Why Socialism and Communism, or Marxism in general, is a bad deal

Who cares? Capitalism's days are numbered. That's all that matters.

 

Not if people think the only alternative is socialism, which is even worse.

 

They should disband all socialist institutions in the USA.

 

Yes! Most people think that capitalism and socialism/communism are the only economic systems to choose from.

Of course, I don't know another one either.

Well, there's modern monetary theory but that ship sank when it caused run-away inflation. It had a short run.

 

Feudalism, mercantilism, mixed economies are examples of other economic systems.

Personally I think a society should have an economic system that mixes capitalism and socialism. I do prefer creating an equal opportunity for everyone over trying to control outcomes. The balance of how much socialism is used should be controlled by the culture to some degree.

Corporate ownership should be severely limited to prevent the inevitable corporate oligarchy that capitalism inevitably leads to.

 

Those other economic systems are as old as sailing ships. Not a good fit for what we have today. We need to invent a new economic system designed for the future.

 

I do: there's feudalism, primitive despotism and tribalism, all of which are even worse than socialism. And then there is geoism -- also known as liberty, justice and prosperity -- which is not only better than socialism, but better than capitalism. Under socialism, privately created value is appropriated by the collective, impairing private value creation. Under capitalism, publicly created value is appropriated by private privilege holders, especially landowners, impairing public value creation. Geoism secures ownership of privately created value to its private producers and ownership of publicly created value to the government and community that create it, ensuring both maximum efficient productive capacity and full, accurate incentives for both public and private value creation.

MMT is not really an economic system, just a take on monetary policy.

 

There is a third way, geoism, which adopts the best features of, and is far better than, capitalism and socialism.

That's geoism, which secures and reconciles the equal individual rights of all citizens to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor.

Oligarchy does not happen because of who owns things, but because of what they own. When either individuals or corporations legally own others' individual rights via privileges like land titles, IP monopolies, bank licenses, corporate limited liability, etc., then everyone else is already their slaves in all but name.

 

So one criticism of collectivism, as I understand it, is that collecting taxes to pay for social programs is viewed as stealing a person’s wealth for redistribution to others who did not earn that wealth.

Marx criticized capitalism as a form of theft too. When a person makes something they should get 100%of the reward for its manufacture. Instead, the owners of the means of production receive most of the reward. So it also is a system that relies on redistribution of wealth. Can the owners of the means of production be considered to be thieves just like the taxman?

Or, does any sort of involvement in a society necessarily require that it’s constituents must share some of their wealth to preserve and promote the society?

 

That depends on the tax and what the money is spent on. A tax on earned wages like the personal income tax does steal people's rightful wealth, and the beneficiaries of public spending on desirable services and infrastructure are landowners, so in that sense, that particular tax forcibly redistributes wealth upward, from working people to landowners. But if the tax were on land value, then it would just require landowners to repay some of what they are taking from the community: a voluntary, market-based, beneficiary-pay, value-for-value transaction. If tax revenue is spent on, say, bombing people in poor countries, then the tax is stealing to give the money to arms manufacturers, their lobbyists, etc.

He was right in that capitalism by definition requires private ownership of the means of production: land and producer goods, and private ownership of land inherently involves landowners legally stealing from everyone else. However, Marx was objectively wrong in his claim that private ownership of producer goods also involves stealing. Both capitalism and socialism are based on the lie that there is no fundamental difference between owning natural resources like land -- i.e., owning other people's liberty rights to use those resources -- and owning the fruits of one's own labor.

Only if they made it with no help from anyone else, without using the fruits of anyone else's labor, and without depriving anyone else of access to anything they would otherwise have (like land) unless they made just compensation to those whom they deprive of it.

No. In fact, most of the price paid for almost all products goes to wages. The part that doesn't go to wages is divided between those who have earned a portion of production by providing producer goods -- equipment, buildings, etc. -- and those who are just legally entitled to take a portion of production because they own privileges like land titles, IP monopolies, etc. that legally empower them to charge others just for their permission to produce. The owners of producer goods are providing that part of the means of production, so they are earning a share of the product. The owner of land does not provide the land, as it would have been there anyway, ready to use, even had he never existed.

The term, "the means of production" is used by capitalists and socialists to erase the fundamental difference between owning the fruits of one's labor and owning others' rights to liberty.

Sharing is one way. The other way is justice.

 

Are you sure you understand the difference between Socialism, Communism and Marxism?

The theory is that the profit from nationalized industries will benefit all citizens and not only industry owners who in order to avoid taxes will ship all the money to a tax heavens.
In practice most leaders of nationalized industries behave exactly the same way as private owners - they care only about themselves, so in existing socialist/communists societies nationalized industries is not as efficient as in capitalists countries. Also existing socialist/communists socialites do not encourage private initiative, and Microsoft, Google or Facebook it started as a private initiative.

 

Good thing you don't live the dream on the capitalist ticket then, eh?

The capitalist democracy which feeds you so well and keeps you so safe, that you're comfortable indulging LARPish contempt.

 

I agree, capitalism's days are numbered, the question is how much more capitalism will exist - one year more, 10 years more, 100 years more or 500 years more? I am betting on at least 50 years more.
In America capitalism can be done much earlier - maybe in 2024 will have here a monarchy with king Donald the First.

 

Well, feudalism's days were numbered 1000 years ago, but we still see feudalism in places like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and parts of North Africa.

 

The great Failure of traditional Marxism is its failure to answer the question of wealth creation. Incentive is important to human nature and you can no more rid humanity of it than could you rid humanity their lungs. Every nation that truly attempted to create a true Marxist society failed. No surprise really, Karl Marx never held a real job in his life. So, after the 1950s-60s they worked on how to rebrand it in a different package. Today we look at Democratic socialism as the Marxist realization that it needs capitalisms in order to support is generous social welfare society. The Nordic countries, which are capitalist countries, are the closest thing to democratic socialism that we have available.

But the key thing everyone forgets is those nations are over 90 percent homogenous societies with strong economies and very little Economically disadvantaged to begin with. Democratic socialism's wont work at near the efficiency in a place like the united states because were too large and too multicultural. The fight for the benefits of the democratic socialism would drag the united states down into infighting. We are already seeing that now. Capitalism on its own is a net positive, however what we have going on right now is a sort of Crony Capitalism that requires you to fight to be apart of the rich to gain the benefits of that network.

The wealthy should remember that while their hard work and intelligence should be rewarded handsomely, they still have a duty to this country to use their position and power to help bring up their fellow countrymen. The reason todays youth are turning away from Capitalism is we are not doing enough to show they them value of trade over grift. The value of hard work over simple connection. The value of trade over government force. All government whether it be Capitalist's or Marxist is still just legalized plunder. Its something we choose to live with via the social contract regardless of which economic system we choose. Which is better? Neither and both. The answer lies some where in the middle and how far you scale up and down that line has to be specific to each nation.

 

There are valid reasons Marxist socialism has always failed and always will, but that is an absurd ad hominem fallacy.

They are not democratic socialist, they are democratic capitalist, which means their governments have understood they have to relieve the worst excesses of capitalism and maintain a safety net to stay in power.

No. It is commonly said that hard work, ability, or taking risks earns a reward. They do not. Criminals take more risks than anyone, and sometimes have great intelligence and ingenuity, but their risk taking and unusual ability earns nothing. Similarly, the rent seeking behavior of people who get rich through privilege is often hard work, but as it does not contribute to production, it earns nothing.

Only a contribution to production earns a share of production.

It is up to voters to make sure the tax system reflects rich people's duty to their country.

No, the reason young people are turning away from capitalism is that they can see for themselves that it is in terminal conflict with justice.

Connection is a minor problem compared to privilege: legal entitlements to benefit fro the abrogation of others' rights without making just compensation.

Privately owned privileges like land titles, IP monopolies, etc. are created, enforced, and given value by government force.

GARBAGE. It is private privilege -- like landowning, IP monopolies, bank licenses, etc. -- that is legalized plunder, enabled by government but carried out by private interests.

 

Agree to disagree.

 

Didn’t the most powerful country in the world spend like 50 years making sure that communism wouldn’t be successful anywhere?

I mean I’m not on favour of totalitarian communism but it would be interesting to see how a communist state with democratic institutions would fare.

Democracy and Communism are not mutually exclusive.

 

No, you need an oppressive government to keep the people in line and to keep communism from being voted out.

 

If you want to see communism with democracy, think about Gorbachev's political life in the last days of the Soviet Union.

 

That's what people generally say when they realize that I have proved them wrong and they cannot refute what I have said, but they decline, merely on that account, to reconsider their proved-false beliefs.

 

Or just don't give a **** enough to respond.

 

Haha .. oh yes they are! Completely.

You will never EVER get everyone to agree with the plan, so totalitarianism is the only way it will ever happen. In a democracy deeply in love with capitalism (ie Left-Leaning First World Western nations), you wouldn't even get 1% of the population voting for it. Once people realise what they have to sacrifice, they'll run away as fast as their legs will carry them. And the fastest will be the Cafe Socialists

 

Yes, culturally, communism would be rejected at this time in the western world. I think one of the problems with communism as it has been implemented historically is that it has been thrust upon people all at once and it is thrust upon people who already live in totalitarian states. If a state slowly evolved into communism while maintaining pre-existing democratic institutions it might work.

 

It was a struggle to institute in societies where they were USED to that level of authority and collectivism. The idea that spoiled, capitalism-loving westerners have even the slightest hope of it is quite ludicrous. We cry like babies if someone ****ing looks at us funny, remember.