Source
r/politics•
DerekCase

I don't understand the hate for socialism

I'm a college student in Indiana and recently I've had to take a political science course, and to me, socialism seems like the only viable alternative to our current society. I hear socialist constantly used as an derogatory term, and I don't understand it. The prevailing argument against it seems to be that we couldn't accurately regulate the price and therefore the supply, of goods, but doesn't the internet take care of that problem? We could continuously resubmit our needs with little maintenance or cost so as to track the usage and demand of individual goods. Are there any other significant downsides to that form of government?

Posted Jul 27, 2012, 5:24 PM UTC · edited

333
Republican7000•

The prevailing argument against it seems to be that we couldn't accurately regulate the price, and therefore the supply, of goods, but doesn't the internet take care of that problem?

The freer market of the internet would give the central planners access to better pricing, true. But then you have to ask yourself why Socialism NEEDS an outside freer market to work!

6
DerekCaseOP•

Capitalism achieves the same thing through advertising, and the only difference between online communication of needs and market exchange is the ability to make profit on manufactured demand.

1
Republican7000•

You are, IMO, arguing Socialism is workable when freer market capitalism sets pricing. Sounds pretty silly to me to adopt a system that is only sustainable because of a far more successful system is out there!

The real fault of Socialism is we end up with mandates that burn food and people start to starve because of the higher costs. Think how well that's working as we now burn corn in our cars and food prices are going to go much higher!

BTW, there was another system that works better than what we have now and Socialism. It's the freer market capitalism and gold standard of the industrial revolution. A period of time where the standard of living was unprecedented in improvement!

3
DerekCaseOP•

Give me a time period for your better time, and I might be able to argue that, but I'm not arguing that freer market capitalism sets pricing. I'm instead putting forth the idea that the ability to mass communicate can replace free market pricing because of instantaneous information sharing and the permanent recording of that information. It would make for easily calculable demands whereas capitalism constantly generates excess.

2
Republican7000•

Somehow I dont think price fixing central planners, Socialists, beholden to manufacturing and organized labor constituents that want maximum profit, spread throughout are going to solve the pricing problem.

It would make for easily calculable demands whereas capitalism constantly generates excess.

Excess!! In the real world, freer market capitalism would make for far less excess because it's someone personal money and fortune. Socialism is other peoples money and the central planners dont need to be as mindful of making too much. Especially since they, the central planners, are beholden to constituents that want to manufacture to keep their jobs!

2
shutz2•

Moderate socialism works (I'm from Canada, and we're kind of proof it's not as bad as whatever the US are doing) but extreme socialism leads to communism, which clearly didn't work out for the USSR. The only place it kind of worked was China, but even then, the cost of communism in China is too high for practically anyone living in the Western world.

The reason most socio-politico-economic systems fail on one level or another is that they rarely take Human Nature into account.

All those systems, from capitalism to socialism, even up to benevolent monarchies and even pure anarchy (where no leaders are ever permitted) are only great in theory, if everyone plays by the rules instead of abusing them.

The minute someone starts abusing the system to further themselves, the minute it starts to fail.

You need a system that can self-correct, without the direct intervention of people (because when people have to be involved, there's potential for abuse.) And we haven't found that system yet.

I'm biased by the system I grew up in, but the best system I can currently see is moderate socialism which gives everyone an equal chance at success, and a livable lowest-common-denominator safety net, without forcing everyone down to that lowest level in the name of equality, coupled with a healthy, overseen capitalism that gives some of the people an incentive to work past the minimum.

3
DerekCaseOP•

Not that I support communism but haven't all "communist" governments tried thus far strayed from their Marxist ideals during the development phase? As far as I know, communism hasn't ever been implemented? All forms of socialism in existence are what you describe, a lower form of democratic socialism that never abolished free market exchange and the products of that capitalist way of thinking. I'm not asking why we can't change. Obviously as dramatic a change as the removal of money and ownership of production is impossible. I'm asking why it's viewed as wrong. Why does full on socialism have to be associated with communism?

0
shutz2•

It's because of human nature. Even young children display possessiveness about their toys, their food, their parents, etc. Pure communism couldn't work due to that, in the same way that pure capitalism (with no social safety net, pure free market -- which would have led to the demise of the the big insurance companies and banks in 2009 -- and money == pure power) would never work, because most people still have at least a bit of altruism in them.

Extremes are rarely the answer.

1
Bobby_Marks•

Let me loosely define two terms for the extent of my post:

  • Socialism is defined to be the public turning to a centralized government solution to a problem.
  • Libertarianism is defined to be the public turning to the individual to make their own solution.

There are several factors that have to be considered when talking about these two opinions. First, we have to recognize that socialism (in theory) will always be a cheaper solution. Second, we have to recognize that we are not dealing in an ideal world. If corruption exists in government, the effects of said corruption are maximized in a socialist solution and minimized in a libertarian one. Lastly, we must recognize that the world is getting smaller. It is harder for an individual to live a life that does not impact others, and as this continues there will be certain problems (environmentalism is a good one) where the socialistic solution increases in preferability and the libertarian solution decreases in viability.

You point specifically to the economic ramifications of such a government, so there is one more idea to consider: our modern global economy. In this global economy, a nation functions much like one of the 50 states - in competition with the others. However, nations do not have the added benefit of a central government overseeing the competition and managing the economy.

Long story short - politics is a total crap shoot. Extensive socialism looks good on paper, but in practice often suffers from a corrupt few that end up controlling more of the economy than they should. Extensive libertarianism can also look good on paper, but in practice leads to all kinds of inequality between citizens.

3
[deleted]•

Extensive socialism looks good on paper, but in practice often suffers from a corrupt few that end up controlling more of the economy than they should.

This is not at all limited to socialism. Corruption exists as long as it is allowed to exist, regardless of the economic system involved.

2
Bobby_Marks•

I agree, but for the sake of my post socialism was the group solution to a problem. The larger the government the greater the effect of corruption, as I said above.

1
[deleted]•

Well sure, we can see that with our own federal government.

1
DerekCaseOP•

I hear this one a lot. Socialism looks good on paper. But full on socialism hasn't been implemented. Without experimentation, at least, how can it look good anywhere else? Couldn't we do a gradual shift? We could slowly become a welfare state, meet the needs of individuals with renewable resources, automate production, publicly fund education, raise taxes on the wealthy, increase the safety net, and regulate government along the way. We could, for example, limit the length of terms, limit the ways representatives could receive funds. It doesn't have to be an instantaneous shift from one form of government to another.

0
Bobby_Marks•

I'm not attempting to bag on socialism: it almost always looks better than the alternatives on paper. Economy of scale means it will appear to be cheaper, and top-down regulation means it will appear to be a more effective solution to a large problem.

The fundamental difference between socialism and libertarianism is that one is theorized with complete disregard for the possibility of corruption, and the other theorized based on the certainty of corruption taking place. It's the discussion both sides need to have or else they will never understand one another.

2
[deleted]•

The problem is that for about half of the United States, the argument is posited and understood much in this way:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FCS-xwHjt8Q/TksRz3PW4CI/AAAAAAAAATo/aR9LEeQ57bU/s1600/medicare-keep-your-hands-off-my-medicare.jpg

And how do you even approach that with a counterargument?

2
DerekCaseOP•

Sometimes that kind of thing can be solved by sitting down and having a discussion with the person reasonably, taking the time to listen while trying really hard not to insult the person. Sometimes the only thing that can be done there is to run very fast while calling for help.

2
TodaysIllusion•

We don't need full out socialism, we need what we had up to the 1968 election. Highly regulated capitalism.

1
ibanez2k•

I'm at a loss and don't know which is better or worse really. For the most part, conservative ideas and republican ideas are both opposite sides of the same toilet bowl. The USA was organized on the basis of freedom and the free market idea. It was designed to work that way. Designed so that the citizens of the United States would be able to make a living for themselves and have the guarantee that they could keep all that they earned and built up. A society where, potentially, anyone with a great idea, and the skills and motivation to make it work could start up a business, become a millionaire, and run that business as they see fit.

This system, while ideal, just doesn't work when applied in the real world. Free Markets encourage greed and selfishness by design. Unless you have a government that puts their hand down and starts to regulate that market you run into companies that start to turn the system to their advantage by creating oligopolies and monopolies, removing the competition that keeps the entire market stable and functioning to everyone's benefit. Once you start to regulate the market though, the ability for the market to balance itself naturally is over. It's a no-win situation as far as I see it. The United States will never be happy with the idea of socialism as a whole because it goes against the very idea and principles the US government was founded on, even if that system doesn't work.

Source: I'm from the U.S. and live in the Washington D.C. area

1
DerekCaseOP•

That's actually a good point. Socialism goes against the ideas the country was founded on. What about that "give us your tired, your hungry, your poor" thing? I actually don't personally know where that came from. I understand that feeling, though. There seems to be no good way.

1
[deleted]•

It's inscribed on a plaque in the museum in the Statue of Liberty.

1
mitchrodee•

The average US citizen needs things simplified. Socialism is thought to be a giant step toward Communism, and the average US citizen has believes Communism is evil and completely opposite to our American way of life.

-1
DerekCaseOP•

The communism thing I can understand, not so much because of the view itself, but because of it's historical uses. But socialism hasn't been tried here. Meanwhile, the countries that utilize socialist ideas seem to be doing well like most of the Nordic countries.

1
[deleted]•

The US has a mixed bag. Food stamps, Medicare, and student grants are examples of socialist programs, while most businesses and Wall Street (with varying degrees of regulation) enjoy the noms of capitalism.

1
DerekCaseOP•

The socialist programs here are constantly being cut or derided like they're bad for society, and I don't understand. When and how did we decide that taking care of our elderly and impoverished was a bad idea?

0
[deleted]•

Honestly, I think it was just a meme developed by wealthy corporations and given to an angry niche market so they could sell them survivalist supplies and identity theft solutions and drive up the price of gold.

0