What are the Major Advantages and Disadvantages of Socialism?

[Sunstone]

What are the major strengths and weaknesses of Socialism?

 

[Karl R]

Strength:
From an ethical standpoint, socialism ties very well with generosity, compassion, looking out for the well-being of others.
In addition, many goals are far easier to achieve collectively than single-handedly.

Weakness:
I will expend far more effort for my own benefit (or my immediate family's benefit) than for other people's benefit. Just about every person on earth is the same way.

On a practical level:
To a certain point, a certain amount of socialism benefits all of us as individuals. For example, society's collective investment in roads (and other transportation infrastructure) benefits each person as individuals far more than our individual investments into their construction and maintenance. The same applies to to most infrastructure.

But on a practical level, most debate revolves around how much is the "right" amount. (And that's a largely subjective measure.)

 

[SkylarHunter]

From the perspective of someone who lives in France: plenty of people take advantage oh hard working, honest people like me. I work many hours and pay a ridiculous amount of taxes which doesn't leave me with much once I paid all my bills.
At the same time thousands of people who never worked a day in their lives have housing and money given to them every month - that money comes from the taxes people like me pay. These people don't appreciate what they get, they don't care about how much it cost us to provide for them (not that we have a choice) and they believe they are entitled to that easy life.
I agree with providing people with help to get back on their feet when bad things happen but France is an example of abuse of a system that will collapse soon enough.
I agree with Karl R when he said that to a certain point, a certain amount of socialism benefits all of us as individuals, but we need to consider how much is the right amount.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Rewarding the lazy and penalizing the hard working folks is a disincentive to productivity.

Unproductive countries will collapse under their own weight.

 

[Tarheeler]

I think its strength lies in it being an ideology that recognizes and supports the societal bonds between all people. Socialism sees the world and its resources as communal property to used and managed for the benefit of all people, and that each person is entitled to the fruits of their labor. It advocates against the exploitation of resources, land, and people.

And I think its weakness lies in the fact that, like all "radical" (in relation to the status quo) ideologies, it requires a major shift in thinking and motivation. Under capitalism, greed is the primary motivator; we expend our energy and hone our abilities in order to amass wealth, and it is quite possibly the easiest motivator to exploit. Socialism requires a much different from of motivation.

The complaints often seen in regards to socialism are typically with the political structure, which is not inherit within the ideology, rather than socialism itself. A totalitarian regime or a one-party system is going to present the same problems regardless of the economic system it operates in conjunction with.

 

[Revoltingest]

The complaints often seen in regards to socialism are typically with the political structure, which is not inherit within the ideology, rather than socialism itself. A totalitarian regime or a one-party system is going to present the same problems regardless of the economic system it operates in conjunction with.

If we use the primary definition of "socialism" from dictionary.com.....

a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

....then there would be a necessary prohibition of any individuals producing goods outside of the socialist system. To enforce this appears to require an oppressive government, which is what we see in self described socialist states which most closely fit the above definition, eg, N Korea, USSR, old PRC.
Hybrid socialist-capitalist systems can avoid this problem, since people could choose to be part of the welfare state or strike out on their own....or both.

Btw, socialism per se is similar to capitalism in that it doesn't preclude exploitation of people or the environment.

 

[Tarheeler]

We've discussed definitions ad nauseam, Rev, and I really have no inclination to continue it in this thread.

 

[Revoltingest]

We've discussed definitions ad nauseam, Rev, and I really have no inclination to continue it in this thread.

Socialism means different things to different people, which is why I limited my response to the context of a singular standard definition of it. I wasn't challenging yours.

 

[Tarheeler]

Socialism means different things to different people, which is why I limited my response to the context of a singular standard definition of it. I wasn't challenging yours.

Yes, your edits made a significant difference.

I often forget that I need to give ample time after you post before replying to you.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, your edits made a significant difference.

I often forget that I need to give ample time after you post before replying to you.

Yeah....It takes me a few tries to say stuff.
But ultimately I'm less annoying this way.

 

[gzusfrk]

well,, water is not 2.99 a gallon

 

[Monk Of Reason]

What are the major strengths and weaknesses of Socialism?

1) effective system of assisting those in need (or at least can be)
2) Socially responsible

1) Total socialism (or in effect communism) reduces incentives and therefore productivty
2) total socialism (or in effect communism) reduces individual rights.

Overall socialism is a good thing but total socialism is a bad system. The great thing about socialism is that it can be reduced to specific policies rather than the basis for a form of government. Socialized school, roads, medicine and water resources have worked out to make great advantages for society. However capitalism has assisted greatly in the private sector and our way of life. Having social programs to give people the tools they need in life to participate on a level (ish) field on the regulated capital playground will give us the best shot.

 

[Quintessence]

Why is reduced productivity bad? A primary driver of the current and pending environmental catastrophes is excessive fixation on productivity, as production means conversion (and destruction) of resources into something else. Along with human overpopulation, consumption and affluence, both of which are related to productivity, are the major forces that are going to lead to the collapse of modern civilization if we don't temper it.

Not to mention that reduced productivity means more time for things that are, well, actually important. It means you're not running around like a madperson all the time and instead enjoying the emotional color and richness of existing.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Why is reduced productivity bad? A primary driver of the current and pending environmental catastrophes is excessive fixation on productivity, as production means conversion (and destruction) of resources into something else. Along with human overpopulation, consumption and affluence, both of which are related to productivity, are the major forces that are going to lead to the collapse of modern civilization if we don't temper it.

Not to mention that reduced productivity means more time for things that are, well, actually important. It means you're not running around like a madperson all the time and instead enjoying the emotional color and richness of existing.

Productivity isn't necessarily a bad thing. For example if we have a Farmer who wants to take his grain to market. In a purely capitalistic situation he may have zero taxes and zero things regulating his ability to make his grain.

So in a "free market" he could have slaves work for free and he could hypothetically make an enormous amount of food to feed everyone in his village. However there are moral implications as to why this should not be.

A pure socialistic or communistic system would mean a man would work on a farm owned by the government. He gets his paycheck and rations the same as if he worked hard or if he didn't work hard. There is no reason to wake up at the crack of dawn and get everything done because he doesn't have the motivation to do so. So in turn he gets up around 9 am. Gets to work by 11. works till 6pm and gets his "quota" done. Goes home and lives his life the way he would have if he had worked hard.

Now lets look at the between phase. A regulated capitalistic system. with responsible amounts of socialism. The farmer still owns his farm. His workers are paid a fair wage which costs him more than slaves but not enough to make him loose profit. He pays his taxes so 3 out of every 10 barrels of grain he gets after he pays for his expenses goes to the governing body and given to people who need it. If any of his workers get injured or he himself gets sick he gets care paid for by him and everyone else that pitches in a % of their earnings to pay for it.

Now he has to work hard and he doesn't get all of his profit but a much higher amount than if he didn't do anything and his productivity allows for greater nutrition in the community.


Now we can look at this idea that we shouldn't be as productive as we are now. I can only assume you mean the idea of effectively destroying natural reserves of resources that would cause destruction of environmental habitats. This is a concern. Which is why WELL REGULATED capitalistic systems would have an effective means of not only limiting reversing these damages while seeking to find "green' ways of doing things.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Advantages
People's basic needs are met and guaranteed.
More people have more power that is widely distributed rather than highly concentrated within a few

Disadvantages
It does not address raping, pillaging, plundering, and razing the earth.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

A pure socialistic or communistic system would mean a man would work on a farm owned by the government. He gets his paycheck and rations the same as if he worked hard or if he didn't work hard. There is no reason to wake up at the crack of dawn and get everything done because he doesn't have the motivation to do so. So in turn he gets up around 9 am. Gets to work by 11. works till 6pm and gets his "quota" done. Goes home and lives his life the way he would have if he had worked hard.

Under pure Communism (not to be confused with the "communism" of Stalin, China, N. Korea, etc.), the farm is not owned by the government but by the proletariat, who also hold most of the power in society. Also, the farm would be farmed by people who want to farm. This individual who does not want to work hard farming would have the opportunity to find work she finds gainful and fulfilling. It would be partly farmed by people who would farm one year, do something else the next, and then farm again later on.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why is reduced productivity bad? A primary driver of the current and pending environmental catastrophes is excessive fixation on productivity, as production means conversion (and destruction) of resources into something else. Along with human overpopulation, consumption and affluence, both of which are related to productivity, are the major forces that are going to lead to the collapse of modern civilization if we don't temper it.

Not to mention that reduced productivity means more time for things that are, well, actually important. It means you're not running around like a madperson all the time and instead enjoying the emotional color and richness of existing.

I look at productivity this way...it's about what can be done with a given amount & labor. Example: I've dealt with people who don't use software based accounting. They will invest hours to do functions which I can do in seconds. (I've seen it happen.) This makes my services cheaper, & I have more time for other things. Whether I use this time for pleasure or more work is a personal choice. Lately, I focus on doing less work.
I'd

Note also that environmental degradation is more about a society's choices than a fundamental result of the economic system. A socialist country can choose catastrophes & a capitalistic one can choose environmentalism. (I favor the latter...for libertarian & personal reasons.)

 

[freethinker44]

Rewarding the lazy and penalizing the hard working folks is a disincentive to productivity.

I agree. Why should some lazy CEO be allowed to sit in his office and collect the profits the workers produce. We should cut off these parasites and give the rewards to the producers.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I agree. Why should some lazy CEO be allowed to sit in his office and collect the profits the workers produce. We should cut off these parasites and give the rewards to the producers.

There is definitely a trend of people focusing too much on what is really a very small percentage of the population. Sure, some people are lazy. But how many people are content being bottom feeders? And why should what would be easily over 90% of the population suffer because 1 or 2% of the population is lazy? Under that thinking, we may as well ban just about everything because there will always be a few people who abuse a product and use it in destructive ways, such as all the common household items that are used for making bombs.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Under pure Communism (not to be confused with the "communism" of Stalin, China, N. Korea, etc.), the farm is not owned by the government but by the proletariat, who also hold most of the power in society. Also, the farm would be farmed by people who want to farm. This individual who does not want to work hard farming would have the opportunity to find work she finds gainful and fulfilling. It would be partly farmed by people who would farm one year, do something else the next, and then farm again later on.

That would be a specific interpretation of communism. If you wish to name it something other than generalized communism (which is a concept rather than a specific form of government) then we can discuss that. Though idealistic communism is not possible in many reguards.