WHY is socialism (or communism) bad for a country?

Little-Acorn

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
2,444
Location
San Diego, CA
(Adapted from an earlier thread. The "Hows" and "Whys" deserve their own examination.)

--------------------------------------------------

Socialism and communism are not identical, but the differences between them are far less important than the similarities.

Both feature schemes where a central government (which isn't in communist plans but is always brought in when someone actually tries to run a communist government) judges how much people should be paid. The pay is usually based on what the govt decides they need rather than by how much they contributed.

This results in workers realizing after a few years, that working harder won't benefit them much. Some work harder anyway, others decide to slack off and/or spend more time with family etc. Then as time goes on, the harder workers see the others' example, and while most keep working hard, a few more slack off. They cycle keeps repeating with a few more reducing their effort, then later a few more etc.

Socialist or communist societies usually wind up deteriorating, because there is little incentive to work hard, aside from personal work ethics. And even those with good ethics, tend to deteriorate over a long period of time, for similar reasons.

The long, concentrated periods of difficult work, effort, and sacrifice that advance a society, come more and more from only the diminishing number who maintain their hard-work ethic and loyalty in the face of increasing indifference and lack of material reward. While those people are rightly regarded as heros or pillars, there is far less incentive to do what they do, in socialistic or communist societies. The incentive is greater in free-market societies where people can work for the chance of great rewards in addition to great moral satisfaction.

So socialistic or communistic societies invaribly lose, in competition with free-market societies. For that reason, they abhor competition, and often expend great effort to crush it or isolate themselves from it... only to lose even more from its lack.

American congressmen and other political animals, often lost track of their real jobs - protecting people's rights and defending them against theft, fraud, and coercion. And they take the easier road of getting re-elected by taking things from small numbers of the more affluent, and giving them away to larger number of the less affluent.

As this scheme gets enacted into law, it quickly deteriorates to a pattern similar to what I said above: deciding what pay people get based on what they "need" rather than what they earn. In some countries, this is done by making the government, the official employer. In others (such as the U.S.), it's done by letting the government take money out of people paychecks (with far more taken from those who earn a lot), and simultaneoulsy set up programs to pay out to those who earn less. The result is the same: Government decides who gets paid how much, usually according to what they "need" rather than what they earn.

The politicians who set this up, often didn't intend to implement socialism. But what they wind up with, isn't much different from it. More importantly, the ultimate results are no different, either.
 
Werbung:
Socialsim or communism are both contrary in a fundamental way to our constitutional rights. Evry step towar socialism is a step away from rights.
 
Why are they bad for a country? Because any system that forces one individual to perform uncompensated labor for the benefit of another individual is immoral and therefore doomed to fail.
 
Most people pushing socialism (or communism) seem to use the "argument" that the socialistic characteristics of whatever government we are examining, aren't PURE socialism.

As if that mattered a tinker's damn.

The point of the OP is that governments that try to dictate how much people are paid (or how much they keep) acccording to what govt thinks they need, rather than what they would earn in a free market, is:

(a) Socialistic, and
(b) Unfair and dangerously debilitating to the entire economy.

In fact, such schemes have usually resulted in widespread, massive poverty, starvation, and even riots and mass murders by government upon their people. Whether they are called "socialist", "communist", or "progressive".

The fact that it wasn't somehow "pure" is irrelevant to the point of astonishment. The big-government pushers must really be scraping the bottom of the barrel if that's the argument they feel is best.
 
Most people pushing socialism (or communism) seem to use the "argument" that the socialistic characteristics of whatever government we are examining, aren't PURE socialism.

As if that mattered a tinker's damn.

The point of the OP is that governments that try to dictate how much people are paid (or how much they keep) acccording to what govt thinks they need, rather than what they would earn in a free market, is:

(a) Socialistic, and
(b) Unfair and dangerously debilitating to the entire economy.

In fact, such schemes have usually resulted in widespread, massive poverty, starvation, and even riots and mass murders by government upon their people. Whether they are called "socialist", "communist", or "progressive".

The fact that it wasn't somehow "pure" is irrelevant to the point of astonishment. The big-government pushers must really be scraping the bottom of the barrel if that's the argument they feel is best.


the lack of so-called purity is a direct result of trying to force an un natural scheme upon people. its also why tyranical power is a result. only those removed from reality and lost in navel gazing mode can fail to see these predictable outcomes.
 
Well Capitolism isnt fair. Bill OReilly said this about Capitalism

If you make the right decisions..Obey the law,Stay in School,Get an Education chances are youre gonna be rich. But capitalism can be brutal,, If you make the wrong decisions,Drop out of school,Disobey the laws and socialize with the wrong crowd chances are youre gonna be poor.

Now with that said you wonder why the Middle class and inner city people want socialism. Socialism benefits the middle class and the poor. The rich people are the ones who enjoy freedom because they have a finer lifestyle they can spend money enjoy vacations going out to events and buying homes and cars. Middle class,The poor and ordinary people have to work an hard job,pay taxes and bills and have very little money leftover because of being on a budget. The rich dont have to manage the budgets because they dont have to pay a tight morgage, Cay Payments,Taxes and bills. When Socialism takes care of everybody without worrying where their next meal is comming from. . Middle class,The poor and ordinary people have to hold down a job and hope they dont get fired or laid off,,But the very rich dont have to worry about getting fired,Laid off and thery can do what they damn well please. Thats why most people want america become socialist nation and why they all voted for Obama and the Democrats.


Thats the Truth
 
Well Capitolism isnt fair. Bill OReilly said this about Capitalism



Now with that said you wonder why the Middle class and inner city people want socialism. Socialism benefits the middle class and the poor. The rich people are the ones who enjoy freedom because they have a finer lifestyle they can spend money enjoy vacations going out to events and buying homes and cars. Middle class,The poor and ordinary people have to work an hard job,pay taxes and bills and have very little money leftover because of being on a budget. The rich dont have to manage the budgets because they dont have to pay a tight morgage, Cay Payments,Taxes and bills. When Socialism takes care of everybody without worrying where their next meal is comming from. . Middle class,The poor and ordinary people have to hold down a job and hope they dont get fired or laid off,,But the very rich dont have to worry about getting fired,Laid off and thery can do what they damn well please. Thats why most people want america become socialist nation and why they all voted for Obama and the Democrats.


Thats the Truth

just one problem Seve, Mrs Thatcher describes it...

Margaret Thatcher, in a TV interview for Thames TV This Week [[1]]on Feb. 5, 1976, Prime Minister Thatcher said, "...and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."
 
It continually surprises the pushers of socialism, that removing most of the incentive to work hard, results in a less prosperous society. And one that copes more poorly with natural disasters or natural competition.

And the pushers' reaction - that they keep trying it anyway - continually surprises more normal people.

Isn't it time we stop being surprised?
 
Werbung:
Back
Top