Socialism Is Ethically Wrong

Well, it is natural for you Mammon-worshippers to go against what the Early Church took for granted, of course, but for the non-brainwashed it is obvious that socialism (democratic control of the economy) works brilliantly till the murder-gangs come round to stop it, like your beloved Fuhrer..

 

The Utopia thing is a leftover from the 19th Century, it was tried in Britain and other countries in the British Empire (in the 19th Century quite a number of Australians tried to set up utopian settlements in other countries - Paraguay comes to mind - but they didn't work out) and generally failed for various reasons. Marx was dismissive of utopian theorists because they were dreamers and not realists like him and Engels, the utopians couldn't understand why things were the way they were and hoped to build anew, they failed to appreciate the analysis that Marx and Engels had made.

Interesting that you mention the War ("don't mention the War Basil!"). One of the outcomes for Britain in the aftermath, along with all the terrible stuff, was the change to the old order. People don't understand that before the Second World War it was very common for most Brits to not get enough to eat. The toffs did okay, the ordinary person was not far away from starving a lot of the time. During the War when rationing was imposed (and not lifted until 1954) it meant that ordinary folk were able to eat better than before because food was rationed. Sounds a bit counter-intuitive but essentially the production and distribution of food was by a centralised authority. Okay the toffs could buy on the black market but it was risky for them, but at least ordinary people could get enough to eat. The health of the population improved (except when they were being bombed) and kept improving after the War because of rationing and the fact that food was plain and wholesome. As we know the Brits voted in the Attlee Labour government which was avowedly socialist (Britain needs another Attlee and Nye Bevan) and society was reconstructed, but fortunately it wasn't reproduced as it was before the War.

 

Exploiting? It isn't me who is trying to steal their labor to pay for the government distribution programs I want.

 

Are you a capitalist? They and their governments steal everything they can get away with without starving us all to death, as you know. They sometimes give a dime back to the poor for every million dollars stolen: dreadful oppression! You can hear their screams on the Moon!

 

I suppose it is natural for someone to confuse believers huddled together with a nation. Socialism has never worked and never will. Try as you might you and yours will remain on the wrong, tyrannical side of history. It is who you are.

 

Of course socialism has worked, I just mentioned a successful example with the Attlee government in post-War Britain.

 

Everybody but the right knows socialism works simply because the right keeps complaining the least wealthy are not poor enough because of it.

 

Pure socialism doesn't seem to work, at least economically.

On the other hand, the happiest and healthiest countries in the world are all more socialist than the US.

I guess they found the right degree of socialism.

 

You have several systematic problems with your theory, but rather than discuss each one... like your need to extort people to stay in your system ... I think it's a rather moot point. The real problem is that you're an idealist. Your ideas, much like communism, only work in a utopian fairy tail but when you try to implement them they fail because they require everyone to be dedicated to the cause (which is an impossibility). You see, much like communism, you're attempting to impose your morality upon other people and that will never work (except in small populations). Whereas socialism and your theories attempt to regulate out basic human emotions that you deem to be unacceptable... Capitalism takes those attributes and uses them to its (and society's) advantage. For instance... in your eyes greed is a bad thing, so you attempt to regulate it out, which is an impossibility. Capitalism doesn't make a value judgment. It simply uses greed to improve the situation of all. Capitalism says, you want to make more money than anybody else in your industry then you need to provide the best product for the consumer at the best price, more efficiently etc etc. This is beneficial for the consumer and the producer.

No offense, but I wouldn't be even remotely comfortable allowing you or the rest of the "elite" to have control of the purse strings (much less our freedoms) when the inevitable occurs and the capitalist entities start dominating the competition. The consequences for both our resources and our freedoms would be dire.

Your assertion just doesn't jive with reality. Ignoring the fact that you have FAR less choices in the type of socialist system you're referring to because of the lack of an incentive for innovation and research... How much are you talking about providing for these people to receive without working at all? Because our poor population (read those on welfare and programs like it) live comparable lives now to people who have low paying jobs. They are provided with, what the rest of the world considers, very good income and live a lifestyle that's far and away better than the vast majority of country's out there. Not to mention, they've already shown that given the choice between working 8 hours a day and getting $8-$10 per hour, they would much rather not work at all and pull in somewhere between $7 -$9 per hour. I think your assessment of the individual would have been true, 200, 100, 50 heck even 20 years ago... but now not so much. The lower dregs of society have shown a pervasive entitlement mentality and your system and your way of thinking would only further that.

And I lack the same measure of faith that you have in the socialist elite deciding those things for us. History has shown time and again that the people are more than capable of governing themselves and they don't need an elite class to tell them how to live. As, or more, important is the fact that your system would require the socialist elite, who would make our important decisions for us, would have our best interests in mind and not theirs. The history of humanity has shown this simply will never be the case. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. As soon as someone gets into a position of power who has his own interests in mind, he will start to consolidate power to himself rather than helping the people. Of course, like Obama, he will not appear to have his own interests in mind. He will appear to be helping "the people" when in reality, behind the scenes, he's consolidating power unto himself until it's too late to stop him.

No offense, but it's not worth that risk just so that you can claim YOUR moral high ground. Capitalism does not have this problem because it does not rely on an elite class to make their decisions for them. It also does not require government intervention to sustain itself which makes it much less likely to be invasive upon the rights of those who disagree with them.

Correct... The difference being that I do not believe I have the right to impose my moral constructs upon other people. Whereas you believe that you do because you think your morality is superior to others. Hence why I believe in a system where people govern themselves and you believe in a system where you govern others. And you're going to say that you don't think you have the right to impose that upon others... your words say one thing... your ideology about the type of governmental and economic system we should take part in says something completely different.

The Founders may have been from a different time but their precepts are timeless. Some of these include:
The proper role of government is to protect equal rights, not equal things.
Men are endowed by God (not government) with certain unalienable rights. The government's role is not to provide rights... governments role is to PROTECT your rights.
The right to govern is vested in the sovereign authority of the people.
The majority of the people may alter or abolish a government which has become tyrannical.
Life and liberty are secure only so long as the rights of property are secure.
The highest level of prosperity occurs when there is a free-market economy and a minimum of government regulations.
Only limited and carefully defined powers should be delegated to government, all others being retained by the people.
The burden of governmental debt is as destructive to human freedom as is subjugation by conquest.

These principles have always been and will always be true.

And I applaud you for this. Very few socialists or liberals would espouse this line of thinking. That being said... I'm sure you might do a wonderful job and have everybody's best interests in mind and perhaps living under the rule of someone like yourself may not be entirely horrible. However, I do not trust that everyone who would follow in your footsteps would be the same way and that is the assumption I would have to make to subjugate myself under that type of government. I would expect someone as intelligent as yourself would understand that danger.

 

You mean taxes? Yes, but that is the socialist part. Otherwise they don't steal your money, they advertise and run sales to get you in the door.

 

And as proven by factual history, all have failed miserably within Marxist Socialist spheres of influence. Repeating failed ideologies is like hitting oneself in the head with a hammer trying to make the pain stop.

 

I believe those views of socialism are obsolete in modern times, simply because we now know that socialism is merely an evolution from capitalism and a requirement for States and statism to exist.

 

Some socialism is needed in a society of the type we are a part of. Anyone who who claims otherwise, isn't looking as reasonably as they should at things overall.

 

Yes, one of the ordinary human race, ranged against its squalid, murderous exploiters. Socialism is the only possible future: Your gang will destroy the world, as you know.

 

Who does the work, kiddo? That thing under your hair is not a dead slug, you know. Use it.

 

What corporation gets your money by force, except through taxation and government spending?

 

The one you work for, obviously. Why do you ask?

 

Can't think of a name huh? Keeping supporting the expansion of government who does take your money by force and spends it as it sees fit. Work for them my bee, if you fail to contribute to the hive we will come for you.

 

What on earth are you talking about? Socialism is about the elimination of your capitalists' government, as you must surely know, even in your bosses' dictatorship? Surely you must? Surely? I expect someone, somewhere, has whispered in your ear, 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need'? No? Well, you will have heard of Senator McCarthy, at least, your liberator from thought, sense, courage and decency? But surely you must have?.... Oh well. God bless Amerika!

 

So, in your world, how do I get a pizza, who owns the pizza shop, if they dont get enough business do they go under, and who sets wages and prices? If a private answer to each, what tax rate should the pizza shop owner pay (lets assume they are rich), and what % should the middle class manager pay, and what % should the "poor" dishwasher kid pay?

 

I am living under capitalism. Under socialism work is for the common benefit, people do what they think is useful, and there are no wages or prices. Don't they let you know even that much in the Land of the Free? Poor benighted buggers!

 

So, I can stay at home all day, and I still get pizza? Who works there for me, instead of staying at home all day like I do? Do I get everything else too? House, medical care, transportation, some co-op garden land, hookah smoke? How does this work, what am I allowed to have, but I don't plan on doing any work mind you.

 

I don't mind conceptualizing a hypothetical StateTopia and a paradigm that merely claims, socialism is only an evolution from capitalism in our more modern times.

Let's even assume the US model of government in this hypothetical that States' rights are also secured by the general government.

Our republican form of government acknowledges and secures rights in private property in our republic.

What we are left with then, is a duopoly of a private sector and a public sector for the purposes our hypothetical.

In this case, the pizza shop would be typically owned by a private person in the private sector.​

Regarding a minimum wage, let's assume that a form of minimum wage exists, but that merely subsidizes the least efficient labor market participants for the equivalent to that rock bottom cost no not provide labor input to the economy; but, that happens to also clear our poverty guidelines for our republic.

Thus, an employer would be competing with a minimum wage instead of having to comply with laws regarding a minimum wage. Cost savings could be realized to the extent gains can be realized from reduced public sector intervention in private sector markets regarding minimum wages.​

In this scenario, I don't mind exploring the concept of only artificial persons being burdened with taxes on incomes whenever our federal Congress cannot justify wartime tax rates. Simply because a true welfare-State doesn't need to burden the populace with direct taxation for real persons, unlike a warfare-State.

 

That is one way to look at it. Mine is that I am offering two contracts - sign one or reject both. Voters would have to think fondly enough of such a proposition to elect folk like me into office in sufficient numbers to extensively amend or outright replace the U.S. Constitution.

I have a moral compass that I do not ignore when it comes to political matters, aye, but am neither dogmatic nor closed-minded in how I go about making up my mind on public policy. My ideology has changed before, I shift stances on controversial issues when presented by arguments compellingly superior to mine, and pragmatically seek the most excellent methods for achieving my goals. Incidentally, I'm in competition against Marxists of varied tendencies and social democrats for influence over the future of socialism.

The Utopian label does not make sense to me either, with all due respect. I regard people as selfish, biased, and in possession of imperfect knowledge, reasoning, and intelligence. They - including elites mind you - cannot be trusted with considerable, consolidated power without greatly endangering the welfare of others. Furthermore, I do not think we will (or should even try to) achieve complete equality of actionable freedom, social status, money, possession of capital, or productive output as human beings. If not for my concern for economic and inter-generational rights and freedoms I would probably reject socialism and be a classical liberal.

Everyone in politics tries to impose their morality upon other people. You are right that it will never work entirely, but there is no alternative to such coercion of the community via the law unless you prefer other forms of coercion amongst people under anarchy. Every freedom upheld implies the suppression of others. Every right acknowledged and respected implicitly deprives people of others. Some think policy-making is strictly rational. It is not. Without the input of moral values to set meaningful goals one cannot develop a coherent political agenda.

Not being a believer in natural rights or the traditional ways advocated by communitarians, I look to my own subjective moral convictions for guidance on what should be the role of state.

In my eyes greed is an excess of ambition - a vice. Ambition itself is a virtue so far as I am concerned, and one people are better off for having. My theories attempt to reestablish that the freedom of one individual should end where its exercise does harm to another. It just so happens that I perceive the individual's freedom and the forms harm takes in broader terms than the classical liberal. I am otherwise determined to reap the full benefits of an economic order in which self-interest is harnessed for the good of individuals and society alike.

Not inherently, aye. Capitalism, like socialism, is a tool. The value judgement comes from those who wield the tool. What task do you think the tool of capitalism should be applied to? What is the goal of that task, and why should that goal be preferred over others? If you can, please answer without expressing anything that needs grounding on a point of moral belief.

I agree but markets and competition are not reserved for capitalism, alone. Ours is instead a disagreement over which rights people ought to have and who ought to own and control what. We are both advocates of a mostly free, market economy... well, unless you happen to be an an-cap, in which case you would be an advocate for an entirely free market economy under some interpretations of the word "free."

And thus I feel as well, but toward libertarians, conservatives, social liberals, Christian democrats, theocrats, social democrats, fascists, socialists of Marxist tendencies, etc. Election results are what they are, on the other hand, and I respect them provided the people are not being denied peaceful means of bringing about changes to government.

It is fine for you to not feel comfortable about my intentions. For a variety of reasons I do not fully trust any social group - whether elites or not - and want to encourage folk to question all forms of authority. I do not seek to impose my views on any populace that has yet to consent.

Do you have in mind a critique of how cooperatives function compared to corporations and partnerships? Or is there something else limiting the range of choices? Could you please elaborate?

Each republic would have guidelines on where to set benefit levels. In my community, to use an example, it would be adequate to allot $7,500/yr to each adult (equivalent to $3.61/hr. in a full time job). Shelter, food, and water are thus affordable but not luxuries such as cars, cell phones, television, high-speed internet, magazines, drug habits, fashionable clothes, and so forth unless one opts to either work, or find ways to cut corners on food expenses and rent. It would be survivable and dignified if one behaves responsibly while unemployed.

Others would receive the same tax-free basic income in addition to their earnings from work.

Perhaps you are right. Personally, I reckon most of those who are not back to work in less than twelve months are disabled, mentally ill or caught up with substance abuse issues in need of treatment, are single parents struggling to find ways to juggle provision of adequate childcare with sufficient work, or workers whose skills and qualifications are poorly matched to what is in demand. There are certainly folk out there who are just lazy I suppose, but out of the many, many poor folk I know only one deliberately avoids employment, and he would almost surely change to finance his hobbies if cut loose by his ceaselessly enabling parents.

Maybe it is different in larger cities, in other parts of the U.S., or it might just be happening under my nose in parts of the community totally separate from those I interact with. Dunno.

This mentality is present in all classes, not just among the poor. I would prefer parents do more to guide their children down paths of development toward productivity and success. Otherwise, if the model I present seems bound to fail because of cultural incompatibilities, results-oriented folk should vote in advocates of a different system.

So far as I can tell the scheme I have would reduce the incentive for one to be unemployed for the first two years but then raise the deterrence from work henceforth for the minority of recipients who stay on the take longer, if compared to the liberal welfare / workfare regime.

I do not demand anyone have faith in such elites. Elect them if their convictions, goals, and values are consistent with yours and you would like for them to translate those interests into public policy, or do not.

As for the intent of leaders, I do not claim socialist politicians would be less flawed than the representatives we have today. Voters should stay vigilant, well informed, and hold leaders accountable.

And this is why I am a liberal. I believe in limited government, constitutional republicanism, separation of powers, checks and balances, representative democracy, the social contract and need for consent of the governed, the core objective of state being to uphold individual rights, and the sovereignty of the People - not their state or leader.

That is no more true of the form of government I propose than the one in place today or that in place back in the 1780s. It is a threat presented by people outside of government, as well, and is inescapable. The masses have to take charge of their own destiny or elites will gladly fill in the power vacuum and do it for them.

Honestly, I am not sure about that. Economic elites have a heavy hand in economic planning in both capitalism and socialism. All economies are planned. It is just a matter of who does it, how it is done, and how concentrated is the decision-making authority. I am not proposing a state led or centrally-planned economy.

I do not believe any system of morality is objectively superior or inferior to any other. What I do is support courses of political action compatible with my moral views, and would like for all other people to do the same so that those who prevail represent something of a political equilibrium that is representative of the masses. Aside from that, and with respect, the argument quoted above could be turned around in its entirety and made by a socialist against a capitalist (though to be fair, I would sincerely disagree in both instances).

And this is how we differ as right and left liberals on the philosophical fundamentals, subtlety. In my case, I'd say:

• Our rights come from, are fabricated by, and are for the benefit of the People.
• Government's role is to mediate interpersonal conflicts of interest by recognizing and protecting those rights.
• The legitimacy of state is based on consent of the People, who are sovereign.
• The People may engage in revolutionary or otherwise subversive action against an authoritarian regime.
• Freedom is secure only so long as the rights necessary to pursue the good life are secure.
• The highest level of happiness occurs when the rights of the People are compatible with their moral values.
• Only powers necessary for the upkeep of the People's rights should be delegated by them to the state.
• Government debt is a form of harm and injustice inflicted upon future generations, and should be avoided.

And neither would I. Hell, I don’t even want to be the person who implements the model, for lack of interest in power and the day-to-day shenanigans of politicians - people would basically have to draft me to run on their behalf. Hypothetically though, I would author a constitution almost exclusively with the theories of liberal thinkers in mind.

 

I don't know if it's ignorance or mischief that causes posters to misrepresent socialism. An erroneous view is that somehow socialism means work-shy people can sit on their arses while workers provide for them. No, that's capitalism. In a socialist economy work is available for all who want it and those who don't want it will find that life is not as comfortable as it could be if they worked. In a socialist economy that is not state capitalism or bureaucratic socialism (both evident in the former USSR) there is no abolition of the right to property. While the means of production, distribution and exchanged are not privately owned but socially owned that does not preclude small business or the intelligent use of market forces or allowing an individual to do better for themselves.

And just on the question of ethics, as the thread is looking at the ethics of socialism, remember Marx never criticised capitalism on moral grounds, he criticised it as a mechanism and pointed out its faults and predicted its eventual downfall due to its own inherent problems. Criticising socialism on ethical grounds is pointless, best to keep it practical.