What is wrong with Socialism, or Marxism?

[Estro Felino]

I would like to ask all the staunchest defenders of Laissez-faire and neo-liberism, why they think socialism is a bad idea.
But also defenders of Socialism and Marxism can express their take and strengthen or correct the OP.

Also from a spiritual point of view.
I think that we live in a over-exploited world. And Capitalism has pushed people to over-exploit the planet, so we need to re-think of ourselves as co-workers of social justice.
And not makers of inequality and injustice.

This ephemeral life is meaningless if it's all dedicated to over-exploitation of resources, which is fomented by greed.

Thank yous for your answers

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Nothing's wrong with socialism.

I think sometimes, some of us, including myself at times, may misunderstand what socialism truly is and what it entails.

 

[Estro Felino]

Nothing's wrong with socialism.

I think sometimes, some of us, including myself at times, may misunderstand what socialism truly is and what it entails.

Socialism protects private property and free enterprise.
The difference is that the State tries to guarantee social justice, by creating the conditions so everyone has the opportunity to work the job of their dreams, to have a permanent job (no sudden and unjust dismissals) and to live easier lives, thanks to more responsibility and less egoistical needs.

the State is like your step-daddy that protects you from bullies and bossy people and makes you feel safe.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I would like to ask all the staunchest defenders of Laissez-faire and neo-liberism, why they think socialism is a bad idea.
But also defenders of Socialism and Marxism can express their take and strengthen or correct the OP.

Also from a spiritual point of view.
I think that we live in a over-exploited world. And Capitalism has pushed people to over-exploit the planet, so we need to re-think of ourselves as co-workers of social justice.
And not makers of inequality and injustice.

This ephemeral life is meaningless if it's all dedicated to over-exploitation of resources, which is fomented by greed.

Thank yous for your answers

It's where those systems inevitably lead at the end.

Totalitarian society.

 

[Estro Felino]

It's where those systems inevitably lead at the end.

Totalitarian society.

Socialist Iceland seems perfectly fine to me.


Totalitarianism is actually a necessity, since it's necessary that a State punishes bossy people...those who want to exploit other people.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Nothing's wrong with socialism.

I think sometimes, some of us, including myself at times, may misunderstand what socialism truly is and what it entails.

I can see some socialist systems in government ,but not when government itself becomes a socialist system.

 

[sun rise]

It's where those systems inevitably lead at the end.

Totalitarian society.

What kind of socialism. Too often those who don't like a certain kind use an overly broad brush to try to make their dislike for all kinds. Authoritarian versions either fail (USSR) or are in danger of failing like China. There are market based, politically free versions as reasonable today but I'm also in favor of co-ops and ESOPs (employee stock ownership)

 

[Estro Felino]

What kind of socialism. Too often those who don't like a certain kind use an overly broad brush to try to make their dislike for all kinds. Authoritarian versions either fail (USSR) or are in danger of failing like China. There are market based, politically free versions as reasonable today but I'm also in favor of co-ops and ESOPs (employee stock ownership)

View attachment 82592

Utopian Socialism is absolutely doable; we only need to implement the co-operative credit.
That is, bank owned by co-operatives which are not joint-stock companies.

 

[Left Coast]

Socialism protects private property and free enterprise.

It literally doesn't. That's what capitalism does. Most modern economies that have socialistic elements still retain capitalistic elements of private property and some free enterprise.

 

[Estro Felino]

It literally doesn't. That's what capitalism does. Most modern economies that have socialistic elements still retain capitalistic elements of private property and some free enterprise.

Private property does exist in Communist China, for example.

Socialism is very, very soft Marxism.

The Socialist State gives you free economic enterprise, but not at cost of your neighbor's poverty.

Unbridled capitalism enables insatiable and greedy capitalists to phagocytize all the resources and properties within an economic system. That's egoistic, selfish and destructive: social justice is achieved when a State controls the economic system, so that the wealthy don't take it all.

By the way; you didn't answer the OP question.

 

[sun rise]

Private property does exist in Communist China, for example.

In China, if you do something that party does not like which is a very large number of things, you are a lot of trouble. Just remember what happened to a large set of businesses tutoring kids when the party outlawed that.

 

[Estro Felino]

In China, if you do something that party does not like which is a very large number of things, you are a lot of trouble. Just remember what happened to a large set of businesses tutoring kids when the party outlawed that.

Because they have the sense of "the good of the nation" or "the common good" in a very radical, extremist way.

Which I don't condone.

I am for fundamental freedoms, but not at cost of social inequalities. That is, some banking dynasties own the 90% of the lands in the US, while certain people own nothing.
I won't respect that, I am sorry.

 

[sun rise]

Because they have the sense of "the good of the nation" or "the common good" in a very radical, extremist way.

Which I don't condone.

I am for fundamental freedoms, but not at cost of social inequalities. That is, some banking dynasties own the 90% of the lands in the US, while certain people own nothing.
I won't respect that, I am sorry.

I agree with you about the pernicious inequality that exists not only in the US but in many other nations. That needs to be addressed but in a way that avoid the classic "the chief cause of problems is solutions"

 

[Estro Felino]

I agree with you about the pernicious inequality that exists not only in the US but in many other nations. That needs to be addressed but in a way that avoid the classic "the chief cause of problems is solutions"

As a Christian, I already have my reward. That is, that those who cause inequalities and suffering because of infinite greed, will go to Hell.

That's what my catechist taught me at Sunday school.

But a nun once said: may justice be done not only in the kingdom of Heaven. That is why I want justice to be achieved, by guaranteeing a fairer society, where people fight and work hard and obtain something.

 

[lukethethird]

I can see some socialist systems in government ,but not when government itself becomes a socialist system.

What do you think big business bailouts are, and when taxpayers pay for the development of vaccines? That's socialism, when moderna profits, that's capitalism.

 

[ChristineM]

What is wrong with Socialism, or Marxism?​

Nothing, it's the far right intolerance, fear, pointing and shouting evil that gives them a bad name

 

[Left Coast]

Private property does exist in Communist China, for example.

Communist China has permitted some capitalist enterprise in recent years.

Also, to be clear, personal property =/= private property.

Socialism is very, very soft Marxism.

This gets into semantics. Modern "socialism," as understood by many of its detractors and proponents, is not socialism as envisioned by Marx. Many people think modern mixed market economies are "socialism." They are not. They are capitalist economies with socialistic elements.

The Socialist State gives you free economic enterprise, but not at cost of your neighbor's poverty.

No, again, it literally doesn't. Modern mixed market economies like you have in Europe do, though.

Unbridled capitalism enables insatiable and greedy capitalists to phagocytize all the resources and properties within an economic system. That's egoistic, selfish and destructive: social justice is achieved when a State controls the economic system, so that the wealthy don't take it all.

Nobody wants "unbridled capitalism." Like literally, nobody other than some 19 year old internet anarchocapitalist neckbeards want that.

By the way; you didn't answer the OP question.

Your OP contained assumptions that merited correcting for the question to make sense.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I would like to ask all the staunchest defenders of Laissez-faire and neo-liberism, why they think socialism is a bad idea.
But also defenders of Socialism and Marxism can express their take and strengthen or correct the OP.

Also from a spiritual point of view.
I think that we live in a over-exploited world. And Capitalism has pushed people to over-exploit the planet, so we need to re-think of ourselves as co-workers of social justice.
And not makers of inequality and injustice.

This ephemeral life is meaningless if it's all dedicated to over-exploitation of resources, which is fomented by greed.

Thank yous for your answers

Some forms of socialism are workable, I suppose. But classical Marxism and especially Marxism-Leninism are total failures both in theory and practice. That needs to be left in the bloody dustbin of history.

I am not a Laissez-faire capitalist, either. My views are more what you would call Third Position.

 

[sun rise]

I just saw this on Bored Panda and it fits here because it's about wealth inequality

Worker Puts Millionaire CEO On Blast After He Laughs At Employee For Not Having $200 To Spare ​

According to World Population Review, the African countries of South Africa, Namibia, and Suriname boast the largest wealth inequality, with the Gini coefficient of 63.0%, 59.1%, and 57.9% respectively. In the list of ten countries with the worst wealth gap, they are followed by several other African countries and Brazil (53.4%). Slovenia is reportedly the country dealing with wealth inequality the best, featuring a Gigi coefficient of 24.6%; it is followed by the Czech Republic and Slovakia, both with 25.0%.

The situation can vary significantly not only among countries but among individuals as well, which is clear by looking at how much wealth the planet’s richest people acquire. Oxfam International revealed that the top 1% of them rounded up nearly two-thirds of all new wealth generated since 2020, adding up to a staggering $42 trillion. It also pointed out that for the first time in 25 years, extreme wealth and extreme poverty have increased simultaneously.

 

[Estro Felino]

This gets into semantics. Modern "socialism," as understood by many of its detractors and proponents, is not socialism as envisioned by Marx. Many people think modern mixed market economies are "socialism." They are not. They are capitalist economies with socialistic elements.

Could you answer this question, please?

Do you think that people's selfish and superfluous ambitions are more important than the common good?
By common good I mean that all people have the opportunity to participate to the functioning of the economic system.

Your OP contained assumptions that merited correcting for the question to make sense.

They are not assumptions.

Do you really think that planet Earth has the resources, the lands and the space to support capitalism?
Or that we live in an extremely overpopulated world with scarce resources?