Why Socialism doesn't work ?

[Shad]

Returning to the OP, there fundamental problems with socialism.
1) It's in people's (not all, but many) nature to be independent,
& to want to form associations with others of like mind. They're
compelled to start & run businesses.
Under socialism, such entrepreneurial enterprises must be
prevented, lest capitalism naturally arise to compete with &
outcompete the socialist competition.
2) Socialist countries tend to require an authoritarian government
in order to prevent capitalism. This has typically led to social
oppression too.
3) Without individual initiative as a Plan B, socialist economies
have tended to react slowly & poorly to addressing problems,
hence their tendency for famine, eg, N Korea, USSR, PRC.

4) With the state providing everything the less than desire jobs face massive labour shortages. After all there are no incentives nor desperation driving people into those jobs. The state must either enslave a part of it's population or use migrant workers with the promise of citizenship creating an under-class.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Those are not Socialist. Those are Social Democracies. Denmark's leader has gone so far as to deny the Socialist label

Then let's define exactly what we're talking about when we use the term, if you're going to play the semantic tapdance card. It certainly appeared OP's comment was directed at socialism as a whoole, rather than specific examples.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

The reason for that is obvious. True Socialist nations fail or become/shift to a mixed system like China.

Denmark is in decline as well.

No true Scotsman, huh?

If you consider Denmark "in decline" can you offer a counter example of a nation in the ascendant?

 

[Shad]

No true Scotsman, huh?

Nope. My use of true was more about your fictional believe compared to reality.

If you consider Denmark "in decline" can you offer a counter example of a nation in the ascendant?

India and China if not in every facet.

 

[Shad]

Then let's define exactly what we're talking about when we use the term, if you're going to play the semantic tapdance card. It certainly appeared OP's comment was directed at socialism as a whoole, rather than specific examples.

That isn't semantics. It is telling you there is a there a difference between a Social Democracy and Socialism because you conflated the two as the same. The OP is talking about Socialist nations like Cuba, Venezuela and Cold-War era

 

[YmirGF]

Of course socialism works. Better than any of the alternatives, even.

Would your neighbors in Venezuela agree?

 

[Woberts]

Of course, blame it on Socialism. It's not like the price of their main export dropped dramatically, and that they have an idiot for a leader who tried halt the financial crisis by printing more money!

 

[Shad]

Of course, blame it on Socialism. It's not like the price of their main export dropped dramatically, and that they have an idiot for a leader who tried halt the financial crisis by printing more money!

If the system fails to adapt and is prone to corruption that is a flaw of the system thus blame is valid.

 

[joe1776]

4) With the state providing everything the less than desire jobs face massive labour shortages. After all there are no incentives nor desperation driving people into those jobs. The state must either enslave a part of it's population or use migrant workers with the promise of citizenship creating an under-class.

A cooperative economic system is the future but it won't happen until we invent a governmental decision-making model that is both effective and free of corruption. We've never had one of those.

The so-called "mixed economies" meanwhile are the best we can do. The free-market works okay with products that can be shopped and compared by consumers spending their own money. It fails in services like financial services and insured healthcare where fraud rules. Even incompetent regulation is better than none at all in healthcare.

 

[Revoltingest]

Of course, blame it on Socialism. It's not like the price of their main export dropped dramatically, and that they have an idiot for a leader who tried halt the financial crisis by printing more money!

Socialism is particularly susceptible to failure when conditions change.
Under capitalism, there's greater likelihood for a diverse economy
because individuals exploit every perceived opportunity.
It reminds me of the old saw about the 4 problems of Soviet agriculture....
Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter.

 

[joe1776]

If the system fails to adapt and is prone to corruption that is a flaw of the system thus blame is valid.

Nah. Plans fail because the plan was bad, the execution was bad, or both.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nah. Plans fail because the plan was bad, the execution was bad, or both.

Good system design means tolerance to flaws (eg, corruption, incompetence).
This is where capitalism has a superior systemic response to such than socialism.
If a government agency fails, it just gets more funding. If a business fails, its
niche is filled by the competition.
(Note that crony capitalism is one aspect of the system which must be avoided,
since it props up losers, thereby bringing down overall efficiency.)

When I designed systems, I worked to make them not just fool proof, but also
"damn fool proof" (for a more aggressive kind of fool).
I designed some really pretty gearboxes & control systems.

 

[TheBannerofHomuraAkemi]

I like Capitalism. I like Socialism. But, if I get too much Capitalism I get lower wages and unaffordable healthcare. But, if I get too much Socialism I get this guy name Marxist trying force feed me his beliefs. That why I like to be balance somewhere in the middle. But at last I'm poor so my view points don't matter.

 

[Estro Felino]

Socialism is particularly susceptible to failure when conditions change.
Under capitalism, there's greater likelihood for a diverse economy
because individuals exploit every perceived opportunity.
It reminds me of the old saw about the 4 problems of Soviet agriculture....
Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter.

The first socialist party in history was founded in Italy in 1889...before that Bolshevism and the "hammer-sickle thing" existed.

Let's analyze the Crash of 1929

Italy

1929 Great Crash
1933 the IRI saves the three main banks from bankruptcy
1934 the IRI becomes first entrepreneur of the state (owning the 14.3% of GDP)
1936 private stakes of Bankitalia are expropriated and the Bank becomes public


As for US..I dare not imagine..

 

[joe1776]

Socialism is particularly susceptible to failure when conditions change..

My standard for success is quality of life. Capitalists usually choose GNP.

Good system design means tolerance to flaws (eg, corruption, incompetence).
This is where capitalism has a superior systemic response to such than socialism.
If a government agency fails, it just gets more funding. If a business fails, its
niche is filled by the competition.
(Note that crony capitalism is one aspect of the system which must be avoided,
since it props up losers, thereby bringing down overall efficiency.)

When I designed systems, I worked to make them not just fool proof, but also
"damn fool proof" (for a more aggressive kind of fool).
I designed some really pretty gearboxes & control systems.

A society is essentially a cooperative endeavor. So, to design a competitive economy to fuel more effective cooperation would be a classically dumb move except for one thing: a cooperative economy requires effective, corruption-free government; and we humans have yet to invent such a thing.

So, for now, capitalism's free-market, which needs less regulation, serves a purpose. It work fairly well on products which can be seen and compared by well-informed consumers spending their own money. But none of those factors are possible in services. That's why fraud, of both the legal and illegal varieties, rules the financial services industry.

For healthcare, the competitive free-market is simply the wrong tool for the job. Some of the problems:

-- consumers don't know what services they need

-- insured consumers don't care about the cost of the services they receive

-- care providers easily justify over-charging deep-pocket insurance companies

-- lawyers easily justify representing clients in malpractice fraud against deep-pocket insurance companies

-- as long as they aren't paying more of it than their competitors, fraud benefits the insurance companies by adding to the industry's bottom line

-- drug companies find it more profitable to create drugs that manage symptoms for a lifetime rather than those which cure the disease

 

[Twilight Hue]

The problem with socialism, as I heard about commented by someone else, is that eventually you run out of other people's money.

Or the attitude that my money, which I worked hard for and earned, is somehow entitled to be placed into other people's pockets.

 

[metis]

Or the attitude that my money, which I worked hard for and earned, is somehow entitled to be placed into other people's pockets.

So, you don't drive on roads, go over bridges, send you kids to public schools, use any public transportation, and you also don't plan on collecting Social Security or Medicare?

 

[metis]

BTW, if socialism doesn't work, why is it that economists project China will pass up the U.S. economically in several years, and why is it that California has the 6th largest economy in the world? And why is it that the former head of Sweden's department of the treasury, when asked how his country managed to stop its decline and recover so nicely in the late 1990's, his two-word response was "Higher taxes"? [hint: money collected through taxes does not disappear into thin air]

 

[Shad]

BTW, if socialism doesn't work, why is it that economists project China will pass up the U.S. economically in several years, and why is it that California has the 6th largest economy in the world? And why is it that the former head of Sweden's department of the treasury, when asked how his country managed to stop its decline and recover so nicely in the late 1990's, his two-word response was "Higher taxes"? [hint: money collected through taxes does not disappear into thin air]

As China switched to State Capitalism decades ago. Cali is capitalist and it's social programs are crippling the state. Sweden is a social democracy, high taxes does not mean Socialism but just high taxes.

 

[Shad]

Nah. Plans fail because the plan was bad, the execution was bad, or both.

Still the fault of the system for enabling bad plans and bad planners to come to power.