Why do so many people dislike Socialism?

I hear a lot of "Damn Socialist!".

After talking to my History teacher, I don't understand why.
He tells me Capitalism has no caps on the rich, or the poor. You can have nothing, homeless, or more money than can be counted, Gates/Bankers.
Socialism has limits, but still lets you to get rich, not Gates rich, but still make millions, and poor, not homeless poor, but watching you budget on everything poor.
Communism has almost no difference between the richest and poorest. There is no government, thus everyone owns everything.

If you combine the right Capitalism Policies with Socialism Policies, you should end up with a limit on how poor you can get, keeping people off the streets for example, without limiting how much you can make, keeping the Rich happy. :f6:

It's the greed of mankind why those people dislike socialism.

However, once they realize pure greed only leads to mass anger among civilians (civil war in extreme cases), they will see that socialism isn't that bad at all...

Greed will always hunt mankind down. It did 1000 years ago, it did now (Credit Crisis), and most likely it will happen again in the future...

But for now... most socialist haters "hate it" because taxes might raise a little... it's all about the moneh...

But then again... look at Europe... most countries have Socialist Democracies there, and life ain't that bad at all in France / Holland / Germany, right?

Socialism is what Europe is using right now. There are benefits to it, but also huge problems: big government, bureaucracy in health care, high taxes. Obama is commonly thought of as a socialist. He appears to have spent as much money during the first couple months of his presidency as George Bush did on Medicare D, and that's not paying him a compliment.

It's fashionable to consider socialism "the future," but America is using its own system, crafted by the Founders of America, and it's pretty damn good at what it does. There's a lot of problems in America (as anywhere) but it's a good place to live, and I personally am glad to live here. I really would rather they didn't raise taxes by like 20% and bureaucratize my country beyond what's already been done in it.

It's the greed of mankind why those people dislike socialism.

However, once they realize pure greed only leads to mass anger among civilians (civil war in extreme cases), they will see that socialism isn't that bad at all...

Greed will always hunt mankind down. It did 1000 years ago, it did now (Credit Crisis), and most likely it will happen again in the future...

But for now... most socialist haters "hate it" because taxes might raise a little... it's all about the moneh...

But then again... look at Europe... most countries have Socialist Democracies there, and life ain't that bad at all in France / Holland / Germany, right?

What... have you been hearing about the strikes in France because people can't get jobs? Socialist countries could be a model, but not the ones you listed. The model ones would be like Sweden, for example.

And socialism doesn't work very efficiently, because there is little incentive to produce without coercion.

What... have you been hearing about the strikes in France because people can't get jobs? Socialist countries could be a model, but not the ones you listed. The model ones would be like Sweden, for example.

And socialism doesn't work very efficiently, because there is little incentive to produce without coercion.

that's communism, not socialism.

People don't like socialism because they can't get away with things as easy as with capitalism. Just like Devil already mentioned, the greed of mankind. With the government regulating more than capitalism, it's harder to make millions/billions of dollars.

See how the market got so fked up now? It's because investors and banks, kept borrowing and borrowing, and let other people keep borrowing and borrowing them from. Uncontrolled bussiness blew up in everyones face.

GG capitalism, you just fked over everyone.

So what? America is already pretty socialist in some respects. A purely capitalistic society wouldn't provide schools or build roads for the public good or (lol) regulate financial markets... everyone could pay for their own education or build their own roads or avoid their own scams. =P

IMO, I think both philosophies are partially right. I think that systems should be socialized if it's more efficient and equitable to do so. I mean, it would be more economically "efficient" to privatize roads, but then only people who could afford to pay for their own roads would get one, and that would keep even the somewhat-rich from the improvements to business that having a road would bring. It's better for the economy to tax each person a little for roads, then build them so that everyone can use them.

It's the same for education, as we believe that everyone should have a fair shake at life, and not be denied access to the ability to read, write, etc. just because their parents can't afford private school tuition. And that is as American-Dreamy as it comes.

It's just about the situation. Obviously, socializing many industries would be bad, because the lack of competition would stifle innovation and cost-cutting. High-tech industries would be the worst. If the government wants to promote these, then subsidies and grants can be used instead.

I don't get what's up with using "socialist" as an insult, though. Politics as usual. Heck, "liberal" is still a swearword in some circles! If it's so bad, then "captain of industry" should become a swearword again too. ;D


As for a rant on something more controversial:

 Spoiler

I believe that, at very least, basic preventative health care should be made universal in this country, and every country that gives a moral pineapple about human rights. It may even help the economy, just like education. I know I'd be able to get a job if I wasn't so goddamn sick right now, and the reason I'm sick is that I delayed going to the doctor for something I thought was nothing, which turned out to be a nasty nutritional deficiency that's taking months to solve. T_T

Also large government does exactly the opposite of what people want: Limitations. Restrictions. And absolute control of daily life. If: the government owns the bank where get your house loan , the government is your employer, the government owns the television station you are watching, the government owns the hospital you go to when you're in need of care and so forth: You cannot resist their demands. Essentially you become government property, an asset... a slave. All resistance would be ineffectual as you're one individual in a larger system of mass conformity. If they government thinks you're a threat enough to deny rights, it will. And it will be successful. Individually is shunned for the purpose of "fairness". In an ideal world (ie where everyone is equal), could only exist when we are all dead; as such communism is a mere fantasy, a badly implemented one at that.

Previous American Implementation: The New Deal (ineffective until a certain war). We should have reverted to isolationist libertarianism after the second world war, but we didn't. And that has made the world a much worse place. Finance capitalism caused the down falls of the American economy, we shouldn't loan out so much money... especially dangerous loans. There also alternative anti-Capitalist theories of economics: Third positionism.

Off topic: My family is in one of the lowest income brackets, as such we don't have to pay income taxes and are given many benefits. Besides the tax rate adjustments (which are fair to a certain extent), we could do without aid. We watch what we buy, we save money as much as possible and don't spend on credit. The government does not need to intervene, it needs to encourage corporations to hire as many people as possible.

People here are defending socialism "in theory." Anything sounds good in theory. In practice it's another thing.

It's easy for you to lambast America for its "greed," but your country is affected by American companies too. Right now there's a recession in America, but my girlfriend lives in another country and it says it affects her country too. Corporate entities are filled with bastardism, but they provide a strong backbone for everything else that goes on in that country. If you limit the large companies, everyone else in yoru country will suffer. Please don't lash out against "capitalist pigs" without first examining how that system works.

And look at China! Socialist paradise... where they steal everyone's IP and commit human rights violations right and left. How many here like the Chinese meso farmers? ME ME ME!!!

[...]

And look at China! Socialist paradise... where they steal everyone's IP and commit human rights violations right and left. How many here like the Chinese meso farmers? ME ME ME!!!

Waitwut? China is a communist country, not a socialist one...

Also Socialist paradise = human rights violations? Huh? What do they teach todays at schools? :o

The problem of China and the USSR were their dictators, not communism itself. The problem with the communist system is that it's extreme easy to abuse for leaders. And that is exactly what happened. Just like in "Animal Farm" from Geogre Orwell...

Also, Hitler was a facist, not a socialst. The fact that his party had the word socialist in it, doesn't mean his idea's had anything to do with it. Hitler hated communism. Besides is retarded hate for jews, he also hated communists and his goal was to wipe Stalin's communist USSR from the earth, so Stalin couldn't attack Germany, "The Thrid Reich" anymore, after he had won the Second World War (in his own mind...).

Also, Hitler was a facist, not a socialst. The fact that his party had the word socialist in it, doesn't mean his idea's had anything to do with it. Hitler hated communism.

You might want to read anything about Strasserism... that is national socialism as it started (Hitler had Strasser killed in 1934). Hitler may have hijacked it and emphasized its anti-Bolshevik point of view, but it was still socialist in operation (ie: forming national government owned corporations such as VW, People's Car). Fascists approximate to socialists for most practical purposes. Fascists control corporations while keeping them intact (via government investment), while socialism occasionally has companies reformed under entire government ownership. And there are other logical reasons to hate socialism and communism: Spartacists.

Mind you, socialism can easily evolve into communism because of its excessive amount of power and centralization. Balance of power is necessary to minimize the impact of abuse. Limiting federal power is necessary to prevent such extremes as Mao, Stalin, Lenin and Hitler. The United States was all about state's rights and powers when it was formed, and we try to retain such.

As for differentiation between socialism and communism is about the same difference as fascism and national socialism. But we've seem to forgotten that the only effective and actual "humane" communist groups are usually religious communes (the church as described in Acts can be seen as such a commune). Marxist communism isn't the only interpretation of communism. Socialism is yet another tangent of Marx and Engel's communist theory, albeit with different implementation.

You might want to read anything about Strasserism... that is national socialism as it started (Hitler had Strasser killed in 1934). Hitler may have hijacked it and emphasized its anti-Bolshevik point of view, but it was still socialist in operation (ie: forming national government owned corporations such as VW, People's Car). Fascists approximate to socialists for most practical purposes. Fascists control corporations while keeping them intact (via government investment), while socialism has the companies reformed under entire government ownership. And there are other logical reasons to hate socialism and communism: Spartacists.

Mind you, socialism can easily evolve into communism because of its excessive amount of power and centralization. Balance of power is necessary to minimize the impact of abuse. Limiting federal power is necessary to prevent such extremes as Mao, Stalin, Lenin and Hitler. The United States was all about state's rights and powers when it was formed, and we try to retain such.

As for differentiation between socialism and communism is about the same difference as fascism and national socialism. But we've seem to forgotten that the only effective and actual "humane" communist groups are usually religious communes (the church as described in Acts can be seen as such a commune). Marxist communism isn't the only interpretation of communism. Socialism is just an tangent of Marx and Engel's communist theory, with different implementation.

To add to this...

In pure pragmatic terms, the impacts of Nazism and Marxist-Leninism on their respective countries were remarkably similar. Secret police, repression of opposing views, genocide, constant alarmist/war-oriented atmosphere, bombardment of the citizens by propaganda from every media outlet... in their extremes, right-wing and left-wing governments produce the same results.

Socialism can work on a smaller scale, so can capitalism.

When you extend them to hundreds of millions of people, you're gonna get thousands or tens of thousands of people who exploit it either way.

Would you rather it be the people faking welfare who pull in a little dough they don't deserve, or the giant corporations scamming their employees to cut a bigger check to the CEO?

Socialism can work on a smaller scale, so can capitalism.

When you extend them to hundreds of millions of people, you're gonna get thousands or tens of thousands of people who exploit it either way.

Would you rather it be the people faking welfare who pull in a little dough they don't deserve, or the giant corporations scamming their employees to cut a bigger check to the CEO?

The issue here is that small-scale communism/socialism affects a small community, and works because the small size of the community allows trust that wouldn't exist on a greater scale. Because communism/socialism requires trust in government, large scale venture of that sort will be especially corrupt.

Large scale capitalism recognizes the intrinsic corruption, and thus attempts to regulate it through checks-and-balances. Things will still be corrupt, but through their existence, the giant corporations create jobs and stimulate the economy. I am not saying their intent is to do anything but line their pockets with money, but the jobs and economic stimulus are a byproduct of that. Whereas large scale socialism/communism retards the economy it exists in. Large scale affects the global economy; when America is doing well right now, the rest of the world is too. When America has a recession, other countries have problems. So, if America becomes communist/socialist, the rest of the world will suffer. They love to hate on us, but they do business with us, ALL of them.

The Soviet Union was a global player, but if you examine its economy, everything was stolen by the government and spent on the leaders and the military, the military being the assurance that the leaders could remain in their place, keeping international opponents away and the internal population silent through fear. That's how Reagan beat them: he said "when we operate at 40% efficiency, they'll be at 60%; when we are at 100%, they will break down." That's precisely what happened.

So why is there always confusion between socialism and communism? My history teacher uses the two interchangeably. I see a lot of people doing it here as well.

So why is there always confusion between socialism and communism? My history teacher uses the two interchangeably. I see a lot of people doing it here as well.

...socialism can easily evolve into communism because of its excessive amount of power and centralization.

So why is there always confusion between socialism and communism? My history teacher uses the two interchangeably. I see a lot of people doing it here as well.

Well before the Iron Curtain collapsed, children were thought that everything that had anything to do with Karl Marx's idea's was evil and bad. However they thought them that in a simplyfied way (they were children afterall), so they mixed socialism and cummunism together and forgot to teach the children that it's not the systems that are evil, it's just they leaders abusing it are.

That's why there is such a discomfort in the USA regarding talking about ANYTHING that has to do with socialism, because they think it will lead to communism and evil things... Remember, People were growing up for decades with communism as their arch enemy in the USA. I think your history teacher is still living with that fear these days and sees everything that looks even a bit non-pure-liberal as evil communism, you can't really blame him, he's only a human being.

...socialism can easily evolve into communism because of its excessive amount of power and centralization.

That's only true if the people in the country see communism as a good thing, right? Most, if not all, see communism as a bad thing if they know history: Lenin and Stalin did certainly not do things that people want to happen in their country.

That's only true if the people in the country see communism as a good thing, right? Most, if not all, see communism as a bad thing if they know history: Lenin and Stalin did certainly not do things that people want to happen in their country.

You forgot Mao Zedong, Pol Pot and Fidel Castro. Not to mention Kim Il Jung; N. Korea has some PRIME real estate right now. Get yours today!

China in particular is lulzy. The government has basically accepted that communism will get them jack $hit so they convert the country to capitalism but rule it with communism so they don't lose the Mandate of Heaven. They starved tens of millions of people to death due to what was essentially miscommunication between the provincial lackeys and their masters in Beijing. I don't know what's worse, a guy like Stalin, who starves his own people on purpose in genocidal proportions, or a guy like Mao, who starves his people in genocidal proportions BY ACCIDENT.

That's only true if the people in the country see communism as a good thing, right? Most, if not all, see communism as a bad thing if they know history: Lenin and Stalin did certainly not do things that people want to happen in their country.

Once you take the power out of the hands of the people, and presumably are backed by a larger force (a military, a secret police, etc), I guess it doesn't matter much what the people want. It's amazing how the government can slip policies in one-by-one, each time aggravating the public opinion, but not pushing the envelope enough to cause a big enough uproar. I think governing policies that slip under the radar like that can transform a country from one form of government to another even under the eyes of the people.

You forgot Mao Zedong, Pol Pot and Fidel Castro. Not to mention Kim Il Jung; N. Korea has some PRIME real estate right now. Get yours today!

China in particular is lulzy. The government has basically accepted that communism will get them jack $hit so they convert the country to capitalism but rule it with communism so they don't lose the Mandate of Heaven. They starved tens of millions of people to death due to what was essentially miscommunication between the provincial lackeys and their masters in Beijing. I don't know what's worse, a guy like Stalin, who starves his own people on purpose in genocidal proportions, or a guy like Mao, who starves his people in genocidal proportions BY ACCIDENT.

And what a tragic accident it was.

I read this article on Kim Jong-Il. I wish there was more about him. N. Korea has become so isolated, quite literally, that's it hard to find good information to be honest.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/783967.stm

And what a tragic accident it was.

I read this article on Kim Jong-Il. I wish there was more about him. N. Korea has become so isolated, quite literally, that's it hard to find good information to be honest.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/783967.stm

My favorite part is that South Korea despite the technical existence of war between N and S Korea tries to send food aid to the starving people of N Korea but it's hard to make sure N Korea doesn't divert the aid to feed its army instead.

It's the same story as East and West Germany after WWII... when the N Korean government falls, (this will certainly happen,) the Koreas will unify, and South Korea will have to somehow make the North functional again. Even now, East Germany is a much $hittier situation than the West, despite major aid from a lot of sources. A couple years ago BBC announced that the Koreas were trying to negotiate a peace treaty, but I heard of no follow-ups so I assume it flopped.

Communism is like the black plague. It doesn't just kill people, it causes misery for generations on out.