665293 (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2819215 No.2819215 [Reply] [Original]

Why is socialism bad?

>> No.2819223

its not, just got a bad rap

>> No.2819224

It isn't.

>> No.2819232

read 1984

>> No.2819233

>>2819224
>>2819223

I see.

>> No.2819235

>>2819232

...Are you kidding me?

>> No.2819236

>>2819215

it's only bad if your gov. is corrupt and inefficient

otherwise it's fine, police, education, healthcare, military are all forms of socialist programs

imagine having private fire fighters lol...
>sorry you didn't pay your fee last month, we won't put out that fire

>> No.2819244

>>2819236
>sorry you didn't pay your fee last month, we won't put out that fire

AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!

>> No.2819247

Because capitalism triumphed culturally. It became so ingrained into human affairs that, not only are most people not willing to try anything different, but they will actually defend their way with their lives. They don't think their using an economic system, but THE economic system.

When we look at it purely objectively, though, socialism it's no better or worse. Just different. Both are prone to gross manipulation and incompetence. Just seems it's acceptable for one and not the other.

>> No.2819248

>>2819232

>1984
>implying fascist dictatorships = socialism

>> No.2819260

America has some socialist traits, but they only benefit CEOs and niggers.

>> No.2819264

Because it docent remove alienation like it is sup posted to, people will always live in social classes.

>> No.2819265

As an American I don't know what to think anymore... I do think though that minimum wage workers should have better healthcare. its just ridiculous how even visiting the doctor can cost hundreds of dollars.

>> No.2819267

Socialism is impractical simply because nobody has incentive to do anything. If I can get a job dish-washing which gets the same benefits as someone who is a aerospace engineer why take the time becoming a aerospace engineer.

>> No.2819275

>>2819267

socialism only entails healthcare and education and stuff....but for living in luxury and having stuff you actually want, you need a better job

>> No.2819278

>>2819267
>Socialism is impractical simply because nobody has incentive to do anything.

>If I can get a job dish-washing which gets the same benefits as someone who is a aerospace engineer

>fullretard.jpg

god damn what do they teach you in school?

>> No.2819280

Socialism works through suppression and exploitation and is strongly opposed to individual freedom. Not to speak of the corruption.

>> No.2819281

>>2819267

Wouldn't socialism encourage people to get jobs they actually enjoy, rather than ones they hate just to earn minimum wage?

>> No.2819290

>>2819248
yes, because it puts more money in the hands of the government

>> No.2819294

>>2819280

thats communism....socialism really isnt that extreme

>> No.2819296

>>2819280

there are socialist elements in every government and economy...

when you pay taxes, and those taxes fund the military and building of high ways and infrastructure
that is a socialist program

everyone chips in, and the government hires workers and pays them to work using your money

its fine for many practices...

>> No.2819301

>>2819267
Because you want to be an aerospace engineer?

That's the cultural victory someone mentioned early in this thread. People actually think the only motivation worth a shit is the profit motive.

>> No.2819303

I do think that in ghettos like New York, Philadelphia...the people who live in them are fucked. Like what are they supposed to do? the kids grow up with drugs and violence, it must be so hard to get out of there...dont they need some help? it's really not an issue of them being lazy.

>> No.2819307

>>2819290

>yes, because it puts more money in the hands of the government

ggovernment isn't the issue, the issue is when private companies buy your politicians and buy your government...

giving money to a government that operates in the interests of the people is fine

giving money to a corrupt government sponsored by big oil and big pharma is bad...

the private companies are ruining your economy/government, not socialism lol

>> No.2819310

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

(Sir Winston Churchill)

>> No.2819311

I think everything should be private. Even things like education. And I mean totally private.

>> No.2819313
File: 3 KB, 800x582, flag.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2819313

It works like a charm, pic related.

>> No.2819318

Pure socialism and pure capitalism are terrible, you need the right mixture of both, a proper balance. That's why you see shit hit the fan when there is too much or too little government regulation in certain areas, there has to be a right amount which brings about the sturdiest, least corrupt, most efficient, and the most innovative system.

>> No.2819321

>>2819307
that's what im saying, of course socialism in theory works, but the thing is that most governments are corrupt and bought by corporations like you said

>> No.2819322

I agree with capitalism system but disagree with neo liberalism.

>> No.2819327

>>2819311
everything needs regulation and standardisation to function effectively. Thats where guv'ment comes in!

>> No.2819366
File: 21 KB, 250x382, ussr0026[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2819366

It isn't, it helps to rid the earth of exploiters (corporations/bourgeoisie).

>> No.2819391
File: 21 KB, 250x360, ussr0032[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2819391

>>2819267
So the only thing motivating you is money? You have no ideals, no ambitions, no wish to help humanity?

A very sad existence indeed.

>> No.2819399

Socialism is good.

>> No.2819400

>>2819301
I can guarantee you the majority of the population would rather take the job of dish-washing then put the effort into studying a number of years for the requirements to become a aerospace engineer. The profit motive deals with peoples lack of ambition and gives them incentive to work hard. Screw the analogy simply put people don't want to work, socialism incentives laziness and society does not function if people don't work.

>> No.2819410

only extreme socialism removes profit motive....its not like everyone makes the same amount of money

>> No.2819412

>>2819400
And that is why Soviet mathematicians suck and Russia is the other real space nation?

>> No.2819427
File: 29 KB, 450x321, ussr0060[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2819427

>>2819400
>simply put people don't want to work
True, they require motivation.

But personally I find the profit motive to be disgusting. People should be motivated by a wish to help mankind and their country.

>> No.2819440
File: 17 KB, 250x366, ussr0009[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2819440

>>2819412
Good point comrade.

>> No.2819442

>>2819391
I used the analogy to express the motives of the population not my own personal beliefs. If you honestly believe most people in the world would rather work hard than sit back and jack off all day you are extremely naive

>> No.2819456

>>2819427
they should be but they're not

>> No.2819468

>>2819456
lrn2pedagogy

>> No.2819475
File: 20 KB, 255x375, ussr0017[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2819475

>>2819456
They can be made to.

>> No.2819478

>>2819412
Implying the Soviets did not incentive
Implying the mathematicians were given free will to work in the space agency
Implying the Soviet Union was truly socialist and was not a totalitarian nation

>> No.2819484
File: 29 KB, 300x436, 1299226631013.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2819484

I'll give you the best reason why capitalism doe snot work. Rebecca Black became a millionaire in one week and my calculus teacher is unemployed.

>> No.2819485

>>2819294 thats communism....socialism really isnt that extreme
Communism is just a type of Socialism. Of course anyone can define anything in any way, but declaring Communism to be something entirely different is not useful in my opinion.

>> No.2819494

>>2819215
because if they cannot enjoy the benefit of excelling at anything, many people who have the ability to excel will not bother.

for a society to advance, efforts of individuals must be coordinated,,, but individuals will not cooperate as a group if they feel it is more beneficial to them to act counter to the group's efforts.

socialism takes away nearly all the individual's incentive to excel at anything other than participating in a top-down hierarchy.

,,,,,,,,,

another view is that socialism implies complete sharing, which is not instinctive across all people since each person can function nearly completely on their own. if you include the act of reproduction, any two people (opposite sexes) can operate on their own.... compare that to communal insects like honeybees: they cannot defend themselves alone, and most of them cannot reproduce at all either. their only safe existence is to protect the queen, who can reproduce more bees to help protect the individual bee.

>> No.2819506

>>2819215
because it doesnt work.

yfw learn about soviet union,
idiot

>> No.2819507

>>2819215
Government always wants more power. Give them socialism and they will want communism. This is why socialism is bad; because it inevitably leads to communism. It's also inefficient as fuck. All "great" socialistic societies have eventually collapsed. Capitalism certainly isn't the best either, just better than anything else we have cared to try so far.

>> No.2819513

>>2819232
If you had ever thoroughly read 1984 you would realize that in Goldstein's "book" it states that Ingsoc is no where near what Socialism had implied doing. Ingsoc did everything they wanted while using the ideology of Socialism to promote their needs and views. In reality Ingsoc was an oligarchical collectivism, which is what they described it as in the book.

The only purpose of Ingsoc was to keep itself alive.

>> No.2819547

>>2819494
Even the second view of socialism would not work see Brave New World by Aldous Huxley

The second view would only work if you could effectively destroy free will and individualism

>> No.2819548

Here's the thing OP.
Ideas may look good on paper. In fact they might be considered by many to be infallible and glorious. This is what they thought about socialism and communism. They both look good on paper, but in practice it isn't so good.

What you need to consider when trying out new ideas is you shouldn't put it into great practice. What the soviets did was they involved the whole country into this idea. They sincerely thought it was going to work.

Instead, what you need to do for (seemingly) great ideas is to try it out in a smaller study, and don't just boast it as THE great solution.

>> No.2819603

>>2819548
>in practice it isn't so good

The same can be said of pure capitalism.

>> No.2819611

>>2819603
I never chose one over the other. I could be a socialist and you would never know.

>> No.2819626

>>2819611
Are you a socialist?

>> No.2819629
File: 4 KB, 300x57, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2819629

>>2819611

Indeed, but I just want to keep the record straight.

>> No.2819631

Socialism has many interpretations, fags

>> No.2819632

>>2819548
Lol, socialism and communism in no way look good on paper. How can you possibly justify mob rule and legally-justified theft?

>> No.2819651

>>2819632
How can you justify private ownership?

>> No.2819671

>>2819548
Actually, stalin's theory of "socialism in one country" was one of the big causes for the ultimate failure of the system he built.
The early bolcheviks were all for expansion, because they didn't thought (with good reasons) that a socialist russia could compete successfully with a capitalist world.

>> No.2819676

>>2819651
How could you not justify private ownership

>> No.2819683

>>2819651
Because ownership of property is the physical manifestation of a man's life and effort, valued relative to other men. To steal a car that someone worked for is to steal the finite lifespan that they spent obtaining it.

>> No.2819685

>>2819632

Theft can be consensual? How does THAT work?

>> No.2819688

>>2819676
The needs of the many are greater than the needs of the few

>> No.2819690

>>2819632
It makes better people with better lives.

>> No.2819700

>>2819685
Nope. Theft is by definition not consensual. But theft CAN be government- and mob-mandated. You can be strong-armed out of your possessions because "society" needs them for the "greater good", and you can't fight off that many people and hope to survive.

>> No.2819701

>>2819671
Exactly. You just confirmed my point.
Claimed knowledge without justification is the same as belief. And he sincerely believed in it.

>> No.2819704

>>2819690
By what metric?

>> No.2819708

>>2819688
Ahahaha, no. What you call for is slavery. Fuck you and the communist horse you rode in on...

>> No.2819710
File: 51 KB, 524x380, poster-21.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2819710

this

>> No.2819714

>>2819708
No, slavery is a form of private ownership.

>> No.2819721

>>2819683
So you think that people should not own a car unless they built it ?
Because else you're just arguing that retribution (which still exists) in a socialist or communist system is not fair, which is a laughable claim if it's in comparison with the retribution for work in a capitalist system.

>> No.2819725

>>2819714
The group has no rights that the constituent members don't also have. A group (in your sense) is simply a collection of individuals with the same/similar interests. Just as an individual can own a slave, they can each hold a share in one or many slaves.

>> No.2819726

>>2819701
Stalin ? lolno. He just thought that if other communist perties made a revolution they would challenge his domination on the komintern and on his own party.

>> No.2819731

Guys how about this!

You HAVE to work for your possessions.
You may use your possessions in any way that you please EXCEPT in any way that allows others to obtain possessions without working.

i.e. no one can get rich just by being born into a wealthy family

>> No.2819735

>>2819704
Profit margin %.

>> No.2819738

>>2819721
>retribution
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

A man owns his labor. He sells his labor to another man for a negotiated price. He uses a store of value (ie. money or barter) to buy a car. Ergo, his labor ----> his car. What's not to understand?

>> No.2819742

>>2819731

Basically what you're saying is for everyone to become anti-social because having friends would mean nothing.

>> No.2819743

>>2819731
That's fucking stupid. You are denying property ownership and freedom. If I have money, I have the right to give it to whoever I damn well please, be that my children, a charity, or a fucking dog.

>> No.2819746

>>2819725
Look up the definition of slavery and then get back to me when you're ready to argue without resorting to hyperbole.

>> No.2819748

>>2819731
>i.e. no one can get rich just by being born into a wealthy family
cf. cultural capital

>> No.2819749

>>2819743
No, you have an obligation to use the money for the greater good.

>> No.2819752

>>2819731
So children have to work for school supplies because their parents can't?
Be less vague with your idea. It sounds horrid.

>> No.2819756

>>2819752
It's supposed to sound horrid, because capitalism is inherently injust.

>> No.2819759

>>2819700

You missed my point, in that taxes ARE consensual. By being a citizen of a country, by working in that country, by making use of it services, you are consenting to its laws, which include taxation. I'm not saying the laws are good, or that you must agree with them politically, but you certainly consent to them by living here. You were perfectly aware of what would happen when you began to make an income, and you accepted this, in no way was this not a consensual exchange. You can "fight" this by just going somewhere else.

The fact is that your screams about theft and injustice are just an appeal to emotion and do not reflect reality as it stands.

>> No.2819762

>>2819749
Surely you troll. If not, there is no more we can discuss.

>>2819746
>Slavery (also called thralldom) is a form of forced labour in which people are considered to be the property of others."
How is that inconsistent with what I've been saying? The group forces one man to work (in varying degrees) for the benefit of another (or even everyone in that group). He is treated as their property.

>> No.2819766

It's not if you are content with never being free to pursue the american dream i.e. getting rich and making sure your children and their childrens and their childrens children never have to go through the hardships you did.

Socialism only works for people who are content in being average joes.

>> No.2819769 [DELETED] 

>>2819738
>You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Indeed. Fucking english taking my words to change their meaning. I meant remuneration and non-monetary rewards.

>A man owns his labor. He sells his labor to another man for a negotiated price. He uses a store of value (ie. money or barter) to buy a car. Ergo, his labor ----> his car. What's not to understand?
How it is less theft that labor ----> his car in a socialist society is left unexplained.

>> No.2819771

>>2819738
>You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Indeed. Fucking english taking my words to change their meaning. I meant remuneration and non-monetary rewards.

>A man owns his labor. He sells his labor to another man for a negotiated price. He uses a store of value (ie. money or barter) to buy a car. Ergo, his labor ----> his car. What's not to understand?
How it is less theft than labor ----> his car in a socialist society is left unexplained.

>> No.2819776

>>2819762
It's not inconsistent, if you're talking about slavery in capitalism.

>> No.2819778

>>2819766
"Its called the american dream because you must be asleep to believe it." George Carlin

>> No.2819785

>>2819756
>Injust
Nope. It's internally consistent, and therefore treats everyone with the same rules.

>>2819759
>involuntary social contract garbage
What if you don't want to make use of its services? What if you buy a plot of land in the desert, and only want to pay for military, police, and justice system protection? Should you be forced to pay for foreign aid despite not receiving any benefit from it?

>> No.2819788

It doesn't adequately reward hard work and it will only work with small populations.

>> No.2819797

>>2819785
>It's internally consistent, and therefore treats everyone with the same rules.
Those rules are only just for exactly one generation. If one man can be born into the system as a millionaire, while another can be born into it with nothing, then the system is injust. The millionaire did not earn his wealth.

>> No.2819812

>>2819785
Not the guy you were originally talking to but...

Yes, because you moved into that specific area knowing you would have too.

Buy that same plot of land off in the ocean if you don't want to pay taxes for things you don't want.

It's like buying a car with all the features and then trying to talk down the salesman to not charge you for them because you're not really going to use them.

They are there and they must be paid for, whether you use them or not is irrelevant.

>> No.2819813
File: 53 KB, 622x562, 1297668297264.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2819813

Define justice.

>> No.2819830

>>2819813
An economic system is "just" if the opportunity to succeed is distributed as evenly as possible among every individual. The key concept is "fairness".

>> No.2819837
File: 88 KB, 628x734, 1277666781546.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2819837

Socialism is good for inelastic goods and services like utilities, safety services, health care etc. Capitalism is good for elastic goods and services like computers, manufacturing, consulting etc.

Neither one are very good when entangled with government and public policy (i.e. corporatism).

>> No.2819838

>>2819812
That analogy is flawed. You don't have to keep paying for those features in the car once you own it.

Whereas when you buy a plot of land from someone, some unrelated dudes in suits come and demand money for unrelated things. You don't actually OWN that land, and it can be legally seized from you at a moment's notice.

>> No.2819849

>>2819785

People can't just pay taxes for what only benefits themselves personally at that particular time, the system wouldn't work otherwise, services would have drastic disparities in available funding.

>> No.2819850

>>2819830
what if some individuals are extremely and just want to leech off of others?

>> No.2819851
File: 14 KB, 289x303, 12.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2819851

Socialism would work fantastic if people had one thing:

the will to work for the common good.

>PIC FUCKING RELATED

>> No.2819856

>>2819838
An american car lasts X months before you have to buy one again with the stuff you don't want to pay for, the service of the state lasts Y months before you have to buy it again.
Even if your car lasted your whole life, there would still be no significant difference between paying for it and paying for a certain duration of state services. His analogy stands.

>> No.2819861

>>2819849
That is true. But that's more an issue with unnecessary services than it is with payment. Drop the minimum services to police, national defense, and the courts, and you have minimized unfair taxation.

>> No.2819862

>>2819850
Then they won't succeed. They'll squander their opportunity.

>> No.2819865

Hey,

>>2819264

Been to:
>>2819313

?

I think you're American for some reason. Do you even have a passport?

>> No.2819866

>its just ridiculous how even visiting the doctor can cost hundreds of dollars.

America does have the highest heathcare costs in the western countries. I.e it sucks. And that's mostly because of lobbying private companies want make it cost as much as possible.
Both extremes are bad. The best way to use socialism is to pick the good parts.

>> No.2819873
File: 20 KB, 394x471, 1300665915044.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2819873

>>2819851
>Implying there is a common good.

So you are asserting that hard work for your own benefit is somehow less just than working for a bunch of people you don't know and who probably don't work as hard?

>This is what low life bums actually believe.

>> No.2819877
File: 34 KB, 640x480, 1294825219891.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2819877

>>2819830

>> No.2819878

>>2819856
No it doesn't. Land lasts forever (you know what I mean), cars don't.

I'm saying when you buy land from a private owner, you are not buying the additional services that are imposed on you by a third party (the government). You are buying JUST the land. To force you to pay for stuff you don't use, simply because you happen to be living somewhere the government arbitrarily considers "its property", is absurd.

>> No.2819883

>>2819861
>when the state only pay for the interests of the rich, taxes are less unfair

>> No.2819889

>>2819851
>Socialism would work fantastic if people were one thing:
Ants.

>>2819866
What right do you have to tell a doctor how much to charge for his services? You want cheap medical care? Become a doctor and treat yourself.

>> No.2819895

>>2819883
To be fair, police, national defense, and courts are all services that mainly benefit the rich. Infrastructure and social welfare program are what benefits the poor.

>> No.2819896

>>2819883
Are you retarded? Those three services are the interests of everyone in the country (aside from criminals, obviously). It is still impossibly to justify paying for police protection when you don't need it, but lowering the unfair taxation to three categories instead of 200 is a good improvement.

Remember, no man is born with a debt to another. A poor man owes a rich man nothing, and vice-versa.

>> No.2819902

>>2819889
The problem is outside of cosmetic bullshit I am completely at the mercy of the doctor because I'm uneducated with respect to medicine and have to take what he tells me as the truth, if I do not pay for what he tells me I need I very well may die, and there are no real effective alternatives to the traditional medical profession that I can turn to.

>> No.2819906

>>2819861

We both have a different definition of "unnecessary services", and so do many others, who, if they had the option, might not even pay for the minimal services you wish for.

Going back to my main point, you are not being forced to be a citizen of or work in your country of origin, you can go someplace else. This argument is used by people of your persuasion in a similar way to say that workers are free because they can find another employer.

>> No.2819909

>>2819878

But isn't ALL property then arbitrary? Because who was the first owner of that piece of land and how did he obtain it? Just by saying it was his? How is that different from the government doing the same? Wouldn't whatever hypothetical social contract allowing you to live on that land of yours and be free from all the pieces of government you don't want be just as arbitrary?

>> No.2819910

>>2819896
Those services only benefit the rich. They're all centered on protecting ownership, and the poor have no wealth to protect, or very little.

Also, you seem to be suggesting that we stop funding government-controlled infrastructure, which is insane.

>> No.2819912

>>2819878
What services are you talking about exactly ? You mean roads and air purity and stuff like that ? You're already paying for it without the land, because it is part of the package the state offers. You pay taxes on the land because its price depends on what you can afford, not because the land is the property of the state.

And its property is not less arbitrary than any other legal property.

>> No.2819915

While it makes the population stronger as a whole, it makes each of us individually weaker
It's the antithesis of capitalism, which prizes individual worth over collective strength

>> No.2819919

>>2819878
>Implying you can (should) actually own a land.

>> No.2819927

>>2819851
Even with the will to work for the common good, the lack of personal freedom would still be shitty. Socialism is nonsense, in theory as in practice.

>> No.2819930

>>2819915
>which prizes individual worth

But does it in practice? From what I've seen societies leaning towards more "hardcore" capitalism are often the same ones who think an individual is only worth giving medical care/education/housing/whatever if that person can afford it.

Or do we mean different things by "worth?"

>> No.2819938

>>2819930
Capitalism prizes individuals if you happen to be an individual who has money.

>> No.2819939

>>2819895
That's what I meant.
>>2819896
>Those three services are the interests of everyone in the country
No. Punishing the poor and the rich equally for stealing is not an actual equal service.
>Remember, no man is born with a debt to another.
That's a baseless assumption.

>> No.2819944

>>2819930
>if that person can afford it
Yeah, they operate under the idea that money indicates power and strength (which it does)

>> No.2819952

>>2819236
Only read the first few replies so far in this thread, but I remembered seeing this article last year and thought it was relevant...

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html

>> No.2819957

>>2819944

But since no one is born with equal financial means, it contradicts any notion of freedom, since freedom in a capitalistic system is heavily dependent on wealth. And why would you premier power and strength? I thought the whole point of a society is to protect EVERYONE from lions eating our babbies and whatnot.

>> No.2819961

>>2819939
>Punishing the poor and the rich equally for stealing is not an actual equal service.
Hahaha, it's worse than that actually. For example, street drugs actually have more severe penalties than anything that's common in high society, even though rich people use more potent drugs (see: crack vs. powder).

>> No.2819970

>>2819961

More generally speaking, crimes done by poor people are often out of necessity (poor surroundings; fuck else to become than a criminal), while crimes done by the rich are out of opportunity (let's trash the world's economy to be even richer u guise!).

Guess which type of crime is considered worse. Or hell, which type is even considered a crime in the first place.

>> No.2819971

>>2819952
That is a nice example. That guy thought he could cheat the community by refusing to pay his share and yet make use of the service in case he needs it. In a socialist country, he wouldn't have had the choice; here he had.

Surely it would have been more efficient to charge him with thousands of dollars as a fee and save his house. Nevertheless, he deserved this. I bet in the future he will think twice about contributing to the community *before* requesting its aid.

>> No.2819972

>>2819944
But it doesn't have to : in soviet russia, for example, very respected scientist (and powerful members of committees) were no rich at all.

>> No.2819973

>>2819957
>contradicts any notion of freedom
Why do you think capitalists love rags-to-riches stories just as much as they do heirs and heiresses?
They reassure them that the people of their society are free enough to make their own way through life.

>I thought the whole point of a society is to protect EVERYONE from lions eating our babbies and whatnot.
The difference is that, now, we have guns and we don't need to worry about the greater good.

>> No.2819975

>>2819972
>soviet Russia
Exactly

>> No.2819980

>>2819970
If it were out of necessity, everyone would do it. And you can claim that rich people steal out of necessity, too. The necessity to gain a better lifestyle. Does that sound convincing?

>> No.2819986

>>2819952
Funny how the comments accuse the local authority of being inhumane.

>> No.2819990

>>2819980
It sounds more convincing coming from someone who has a shitty lifestyle.

>> No.2819991

>>2819973
>The difference is that, now, we have guns and we don't need to worry about the greater good

Rite, because you can produce guns without a society.

>>2819975

Yeah, soviet russia, so what ?

>> No.2820000

>>2819980

Well of course not everyone will become a criminal if in poor surroundings with no prospects of help from society, but it sure as hell increases the chances. If you are born into wealth, you're born free from even having to make the choice of breaking the law. It's real easy having principles when one has no actual worries.

>> No.2820012

>>2819991
you can produce a gun without society

>> No.2820017

Resident /sci/ economist here. Wish I would have gotten in this thread earlier in the game.

>> No.2820023

>>2820012
Where do you find the iron, how do yousmith the iron, where do you find the powder ?

>> No.2820025

>>2819991
A society is only needed up to the point of the gun's invention and distribution -- afterward, it's not necessary

>> No.2820031

>>2820017
Why? It's not like you could have written anything important.

>> No.2820034

>>2820025

So... using "socialist" concepts and ideas are fine until you obtained a certain standard of living/infrastructure?

>> No.2820036

Socialism = 1984
Capitalism = Brave New World

>> No.2820038

>>2820025
>Your gun never breaks or fall out of ammo ?

>> No.2820041

>>2819215
It is not
Don't watch FAUX NEWS! IT WILL MAKE YOU FUCKIN RETARDED!

\thread

>> No.2820045
File: 35 KB, 632x388, naxal4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2820045

>>2820036
Both are works of fiction, you know.

>> No.2820048

>>2820036

>1984, brave new world
>Saying anything on how to distribute the wealth

>> No.2820050

>>2820031

I just like to talk about economics. A lot of people are retarded when it comes to economics on the internet. So, Ive been making myself available to correct people, and, when necassary offer an opinion.

Anyway, its totally impossible to build a gun without society. I have experience in building shit with my hands. With out tools and materials produced by an industrial society building anything even remotely complicated is super fucking impossible.

>> No.2820055

>>2820000
Nice quad ;)

Yes, it increases the chances. But humans take pride in possessing consciousness and morality. And if they don't, they don't deserve the privileges that come with it. So the question remains: Why do some become criminal and others don't? In the end, it is pretty much *always* a free choice.

>"It's real easy having principles when one has no actual worries."
That could just as well come from the rich white guy. And this is not even a hypothetic example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAAtSVQyXZU .

>> No.2820063

>>2820055
>Assuming robing, stealing, mugging to feed family is not moral

>> No.2820070

>>2820055
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAAtSVQyXZU
lol, that's what happens when you have six fucking kids

I honestly don't know how anyone can justify having so many children in an industrialized society, with overpopulation being such a problem. It's morally reprehensible.

>> No.2820072

>>2820055
>Why do some become criminal and others don't?
There's various reasons. In fine, it's that the percieved positive consequences outweight the percieved negative consequences.
Most of the factors that define the perceptions of the individual are imposed externally.

Morality is also for the rich.

>> No.2820076

>>2820055
>free choice

I don't really believe in free will, but even if you do, I'm guessing you would agree that circumstances influence the choice we make? Meaning that a sufficiently constricted environment pretty much forces certain decisions or sets of decisions to the forefront.

And when do you dump your morals? It's commonly held that killing in self-defence is excusable and even encouraged. When is it excusable and encouraged to steal for survival?

To me, putting the the burden of responsibility on the individual is misguided, since it's a failing of society that crime arose with ease. Of course crime can probably never be eliminated, but if certain environments are seen to promote crimes, then by building a better society, we could decrease crime.

>> No.2820078

>>2820070
Oh, and top of that, the reason he's in debt is because he's able to send all six of his kids to college! There's a lot of poor people who would gladly throw their lives away to put their kids through college but could never get a loan that big. What a self-entitled scumbag.

>> No.2820082

It's not bad.

It's only bad for large corporations like Faux News who control the media and zombies who believe that t.v. is a good source for truth.

>> No.2820086

>>2820070
Religion ? Or maybe they simply enjoy the company of children ?

>> No.2820084

>>2820078
>Expensive education
>Equality

>> No.2820087

Whereas socialism only talks about freeing the opressed and the poor, capitalism actually does it.

>> No.2820089

>>2820084
is this a "pick one" or an "implying" or what

>> No.2820093

>>2820087

How would a system that equates money with power ever free the poor? The rich use their money-power to stop others from gaining the same.

Seem solid bro.

>> No.2820095

>>2819980

the threat of starving to death compared to getting more money to sit on doing nothing,

there is a point were acquiring more money is pointless as you can pretty much buy anything your heart desires.

>> No.2820096

>>2820070
Even with six children, you wouldn't have to struggle. And overpopulation is a problem mainly in undeveloped countries. Although the ecological footprint of an industrial citizen is much larger, but that is another story.

>>2820072
Yes, but the perception still does not make the decision superfluous. Even if I know that a store is robbable and that the camera is just a mockup, I may still decide not to do it.

Morality is for humans. So are you saying that non-rich people equal animals?

>> No.2820098
File: 3 KB, 194x159, Troll.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2820098

>enjoy the company of children ?

>> No.2820099

>>2820087
laughingwhores.jpg

>> No.2820101

>>2820084

Why don't you look for win-win situations.

That's the problem with pure capitalism. Pure capitalism is a win-lose system.

Conservatives often imply that rich people are not ethically bound by society because they are rich. I guess that's kind of a self-promoting prediction, now that I think about it.

Well, me on the other hand, I do not believe that money = ethics.

Fuck of pure capitalism.

>> No.2820106
File: 169 KB, 2000x1312, capitalism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2820106

Socialism is bad because it's flammable.

>> No.2820108

>>2820089
pick one.
Nothing to do with anon's post. Just pointing out a big flaw in american capitalism

>> No.2820118

>>2820096
>Morality is for humans. So are you saying that non-rich people equal animals?
No. All humans are animals and I suspect that some other species have morals.
I'm saying that the commonly accepted version of morality is not only favoring the rich, it is also more commonly accepted by the rich than by the poor, and is held up as a cultural element by the rich.

>> No.2820173

Creating an economy where people are encourage to invest in businesses is good. Circulation of money = increase standard of living

First world countries have plateau'ed for capital-based growth, so we need to encourage technological innovation if we wish to continue growth.

Problem with most capitalist systems (ie US) is that the government sucks corporation's cock under the guise of 'free trade' (for campaign money). Businesses are protected and monopolized in the name of capitalism, rather than promote competition. So what ends up happening is:

1. wealthy elites pay off government to continue their outdated business at expense of lower classes
2. countries that promote technological innovation in a controlled environment (ie asian tiger countries) do better than us
3. everyone points fingers and baws

>> No.2820182

>>2820076 I'm guessing you would agree that circumstances influence the choice we make?
Yes, a rapist became a rapist because the circumstances were favorable for such a "career". Still he bears the responsibility for his crimes. And regarding countermeasures, you don't need morality or even a consciousness for that. Natural hazards or dangerous animals are being fought as well.

>When is it excusable and encouraged to steal for survival?
Imagine a murdering cannibal in court drawing analogies to the situation on a lifeboat on the endless ocean where people eat each other to survive. Is that scenario possible? Yes. Did it happen? More than once. But is it relevant for the case? Absolutely not. Because we have to consider the real situations at hand. So it is of no use if one declared cannibalism in extreme situations to be acceptable, if such an extreme situation is not given in the specific case.


>>2820095
The "threat of starving to death" is as large for the rich man as for most people in industrial countries who are called "poor": Zero. So the rich man has the very same legitimation for his theft as the not so rich man.

Also, if we are throwing around stereotypes, it is the not so rich man who sits on his ass doing nothing (if not committing crimes), while the rich man works hard. Now how does that sound? I suggest we refrain from such generalizations ;)

>> No.2820208

>thread about socialism
>someone mentions an actual example - Norway
>everyone else ignores them in favour of arguing bullshit not remotely connected to reality
Stay classy, /sci/.

>> No.2820227

Socialism is good because oppression is bad and power belongs to the collective.

>> No.2820234

>>2820208
I'm not a right winged retard (or even a Republican in the US), but success of a country doesn't always correlate to type of government. Norway has a shit ton of oil, with low population density. Energy is cheap and easily available for everyone, so costs of doing business go down, more businesses are started and the nation gets wealthier.

>> No.2820247

Most rich people are rich because they give us things we need, not because they are greedy and selfish. This does not include shitty bankers/ceo's who destroy companies and then leave with a 20 million dollar bonus package.

>> No.2820268

>>2819232

From George Orwell's "Why I Write":
>Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism

>> No.2820277

Why does everyone think America is a capitalist society? We have a mixed economy, using government control in order to compensate for market failures that are inherent in a pure capitalist system. Is pure socialism good? No. Is pure capitalism good? No. Everything in moderation, and only as long as it is useful and relevant.

>> No.2820278

>>2820247

The majority of wealth is inherited through property.

>> No.2820290

>>2820118
It is the society as a whole which defines its moral standards. So in a socialist culture, you have a very strong tradition for the opposite standards. Which tends to drive the freethinkers and wealthy out of the country. Think of the National Socialists, think of East Germany.

>> No.2820300

>>2820234
Or we could start with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Countries_governed_by_SI_parties.png if you like. I'm not fussed.

>> No.2820311

>>2820277

The 'mixed economy' does not refer to a mix between socialism and capitalism. Socialism and capitalism are not only antithetical, but mutually exclusive. It instead refers to a mix between an unplanned and a planned economy. Both of these are a capitalist economy. Capitalism does not exclusively refer to laissez-faire capitalism. Unfortunately, there's a deeply misleading and misled view of capitalism in American society that it simply refers to markets, which is patently untrue. If it were, any system would be a capitalist system: there have been markets since the days of bartering chickens and horse shit.

'Pure socialism' is the only kind of socialism there can be. Something is either a classless society or it is not a classless society. Capital is either democratically controlled or it is not. There's no degrees of this.
Capitalism has degrees, socialism does not.

>> No.2820319

>>2820277

The same reason Sweden and Norway are called socialist by "the other side"; convenient shorthand to show where on the scale one perceives a nation to be. From a European viewpoint, America is far right and super capitalistic.

It's all relative.

>> No.2820329

>>2820277
>>2820311

>Everything in moderation, and only as long as it is useful and relevant.

Also, this kind of middle-ground bullshit is repulsive. Why everything in moderation? Should we find a middle-ground between Stalinism and fascism? Would that make for a worthwhile society? Perhaps killing the same number of Jews and faggots as we do Kulaks and dissidents is an appropriate compromise?

Politics is about division. Attempting to bridge divides is pointless. Unfortunately, people have developed the view (especially in America) that politics is a centre-right problem-solving activity, when it is not. It is a matter of irreconcilable differences of conviction, not administration. Admin is easy.

>> No.2820340

>>2820300
What? Some of those countries are socialist in name only. Egypt? Greece? Serbia? Seriously...

>> No.2820364

>>2820319

No, it is not 'all relative'. The right-left scale in, economic terms, refers to a very specific thing, namely, the degree of communal/democratic/state control of the economy. That can be total or it can be non-existent, but never is it a matter of relativity. The right-wing is the right-wing in any country at any time.
Now, the reason it seems relative is that people use the term relatively, i.e. they refer to the Democratic Party of the US as a left-wing party, when it is a centre-right party. However, due to America being a rather right-wing country, it is to the left of general public opinion.
This does not mean that the scale is relative. Only the way the term is used.

>> No.2820393

>>2819837
>>2819837
This fucking guy. I don't care if restaurants and shit are privately owned, since it doesn't really matter. A baseline food service from the government, such as food stamps, does matter though.

The fact that people have to succumb to debt slavery because they get sick disgusts me, and I can't begin to comprehend how it doesn't make other people cringe. If you're against health care for everyone, you're a fucking monster. You are morally repugnant. Fuck you. That's why socialism isn't bad, OP.

>> No.2820401

>>2820393

I agree, but that has nothing to do with socialism. Socialism is not social democracy.

>> No.2820417

>>2820401
I wouldn't say that they're completely separate. But you're right, I did describe a social democracy. Whatever. Point is, it's not a corporatist clusterfuck like so many countries are now.

>> No.2820418

>>2820329
Proper administration is actually super fucking hard.

Empires and states have collapsed entirely because for all their efforts they could not conduct proper administration.

>> No.2820429

>>2820329
>and only as long as it is useful and relevant
>You're a straw-man using, illiterate faggot.

>> No.2820433

I think that healthcare, education, and such things should be socialized. I really don't see why people have such a problem with healthcare, it's bullshit how minimum wage workers can't even afford it. And ironically they often make too much to be on Medicaid!

However that doesn't mean there will be no profit motive. It's not like the entirety of society has to be socialized, just those essential needs. It doesn't mean the worth of the individual is zero. I think when some of you reference socialism you think of it in the extreme.

>> No.2820455

>>2820433

Agreed.

Some common sense is needed. People get to entangled in the labeling and standardization that they forget how to be human sometimes (ex: health care).

>> No.2820477

a fascist stalinist nation would be massively efficient

>> No.2820512

>>2820418

Fair point, but it generally isn't altered by ideology. It's not generally political matter. Politics is the weighing of opportunity costs and falling on one side.

>> No.2820519

>>2820429

I'm an illiterate faggot? Really?
I was attacking the attitude. The implicature was clear from the entire post and it's a pervading feature of any political discussion these days.

>> No.2820526
File: 2 KB, 384x256, USSR.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2820526

>>2820477
Hmmm, let's see if we can think of any nations that fit those criteria and see how they ended up.

Gee, I'm stumped.

>> No.2820535
File: 33 KB, 645x356, 1298610052456.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2820535

Social democracy works best. Socialism and the many facets of it should be reserved for a time and place with intelligent automation.

>> No.2820542

>>2819236
>>2819236
>>2819236

>mfw that's what fire insurance is

>> No.2820543

>>2819215
Socialism isn't bad. It just doesn't work.

>> No.2821036

Modern socialism has its roots in Marxism, and where Marx started was getting all excited about industrial efficiency improving to the point where few workers would be needed to feed, house, and clothe the population, so these chores could become a minor function of government (which should then keep its population as pets, I suppose), and eventually the state would "wither away" because the mere incidental efforts of people who felt like doing the work as a pasttime would suffice to get them done well enough (ex. Linux, Wikipedia), and everyone would be too fat and happy to make trouble.

Which is some nice science fiction for the day.

Then he went off on a wild tangent about how it was important to jump the gun and start transitioning to that kind of government *before* things got that efficient.

This is where he came up with the idea of capitalism: a system founded on valuing only that which produces wealth, as an opposite to socialism, a system founded on valuing people's welfare (and its fully mature form: communism, a utopian lack of system founded on people all valuing each others' welfare).

You see, for a couple of generations, academia was UTTERLY dominated by Marxists. They accepted the model he framed the world in, and the words he used for it, and pushed them into usage among the educated population, and from there into the general population.

Socialism and capitalism are both loony imaginary science fiction governments, and in that science fiction, "socialism" means "the good guys", the people who care about people (i.e. concern themselves with social matters), and "capitalism" means "the bad guys", the people who only care about money.

(too long)

>> No.2821045

cont. from >>2821036

So socialism is bad because people mostly call themselves socialists who have bought into a loony science fiction political philsophy. It's bad for the exact reason Scientology (the loony science fiction religion) is bad: it means you have bought into all sorts of crazy bad ideas as organizing principles for how to live your life and run your government.

Capitalism can be good or bad, because sometimes calling oneself a "capitalist" is simply a mocking way of rejecting the absurdity of the science fiction nonsense (like choosing the domain name xenu.net to mock Scientologists), and sometimes it is an honest and fair identification with the strawman villains of the Marxist worldview and their sociopathic greed.

>> No.2821051

>>2820542
he was describing fire brigades not fire insurance. one extinguishes fires the other reimburses what you insured.

>> No.2821058

If you mean socialism in the sense that people democratically run companies its a terrible idea
People who run the companies should be the ones who are the most capable

>> No.2821089

It's a very inflexible system which requires a good deal of motivation on the part of the population to work. Mostly, I would say it doesn't work because a) nobody really expects it to work well
b) without a hugely disciplined and advanced society, people will grow lazy and think about themselves.

>> No.2821099

>>2821089
>without a hugely disciplined and advanced society, people will grow lazy and think about themselves.
Quit blaming society on flawed system

>> No.2821170

THIS IS ALL BULLSHIT
capitalism is FUCKEN GREAT if you have an educated populace who can watch the motherfuckers. Or an educated, responsible media that can watch the motherfuckers.
BUT THEN AGAIN, SO IS SOCIALISM IN THAT CASE.
Guess who's fault it is our world sucks.
And it's not the greedy scumbags you let run the country/world cuz ur too fucken stupid to educate urself enuf to see wtf is going on in the world.

Also ADVERTISEMENTS REFLECT SOCIETY, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
When I see babes on the Telly, it's cuz dudes like to see babes, not cuz the big baddies are 'objectifying women'