PleaseMoveThisToTheAdjunct
Seems to me that this thread could really use an academic definition of Socialism. Some good definitions and uses of Socialism can be found at
Socialism is the societal condition where the means of the production are entirely controlled by the state.
That definition is a little exclusive of other forms of socialism. I think we should rather talk by example, because a country may have a socialist government, like Chile and like most countries in latin america, but it has no SocialWelfare whatsoever. Also it doesn't control any means of production. In this very moment (May 2004) it is being discussed if there will be enough electricity in the following months because private companies that produce electricity didn't invest enough in recent years, and as Argentina is having problems delivering enough NaturalGas? (Methane methinks) because private companies in that country also didn't invest enough, then we are going to possibly have massive blackouts in the following months. Not even a capitalist country should be concerned about having enough electricity.
Example of SocialistCountries?: (Please add examples you know)
* SocialismAlaSweden?: Most companies are private but heavily regulated by the state. This means huge companies with a lot of taxes and a lot subsidies to compensate the taxes. New companies can't compete because of so much taxes and regulations. Big companies would not succeed if it were not because of subsidies. SocialWelfare is considered very important, since if a company fires you or otherwise rejects you, there is very little chance that you will ever get a job again.
* SocialismAlaRussia?: All companies belong to the state. No two companies produce the same products, therefore products are really low quality, except very few exceptions which are very high quality (space exploration being the only example I know). No unemployment whatsoever.
* SocialismAlaSouthAmerican?: Say you are socialistic, but implement no SocialWelfare. Let people die on the street or otherwise fight for food.
If AdamSmith invented Capitalism then KarlMarx invented Socialism.
There are no countries in which there exists only Capitalism or only Socialism, so why bother? Well, it seems that people on SocialistCountries? have absolutely no unemployment whatsoever, while on CapitalistCountries? that's impossible. On CapitalistCountries? SocialWelfare was invented to remedy the unemployment problem. It seems it works, but it looks like NobodyLikesWelfare?. This attitude is very strange for people who live in CapitalistCountriesWhichDoNotYetHaveWelfare?.
- It doesn't work. WhatYouRewardYouGet?. Pay people to be sick, they'll tend to be sick. Pay them not to work, they will tend not to work. This encourages a "victim" mentality and a dependent attitude.
- That's nonsense. Look at latin american countries which do not have welfare. All your salary is for you. Governments do not take 800 dollars from your paycheck every month to give it away to the poor. Then you do not feel safe in the streets, simply because the poor can't be fed. Sure they are lazy, they are probably not smart nor educated enough to get a job as you do, but you will be beaten in the street because they are hungry. I certainly prefer to pay 800 dollars a month to be safe.
- Besides, economics tells us that wages will simply go up because nobody is willing to work for less than 800 dollars. In latin american countries people are willing to work for far less.
- Hmmm... I agree with the former poster that positive reinforcement of a behaviour will propagate that behaviour, but the changes to the U.S. social welfare policies by the Clinton administration have gone a long way to remedy abuses of social welfare. As for the latter poster, latin-american countries tax their citizens just like what other Western governments do. Also, social welfare isn't what deters muggings in the street and all poor aren't muggers or thugs, so that seems like a poor point for supporting Social Welfare. A well-staffed, well-trained police force deters crime and humanitarian aid efforts helps deter hunger. Anyway, every country has its hungry - more than 11% of the U.S. population is unsure of its next meal. <http://www.frac.org/html/hunger_in_the_us/hunger_index.html> -- CarlosNsRodrigues
- Yes, latin american countries tax their citizens almost as much as civilized countries, but only if you don't consider that SocialWelfare is a tax. In latin american countries, there is no SocialWelfare. People without jobs may well live under a bridge and there are several hundred if not thousand children living under bridges. In the street you can see children 8 years old working. They also work at supermarkets. I've never seen anything like that in any civilized country.
Yes, we're going to establish a "MinimumStandardOfLiving" by forcibly redistributing the fruits of the efforts of those who are productive. Brilliant. It's an interesting idea that you can somehow tax people into prosperity. The only thing you can tax them into is chronic mediocrity and apathy.
Ok. Let us suppose that we are in a Marxist state where all the ones who do not work must starve. Your kids do not work. People who are too old to work can't live anymore from their savings, they must starve too. If you get disabled by an accident, we will let you starve. Also people who retire early because they want to live out of their stock, they must starve too. As you see this makes no sense. Capitalism is about division of labor. Division of labor means less people can produce more. Unemployment is a wonderful thing, we should all become unemployed because we are so productive that with a few hours a month of work, we should have enough money and live well. Unemployment is good only if there is welfare. Unemployment is a consequence of being more productive, so welfare is a natural consequence.
The concept that my "needs" are enough to compel you to give up what you've worked for (in direct ratio to your effectiveness and productivity) operates directly as a disincentive for you to work harder - after all, you're not going to receive the benefits of your increased efforts - but I will.
That's a very narrow minded point of view. Certainly that would be true if only a few worked and only a few had welfare. Now if everyone worked and everyone had welfare, that would be great. How come? Well imagine that all your school and university were free for you to consume. Then when you work, you work only for 10 or 20 years, then you retire rich. That's capitalism, not socialism. In socialist countries education was free, but you were never rich. If you didn't get a job at the government, you would starve. That wouldn't be nice. In capitalist countries, if it were not for welfare, salaries would be as low as in latin american countries.
What you reward you get. Pay people to be sick and not dead, and people will tend to be sick and not dead.
- Do you have numbers to support that? No, but it's a reasoned conclusion of what happens if you need money for drugs, and thus so far on as firm a basis as anything else mentioned here. I'm still waiting for numbers.
- I agree that we need numbers. The UnitedStates has 270 million people. If you sum all the people in latin american countries you almost get the same number. The UnitedStates consumes half of Microsoft products while the rest of the world consumes the other half. That may be because other countries respect intellectual property a lot less. Also it may be because people in other parts of the world are so poor. I think the main reason people in other countries are so prone to not respect intellectual property is because they are so poor. They are poor because there are so much taxes and so little subsidies. For example, in the UnitedStates all hiring expenses can be deducted from taxes. That's a socialistic measure, and of course it benefits a lot of people, but no latin american country is interested in giving incentives to hire people. The logic is beyond me. Probably having lots and lots of poor people willing to work for pennies is something that benefits the economy. I doubt it. People in the UnitedStates complain that so many poor people from latin american countries go to work there, but they fail to realize that SocialWelfare is what makes attractive that country to work at. If all countries had to have SocialWelfare we would all benefit. It doesn't matter that lazy people will prefer to live on welfare. Actually I would prefer my lazy coworkers to stay at home watching TV than stay on the workplace scheduling meetings.
Otherwise, those that aren't healthy will tend to die. How serious are these trends you mention in reality? I often hear that welfare recipients generally don't need it, and could easily find jobs if they wanted, but anecdotal evidence involving actually
humans suggests otherwise. Real statistics on the degrees to which such programs help people and the degree to which they promote abuse are hard to come by. How much are you reporting, and how much are you assuming?
- Is welfare abuse really a problem? Let me explain. I wouldn't mind if LinusTorvalds lived on welfare. That's not something he would probably like to do because welfare is miserable, but if he received the NobelPrize or the TuringAward he could probably live for improving Linux. I think that would be great. Thinking that all people on welfare do not deserve welfare is like thinking that those persons are not useful for society. They are probably more useful than the people who work, because they managed to become unnecessary. Think about that for a while. I did. Now my head hurts.
J K Rowling wrote Harry Potter while on welfare.
... and the rest of that statistic is ... ?
...and anecdotal evidence is an oxymoron and not evidence at all.
Indeed. Should the subjects of the UK be happy that their tax dollars went to support someone who later became a multi-millionaire, while receiving nothing in return?
They receive the opportunity to pay 17 pounds for her book, and the benefits that book brings to society. You mean, like movie deals for JK Rowling?
- When you pay 17 pounds for her book you are stating that the book has more value to you than those 17 pounds. That's economics. Maybe you didn't read it or maybe you didn't see the movie. In that case you wouldn't benefit directly. But maybe you benefit indirectly because she would probably have found a job and you would have loose it.
And their government received taxes on his income, that ideally would go to help others the same way.
"Her", not "his". In any case, the taxes she's paying aren't going to help the people who paid the taxes that paid for her welfare checks in the first place - those people obviously don't need welfare.
- Well, ideally, taxes are spent to benefit everyone. That they aren't is an example of the system not working, not the system being based on a flawed premise, as argued above.
- Besides it doesn't matter who get to live on welfare, we should respect them because that's the way the economy works. If they took courses on how to dress, how to talk appropriately, how to be charming, how to do marketing campaigns and sell snake oil, others would find themselves without a job. It's that simple.
Moved to MisesArgumentAgainstSocialism
"Thinking that all people on welfare do not deserve welfare is like thinking that those persons are not useful for society. They are probably more useful than the people who work, because they managed to become unnecessary. Think about that for a while."
I don't follow. How are people who are paid not to work more useful to society than people who are paid to work? How do you equate becoming "unnecessary" with being more useful?
Let us suppose that I am hired to create a new kind of database: ShlingDangDatabase?. If that for me is easy, once delivered, probably in a few weeks, I would find myself on the street living on welfare. If creating a ShlingDangDatabase? for me is impossible, the same would happen, or I could find an easier job. Most probably the second option would happen, as happens with actors who are not given a chance or that ruin all their chances: They stay as waiters.
Most developers stay on their jobs because for them their jobs are hard, so it takes time, it takes effort and the result is sometimes disappointing. If anyone could do it, you wouldn't have that job. But if you already delivered a perfect software with no effort, who needs you now?
So the folks on welfare got there by being so good at what they did they made entire industries obsolete. Perfectly clear now. If we pay everyone to stop working we'll maximize their benefit to society and live in paradise. I can't wait.
- Well, the other possibility is that people who live on welfare are morons who can't accomplish anything and therefore they deserve to die. Why don't we just start a hunting season and revive the wonderful Nazy party? Also let us kill all students who can't afford to work 12 hours a day (only in civilized countries you get to work 8 hours a day) and study a career and live on 200 US dollars a month. With a career you can get 500 SU dollars a month, so if you want to have a meal when you get old, you better get a career. Of course, removing the incompetents from society would be wonderful: we, the 10% richest, will remove the lazy 90% of the people. When we finally succeed, the 1% richest will do the same with the other 9% and so on until there is only one person who will own everything. That would be so smart. I can imagine a wonderful economy of only one man. That's nonsense of course. It doesn't matter how many people you take out of the street, there will always be more. That's called economics. Only communist countries did not have underemployment because those countries did not allow the market to work: everything was decided by a central planner and of course the central planner decided there would be no underemployment. You apply for a job, you get a job. Probably not the one you wanted, but one that would satisfy your basic needs.
- Doing your job well and completing your tasks does not lead to unemployment. It is more likely that you will gain more tasks due to your proven merit, and that more projects will come your way. Also, there's always maintenance of the final result. If you're unemployed after completing a task well, , it's more a product of your employer not having work for you at that time. You are not obsolete - you just need to perform that task somewhere else. -- CarlosNsRodrigues
- Can you explain your logic? What I've seen is this: The company I work for hires me on an hourly basis. The more time it takes, the more I get paid. I think that way, but my salary is nothing compared to what the company I work for makes. There are other people who work for the same company. If I take the task that other people have tried to solve for months and I solve it in 20 minutes, well, guess what, they can always say it was too hard, but if I solve it in 20 minutes, what do I get or what does the company I work for get? Nothing. There is no need now that I fixed that problem. Actually I got fired on the spot. No reasons were spelled.
- Managers are unable to realize if something is simple or difficult because they have no technical education nor technical experience, therefore they simply pay by the hour. More hours means more money. Period. And that means that only the incompetent developers survive. People who think that they must work 12 hours a day every day, sometimes including weekends, and they are so thankful to have a job because otherwise they would be living on the street. They are not incompetent because they can't make an effort, but because they make so many efforts that they are so tired they can't think right. For them taking a 2-hour trip to get to work is normal. They are 30 years old but they look 40. I guess you can't wait to live like that.
Well, it seems that people on SocialistCountries?? have absolutely no unemployment whatsoever, while on CapitalistCountries?? that's impossible.
I'm unfamiliar with theoretical work on socialism, but in a purely capitalistic society, there would be zero unemployment: everyone wishing to have a job would be able to find one. The existence of unemployment in a capitalist society comes from legal restrictions on employment negotiations. In most societies, these restrictions include minimum wage, affirmative action, union negotiation rules, pension funding rules, etc.
- Where did you read that? Zero unemployment is impossible because companies need to make investments. That means they need to hire people from time to time without affecting the rest of the economy. If they took people from other jobs, they would be affecting the rest of the economy. Only when people who weren't working before becomes employed the economy grows, so unemployment is a necessity. Unemployment is good because it makes people think what can they do to get a job. The only problem with unemployment is that while people think they have also to think how to get the next meal, so instead of thinking long term, they think short term. I'm sure Rowling had the time to think long term because she didn't have to spend all her time on how to get the next meal.
- Zero unemployment is inefficient, horrible and undesirable. You want to force companies to hire murderers, drug dealers, total incompetents, alcoholics, etc? You want to force them to hire someone if they don't do any work all day? With no unemployment, how could a new company start? How could the need for a new product be met without sacrifing an existing one? Unless you are an idiot (socialist), it is blindingly obvious that a significant (4-6%) amount of unemployment is the healthiest possible amount.
Socialism is founded upon the denial of man's fundamental nature. All but a negligible percentage of men will:
- Strive to gain as much personal advantage as possible
- Perform to the best of their ability only when rewarded and sabotage effort that is punished
Thus socialism enforces corruption, waste, poverty, inefficiency, incompetence, and tragedies of the commons.
Socialism makes intelligence and ambition a liability, and stupidity and laziness an asset by inverting rewards and punishments.
A much more practical discussion on Socialism: OpenSourceEqualsSocialism. This takes a radically different point of view: When you do something not for your own good, but for the good of the whole community, then you are a socialist. From that point of view certainly OpenSourceEqualsSocialism.
CategoryDefinition
What Is Socialism