Top Ten Reasons to Favor Socialism
Wrong. In socialism, everyone ends up with the equal outcome. In capitalism, everyone is given equal opportunity, socialism is essentially using force to ensure that the general populace remains poor
Socialism isn't the horrible, evil, government that a lot of conservative republicans have made it out to be! The resources are not collected from a hard working people to be redistributed to the lazy! It just means that we distribute the resources that we have through out the people!
While this sounds great, would you really choose this over a system where although there is inequality, the poorest still have more that those under socialism?
People live comfortably. But in real life, eh.. I won't say anything
Inequality is required for wealth to be generated. If everyone gets an equal outcome regardless of effort, then few will make much effort. Capitalism has proved to be the best system for creating wealth by a large order of magnitude, and although this wealth is not spread evenly, generally the poorest in a capitalist economy are better off that most in a socialist one.
Let's say you were born homeless! You don't have much to look forward to because you have barely any of the basic resources that we need. Let's say you were born rich, you have a lot to look forward to and you don't have to even try to become somebody, because you already are!
There is unequal outcome in capitalism, but that has more to do with the fact that if I produce more goods and services required by people, I get paid more and that's fair game
Yes, it is extremely unequal, but Socialism and Communism are too equal for my liking. A hybrid between the three would be my dream come true!
Socialism essentially involves glorifying the struggle of the working class and romanticizing the idea of poverty by saying things like "money barely exists" while a dictator is having the time of his life in the socialist country
Under socialism, everyone is equally poor
Margaret Thatcher remarked that "The Problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money" But the simple fact is that economics isn't money, it's how we distribute the resources in general
Ah yes, the "But real communism has never been tried!" argument; most nations in the modern world are capitalist, most countries who were formerly socialist are becoming more capitalist (with small exceptions) because communism is an idea that is essentially doomed to fail
So many people are confusing socialism and communism. Communism, in general, tends to be a more extreme, more violent and more authoritarian version of socialism. The hard left and dictatorships do not automatically go together. It's possible to have socialism + happy free liberal democratic countries. Just look at Scandinavia. The 5 countries making up Scandinavia (Norway, Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Sweden - go look them up) are an example to the rest of the world.
One of the many mishaps with socialism is that every time we see a socialist country, they are wrapped into dictatorship. But they have nothing to do with socialism. Lenin's USSR went well before Stalin, in fact, Stalin had nothing to do with the revolution itself. Hitler was just using socialism as another piece of propaganda to get more followers. Mao did the same except in China.
The reason you see socialism and dictatorship together is you must have a strong dictator to enforce confiscation of people's productivity in order to re-distribute it to those who did not produce anything.
Listen up mate, "all jobs being taken by robots" isn't going to happen. Post scarcity is an anti-economical concept
Let's say it's the year 1000 BCE and a tribal guy comes across a vast grassland full of apples, mangoes and oranges extending across a very large swathe of land. He thinks "wow, there are unlimited resources to support the existing human population forever"; but that simply isn't true. The grassland is finite. This universe is finite. We won't achieve 100% energy efficiency due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics and as long as there is scope for improvement of human livelihood, humans are going to keep working actively in jobs, so you can effectively say that post scarcity does not exist.
Let's say that for some reason, there is post scarcity now. A machine is using some resource (which is hypothetically present in a very large amount) to continuously produce 1 burger per second. Now, if I eat 2 burgers per second, eventually there is a scarcity of burgers in ...more
Let's say in the future all jobs are taken over by robots, if it is capitalist, the people can't make any money to become customers which causes the companies to go down. If it is socialist, you don't need to have a job. You just grab your share and get out of there
Not true at all. The problem is overpopulation, plain and simple. Socialist nations like the former Soviet Union and today's China were the absolute worst when it comes to environmental destruction. If the world population decreased by half, all of the climate change issues would vanish immediately.
I really do like the idea of the government doing something about obesity. The government should track and monitor what each and every person eats every single day. If you eat too much, or eat anything not of the approved nutritional value, there should be strong consequences.
Also, there is no evidence that suggests that overpopulation is linked to global warming! It isn't even logically possible. More people= Carbon emissions? Solar power is possible but companies are not likely to ever put an investment into the replacing!
You don't have any stupid company trying to use it's economic power to twist the facts about global warming. Many of the problems are caused by companies that twist facts to make money. Environment, Obesity, etc.
A capitalist workforce is largely depressed because they are told to go through intense arount of stress, they are supposed to go through intense labor and can be REMOVED FROM THEIR SOURSE OF INCOME to better fit a person that they hate.
Ah yes, getting very meager rewards for my work definitely won't lead to me getting depressed
Let's say we have a scenario where the jobs that nobody wants are taken over by robots, then all of the sudden the jobs that some people are okay with are taken over by robots, this happens until the only one who is left are the economic giants, the people don't have the money to make a living so the giants don't make money off of them. Pretty soon, places like Walmart, HyVee, McDonalds, and Burger King are going down because they don't have the money to keep going on. Even if we put liberal regulations on them, those might have there own contradictions so they might make the situation even worse, what we need is to adapt to the information age that we are stumbling upon. Hence, Socialism. Socialism doesn't lead to it's own destruction when we are
But it hasn't and it won't. Capitalism is not communism
Should be at the top!
Without the government, the economy would frequently fall into depressions. Socialism stimulates the economy when a recession starts, stabilizing the economy. It also regulates businesses to improve cooperation and decrease risk-taking.
Socialism and democracy are more about the people and keeping things fair
Capitalism and monarchy are more about the powerful and complete power
Not everyone is equal, like a retard has the same job as a genius that is just not right
Equality is said a lot here! But it's kinda true!
That is pretty great but it isn't what socialism promises!
No! Norway by itself has a population of over 5 million, while California has not even 4 million, meanwhile Sweden has a population of 9.5 million, Denmark has a population of 5.5 million, Iceland has a population of 300,000, and Finland has a population of nearly 5.5 million. You are not an expert on population and a simple Google search will prove you wrong in seconds. If they combined they would have, 25.8 million people, more than 6 times the population of California.
No! It is more than half, but that is not the point. If you can make enough product to give one person what would cost 350 million dollars, than you would be able to give 350 thousand people the amount of product that would equal about 1 thousand dollars!
All 3 of those nations combined have less than half of the population of the state of California alone. Individually, they are smaller than just Los Angeles County. Their system would collapse on any kind of large scale.
Norway, Sweden, Demark, etc. All abide to a code that encourages "3rd Way" (Welfare State). So if we have a welfare state that's doing quite well. We probably can have a socialist state that is doing well too.
I guess that's acceptable but socialism is more about socioeconomic means of production instead of focusing solely on healthcare. I consider the whole "democratic socialism" thing more of a social capitalism.
But not just health care though. Food, water, shelter. You pretty much get everything that everybody else gets. No one gets a golden house while another lives under a bridge, starving.
That's a Welfare State but yes, pretty much!
We hear Socialism as evil and big govnt. Nope! Socialism may have some political tie ins but they only make it stronger.
Now I'm not saying that just because something's primitive means that it's wrong! It's just that socialism and communism are two economic systems that are created to be better than capitalism, to work without all of the things that make capitalism fail. Socialism is fairly new so we don't exactly know how to use it right but with the United States, we might as well just give it a try
Eh, it doesn't promise freedom or no freedom, it's more an economic ideology
Capitalism has you always chasing your material self interests. It places too much importance on what you own, and much less on who you are as a person, especially for those at the bottom, who are expected to work, consume, and not think. The fact that the successful have an enormous influence also has a negative effect on the population, who are constantly pushed around to believe strange, unnatural, and irresponsible things. This sort of complacency gradually takes over other aspects of your life. In the end, no one has any cultural awareness, and we live a sort of nihilistic hedonism. Really bad.
The worst thing is that you can hardly avoid it. You're a teenager in the 21th century? Well, you're probably going to drink more coke than water, and when you leave school, you won't be reading very many books. Oh, yeah, and the entire western musical tradition is absolutely unknown to you, up until the 1960s maybe. By the time you're twenty, the behaviors are so far ingrained it's ...more