What is socialism?
what is socialism?
KJ: Socialism is half-assed communism. Sort of
like Zima compared to MGD, or western family compared to Coke for
you underaged viewers. Its what cuba has for a government.
TB sent us this link:
amrshalakanidr responded with this:
generally speaking...it refers to that system of governing where the efforts of both the
private and public sectors are aimed at the welfare of the majority
of the people...it's main differences with communism is that 1)it
includes a private sector and 2)it aims at serving a very big
spectrum in the population while communism is simply the
dictatorship of the working class.....That what would u find in a
book...but realistically speaking......some free market states claim
themselves as being social eg) France and some very tough communist
states claim the same thing eg) north korea...as u can see it's a
very stretchable word!
Todd graciously sent us this:
Socialism is any of various theories or systems of
social organization in which the means of producing and distributing
goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that
often plans and controls the economy.
Midknight rattled off this:
Socialism is the form of government
that involves the government having complete control over industries
such as medical, dental, automobiles, agriculture...etc... in some
cases it has succeeded but only in hand with democracy.
Mr Obvious helped out with this:
Socialism, n. - 1. Any of various
theories or systems of social organization in which the means of
producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a
centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between
capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the
economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been
Edwin wrote this report:
Socialism is a government system that is basically
equivalent to communism - it is a system of government in which
everything is communally owned and the state controls the flow of
resources - for a formal definition, here's one from an Economics
A system of economic organization in which (1) the ownership and
control of the basic means of production rest with the state, and
(2) resource allocation is determined by centralized planning rather
than by market forces
Now, this idea sounds very nice, but it is horrible at organizing
economic activity and has been shown to be horrible over and over
again. The idea is that a centralized organization can sufficiently
control a country's distribution of resources to its people.
Economics shows that this system is actually quite bad. This is true
for a number of reasons (sorry for the econ lingo in my
1. A government CANNOT sufficiently distribute resources to its
people, there is just TOO MUCH to do - think about it like this, in
America there are 280 million people and EVERY DAY THERE ARE
BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS OF TRANSACTIONS AMONG THESE PEOPLE. - in
short THERE IS JUST NO WAY AN ORGANIZATION CAN ECONOMICALLY TAKE
CARE OF ITS PEOPLE ALL ON ITS OWN.
2. In socialist systems there absolutely no reason to work as the
government evenly distributes everything. Why should I work hard at
my job when the government is going to give me what I need anyway?
And so what results is everyone puts minimal effort into their job.
3. A FREE MARKET is the best way to organize economic activity. A
free market brings maximum economic efficiency and creates the
maximum consumer and producer surplus. A free market naturally
reaches an equilibrium. Free markets in general are guided to
maximum efficiency by what we might call an "invisible hand." A free
market stimulates competition, which makes producers optimize their
businesses to produce more of their product, better products, and
lower prices. And the list of arguments for a free market goes on
4. Socialist systems need to use factories so large that they reach
diseconomies of scale.
Socialists and communists and anarchists will tell you all about
"the plight of the working man" and all that bullshit, but these
people don't know economics. If you ever hear someone talking about
the economy, ask them if they've ever taken a course in economics. I
myself am taking a college-level course in economics and am very
skilled at the science. These socialist and communist dumbasses act
like its the end of the world just because someone loses their job
or is poor. What they don't understand is that POVERTY AND
UNEMPLOYMENT IS INDEED A GREAT CONCERN, BUT THERE IS A BETTER WAY TO
DEAL WITH IT.
The fact of the matter is that Economics shows capitalism, i.e. free
markets (everyone is free to trade and do business), is the best way
to organize an economy for any goal, whether you want to minimize
poverty or promote equity or increase living standards.
Lets not also forget that ECONOMICS IS A SCIENCE AS MUCH AS PHYSICS
OR CHEMISTRY IS. IF YOU WANT TO REACH SOME SORT OF GOAL USING
ECONOMIC POLICY, THEN AN ECONOMIST IS THE PERSON TO TALK TO.
Economics basically proves that free markets is the best way to
organize economic activity.
And the fact of the matter is that not only does economics prove
this in its principles, but THROUGHOUT HISTORY, THE MORE COUNTRIES
LEFT THEIR MARKETS ALONE, THE GREATER THEY PROSPERED. This is the
grand insight that Adam Smith realizes in his "An Inquiry into the
Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" which he published in
1776. By far the greatest example that shows that free markets are
the best way to organize economic activity is America. America isn't
the richest country in the world because it has great resources or
it conquered peoples or whatever stupid thing an idiot
socialist/communist/anarchist would say - America is the richest
country because we have always maintained a very free market, and
the fact that we are the freest people is also a cause of our
wealth, as oppressing people and minorities only crushes the human
spirit and prevents ingenuity and business.
Think of a free market like a natural ecosystem. Sure, everybody (or
every animal, in the case of ecosystems) fends for themselves and
acts in their own interests, which you might call "selfish" or
"wrong" if you're shortsighted, but it is BECAUSE OF THIS
SELF-INTEREST that THE SYSTEM NATURALLY REACHES A BALANCE AND
EVERYONE GETS WHAT THEY NEED. And yes in an ecosystem some get
eaten, but in a free market people are trading, not eating each
other, so the analogy doesn't count.
Please, always use your head and try to think rationally and without
intense emotion; don't listen to socialists or communists or
anarchists - certainly there are problems in the world but there is
an intelligent and effective way to deal with them, and that is by
using the science of economics. Take a course in economics or read
an economics textbook as soon as you can - I recommend the book
"Principles of Economics" by N. Gregory Mankiw.
Socialists and anarchists and communists have their stupid "beliefs"
because they get super-pissed about everything but they don't know
economics and thus don't have the insight to come up with a proper
As a matter of fact, people have died because of society's fail to
use economics. In the early 1990s the government found out that it
was buying the material for its uniforms from child labor sweatshops
in other countries. The government and people in general were mad
and said they should prevent wal-mart from doing so. Economists,
having the knowledge and general lack of utter stupidity that they
do, pointed out that if wal-mart was made to stop buying from the
factories, the workers would go from barely surviving on a tiny
paycheck to dying because of no paycheck. Surely enough, wal-mart
was required to stop buying their cloth from these sweatshops (they
don't own the sweatshops, they buy the cloth from them), and surely
enough all these people were barely surviving started dropping like
flies because they couldn't make money anymore. A lot of the
children even had to turn to prostitution to try to get money for
food. And all because everybody is too much of a dumbass dip! shit
to use economics. I mean what's wrong with people? why the hell
doesn't anyone consult economists for economic issues? We consult
engineers for engineering issues and lawyers for law issues, so why
the hell don't economists for economic issues?
Also on the whole sweatshop thing: If anything, companies like Nike
are morally obligated to keep buying their materials from the
overseas sweatshops. First of all, they're BUYING MATERIALS from the
factories, THEY DON'T OWN THE FACTORIES SO THEY CANNOT RAISE THE
WORKERS' SALARIES. second of all, the workers are barely surviving
on their meager wages, and IF NIKE AND OTHER COMPANIES STOPPED
BUYING FROM THESE SWEATSHOPS, THE WORKERS WOULD LOSE THEIR JOBS AND
STOP MAKING MONEY AND MANY WOULD DIE AS A RESULT.
You see, a little simple economics turns you from a dangerous idiot
whose "policies" cause so much damage that they even kill innocent
sweatshop workers into a reasonable, rationally-thinking person.
Though I'm sure some dumbass is going to protest what I wrote - and
to those dumbasses - did you read what I wrote? I care about the
workers too, but there's nothing Nike can do, they don't own the
factories so they can't increase the wages, and if they stopped
buying from said factories hundreds of the workers would die for
lack of food because the factories would shut down and they would
have no more salaries and wouldn't be able to buy food
Click here to send this page to a friend!
to main page