What is wrong with Socialism, or Marxism?

[Left Coast]

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.

No. One of the best ways to ensure people have "the ability to participate to the functioning of the economic system," and even more so, to better their lives within that economic system, is to give them the ability to engage in private enterprise.

They are not assumptions.

They really are, though. And false ones, as I've now explained to you.

Do you really think that planet Earth has the resources, the lands and the space to support capitalism?

Yes.

Or that we live in an extremely overpopulated world with scarce resources?

I haven't seen the evidence that we're overpopulated as a planet. We're overcrowded in some areas.

Should the State limit how many children people are allowed to have? They tried that in China. How has that gone for them?

 

[Estro Felino]

No. One of the best ways to ensure people have "the ability to participate to the functioning of the economic system," and even more so, to better their lives within that economic system, is to give them the ability to engage in private enterprise.

There is too much concurrence and unfair competition, so there is the need of a Socialist State that protects small entrepreneurship. Small businesses which are like small fish who want to live in shark-infested waters.

The sharks are the evil financial dynasties and corporations who want it all.

Yes.

I'm sorry.
It has been scientifically proven that climate change and the disappearance of glaciers is the direct consequence of both overpopulation and over-exploitation of resources.
Just see how many rivers and lakes are gone in California.

I haven't seen the evidence that we're overpopulated as a planet. We're overcrowded in some areas.

It's not a matter of space. It's a matter of overpopulation with respect to the arable lands and resources.
Too few resources.

Should the State limit how many children people are allowed to have?

Yes, in Africa, and in Asia.

I was born in 1985. When I was born, world population was 4 billion. Now it has doubled, and I am still young.
What does that mean?
That people in Asia and in Africa have been making too many babies at an incredible, unsustainable rate.

Whereas the European population has remained the same. 704 million in 1985. 745 million now.

 

[Revoltingest]

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

I just learned of the acronym, PRATT.

 

[Estro Felino]

I just learned of the acronym, PRATT.

So did I.

 

[Left Coast]

There is too much concurrence and unfair competition, so there is the need of a Socialist State that protects small entrepreneurship. Small businesses which are like small fish who want to live in shark-infested waters.

You don't need a Socialist state for that. Lots of non-Socialist nations put limits on what businesses are allowed to do. Pretty much all of them, actually.

I'm sorry.
It has been scientifically proven that climate change and the disappearance of glaciers is the direct consequence of both overpopulation and over-exploitation of resources.

I'm sorry - it hasn't been demonstrated that those things are caused purely by the number of humans on the planet. They have been caused by what some of those humans have done - and which they could do differently.

Just see how many rivers and lakes are gone in California.

I suspect I know more about California geography than you. And I don't know much.

Yes. In Africa and in some part of Asia. Not China.
The State should force them to use contraception.
Making it a crime.
Not Europe. Europeans don't make babies.

Oh okay, the State should force people not to have babies - just not where you live, where it might affect people you know. How convenient!

Gross.

I was born in 1985. When I was born, world population was 4 billion. Now it has doubled, and I am still young.
What does that mean?
That people have been making too many babies at an incredible, unsustainable rate.

Whereas the European population has remained the same. 704 million in 1985. 745 million now.

The rate of global population growth is actually slowing and is expected to continue being slower this century than last century until it peaks around 2100 and then declines.

If you're interested in slowing fertility, state mandates don't work well. Improving women's education and economic opportunity (read: their ability to build personal wealth via capitalist enterprise) does, though.

 

[Estro Felino]

You don't need a Socialist state for that. Lots of non-Socialist nations put limits on what businesses are allowed to do. Pretty much all of them, actually.

Yes, you do.
You need a very strong State that puts greedy and insatiable people in their place.
Greed is not tolerated in socialist Europe.

I'm sorry - it hasn't been demonstrated that those things are caused purely by the number of humans on the planet. They have been caused by what some of those humans have done - and which they could do differently.

As a direct cause of overpopulation.
Because if there are 5 billion less, you will use less electricity.
Less electricity---less fuels needed----less CO2 in the atmosphere

The rate of global population growth is actually slowing and is expected to continue being slower this century than last century until it peaks around 2100 and then declines.

It's not slowing at all. Africa is expected to have 2 billion in very little time.

If you're interested in slowing fertility, state mandates don't work well. Improving women's education and economic opportunity (read: their ability to build personal wealth via capitalist enterprise) does, though.

Too slow system.
That is not sufficient. You need control.

 

[Debater Slayer]

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.

I'm a socialist who believes in protection of private property and regulated markets. If I listed my positions on various economic issues, I suspect we would agree on at least 95% of them. Where does that place me? Am I not a socialist because I don't subscribe to Marxism-Leninism or the idea that the state should own the means of production?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It's not slowing at all. Africa is expected to have 2 billion in very little time.

So what? Africa is gigantic and extremely rich in resources. It's just poor because the US (what we did in Libya), Europeans and now the Chinese keep plundering them and playing games to keep their governments unstable. One of the reasons they murdered Gaddafi and overthrew his government is that he championed the idea of an African Union with its own gold currency to compete with the EU, Euro and American Dollar. Can't have that! (We also dump our electronic waste there, which is messed up!)

Also, a lot of places in Africa are actually underpopulated due to things like conflict and the AIDS epidemic, which is still very serious there.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Yes. In Africa and in some part of Asia. Not China.
The State should force them to use contraception.
Making it a crime.
Not Europe. Europeans don't make babies.

You don't get to dictate to other regions whether they should have children, especially when Africa, one of the two continents you named, accounts for only about 4% of global carbon emissions.

I also strongly doubt it's a coincidence that an admirer of Mussolini supports restriction of reproduction in Asia and Africa but not Europe. Your position is starkly prejudiced and similar to eugenics, and it needs to be called out as such at every opportunity.

 

[Yerda]

Marxism as an analytic framework to bring the nature of capitalism into focus is still surprisingly useful. As a political theory I think it is simplistic, quasi-prophetic and overcooked.

 

[Left Coast]

I'm a socialist who believes in protection of private property and regulated markets. If I listed my positions on various economic issues, I suspect we would agree on at least 95% of them. Where does that place me? Am I not a socialist because I don't subscribe to Marxism-Leninism or the idea that the state should own the means of production?

It sounds like you're a version of a social democrat: someone who supports market economics with some socialist constraints.

 

[Estro Felino]

You don't get to dictate to other regions whether they should have children, especially when Africa, one of the two continents you named, accounts for only about 4% of global carbon emissions.

I also strongly doubt it's a coincidence that an admirer of Mussolini supports restriction of reproduction in Asia and Africa but not Europe. Your position is starkly prejudiced and similar to eugenics, and it needs to be called out as such at every opportunity.

The problem is the birth rate, not the population number.

 

[Left Coast]

Yes, you do.

You don't, though.

This is fun!

As a direct cause of overpopulation.
Because if there are 5 billion less, you will use less electricity.
Less electricity---less fuels needed----less CO2 in the atmosphere

Or we could find alternate ways to create electricity.

It's not slowing at all. Africa is expected to have 2 billion in very little time.

But it is, though. You should look up some global demographics projections.

Too slow system.
That is not sufficient. You need control.

Well no, you don't need control. You want control. More specifically, you want the State to have more control. But your preferences aren't needs.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Marxism as an analytic framework to bring the nature of capitalism into focus is still surprisingly useful. As a political theory I think it is simplistic, quasi-prophetic and overcooked.

I think it's also highly rigid as an economic and political theory, especially due to assuming that all societies will follow a similar trajectory or desire revolution. It's no surprise that Marxist concepts are currently much more relevant in sociology than they are in economics or political science.

A lot of damage has been done to the reputation of the socialist label since the 20th century both due to the policies of dictatorships based on Marxism-Leninism or an offshoot thereof (e.g., Stalinism and Maoism) and anti-socialist propaganda in the US during the Cold War. There hasn't been a single self-professed socialist state other than those, and many socialists and communists who opposed the totalitarian policies were purged by Stalin and other dictators.

 

[Estro Felino]

Or we could find alternate ways to create electricity.

You can understand that Europe is too tiny to receive millions of Africans.
It's the smallest continent in the world.

Well no, you don't need control. You want control. More specifically, you want the State to have more control. But your preferences aren't needs.

They invented contraceptives for a reason, I guess.

 

[Stevicus]

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

I think people tend to focus too much on labeling and not so much on the nuts and bolts of what various systems entailed and how some appear to be more successful than others.

Socialism and Marxism came about as a reaction against the excesses of capitalism. So, if capitalists don't like socialism, they need to blame themselves first and foremost, since they're the ones who created the excesses and atrocities which led to public anger and resentment which led to socialist revolutions of the kind that occurred in Russia and China.

Capitalists need to blame themselves for their failure to listen to the pleas of the struggling masses of workers who only wanted better wages, better working conditions, affordable housing, healthcare, etc. Capitalists need to blame themselves for their wanton failure to come up with a more equitable system. Capitalists need to blame themselves for building up an economy based on slavery, genocide, racism, conquest, exploitation, colonialism, imperialism, and world war.

Now that it appears that they might have to pay back what they have stolen over the past 200+ years, they're acting like "Oh no, socialism is so horrible!" But justice is justice. Without justice, there can be no peace, and a refusal to accept justice is a barrier to peace.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It sounds like you're a version of a social democrat: someone who supports market economics with some socialist constraints.

I also believe that public (not state, but public) ownership of certain utilities and means of production is a good goal to strive for, but that would be parallel to the availability of private enterprise rather than exclusive of it.

I think social democracy could work as a temporary stage at most, which is why I don't describe myself as a social democrat. Even the "Nordic model" has major flaws due to overconsumption and unsustainability, especially if it were to be implemented in many more countries.

 

[Left Coast]

Exactly. But unfortunately they make too many babies in the meantime...

Says you.

and the massively migrate to Europe.
You can understand that Europe is too tiny to receive millions of Africans.
It's the smallest continent in the world.

Ah. So this actually has nothing to do with climate change, and everything to do with not wanting those yucky brown people to be your neighbors.

Just say that next time. It'll save us all time.

They invented contraceptives for a reason, I guess.

Yeah, to give women more control of their fertility. Precisely what you want the State to take away.

The irony.

 

[Left Coast]

I think social democracy could work as a temporary stage at most,

A temporary stage before what?

 

[Estro Felino]

Ah. So this actually has nothing to do with climate change, and everything to do with not wanting those yucky brown people to be your neighbors.

Just say that next time. It'll save us all time.

Absolutely not. You misread me.
There are already migrants in Europe and have become Europeans.
It's a matter of numbers.

Yeah, to give women more control of their fertility. Precisely what you want the State to take sway.

The irony.

A female friend of mine slept with all the males of the village.
But she is childless.
Why? Because she uses contraceptives.

So I am for contraceptives and sexual freedom.

As the 90% of prostitutes. They are childless.