Why does socialism usually fail?

[Little-Acorn]

Some socialists try to point out that socialist (or communist, its kissing cousin) policies are "sound". Sure, if you can get people to follow them. They include the policy that govenment owns all industry, business, etc., and gives its workers the housing, food, education etc. they need. The ides is, that they will work for the greater good of society, and keep the businesses flourishing. There are other features of socialism, but these are some of the most important.

But people in a socialist system generally don't want to obey socialist policy. It's a tendency that increases with time. Rather than work harder at something that brings them no additional benefit for it, some slack off while most keep working hard. Later the hard workers notice the slackers, and a few more slack off. Later a few more, etc. The system doesn't collapse suddenly, but merely gets more and more inefficient and unproductive over the years, or even over generations. Then when other problems happen (natural disaster, foreign invasion, etc.) recovery is difficult or impossible when the country has slid far enough into sloth. This is the cause of the repeated failures of socialist economies.

And the only thing the leaders can seem to do about it, is force people to work hard whether they like it or not, whether their pay goes up commensurately or not. In other word, they must rule contrary to the will of the people, rather than in accordance with it. In other words, they must become dictators.

Socialism breeds dictators. But it's not the dictators that bring down the society. Socialist policy, and the disinterest in the population in following it, bring down the society.

Capitalism, with its tendency to (usually) reward hard work and initiative, has it flaws, but that isn't one of them. And so it survives and prospers, however roughly and unevenly, where socialism fails.

[April15]

Greed and sloth are the real problems with a socialist society. Those who are not allowed to screw people for profit become enraged and become dregs of society.

[5stringJeff]

Socialism fails because there is no incentive for success in socialist economies. If one succeeds in life, the government steals the proceeds, allowing you to live off a fraction of your earnings. If one fails to succeed, one lives off government subsidies. Since economic success is punished and laziness is rewarded, the socialist economy falters.

[avatar4321]

because it works against human nature.

Capitalism/Republican type systems work because they recognize human nature the way it is and work with them to:

1)create incentives for the good parts of nature
2)place checks the bad parts of nature.

Socialism doesnt take human nature into account.

[avatar4321]

Greed and sloth are the real problems with a socialist society. Those who are not allowed to screw people for profit become enraged and become dregs of society.

and thats a great example of how the socialist/capitalists contrast

As a socialist the view point is you can only make profit if you screw people.

Thats not how life works. Its not how capitalism works. Capitalism works by providing people with things they want.

[April15]

and thats a great example of how the socialist/capitalists contrast

As a socialist the view point is you can only make profit if you screw people.

Thats not how life works. Its not how capitalism works. Capitalism works by providing people with things they want.Capitalists unregulated screw people. Take the current subprime mortgage as example one. It is just an extension of the S&L failures way back when.
True free market capitalism fails just as bad but takes longer.

[manu1959]

lack of funds to fund the slacker system.....

[5stringJeff]

Capitalists unregulated screw people. Take the current subprime mortgage as example one. It is just an extension of the S&L failures way back when.
True free market capitalism fails just as bad but takes longer.

Wrong. Avatar nailed it: capitalism works because firms provide goods and services that people want.

[Little-Acorn]

Wrong. Avatar nailed it: capitalism works because firms provide goods and services that people want.

AND because the firms providing them benefit by doing so.

[avatar4321]

Capitalists unregulated screw people. Take the current subprime mortgage as example one. It is just an extension of the S&L failures way back when.
True free market capitalism fails just as bad but takes longer.

people making poor decisions does not equate to them getting screwed when those who make the loans are also losing money

[Nukeman]

people making poor decisions does not equate to them getting screwed when those who make the loans are also losing moneyLets not confuse him with facts, or truth.

the main reason socialism fails is due to 2 things.

1. GREED, everyone wants just a little more and the more power you have the more you can get thus the ilimination of the whole socialist experiment goes right out the window.

2. ENVY, once again when one has a little more than another the other wants it. unfortunately it is in human nature to want what one can not have...

[Little-Acorn]

Lets not confuse him with facts, or truth.

the main reason socialism fails is due to 2 things.

1. GREED, everyone wants just a little more and the more power you have the more you can get thus the ilimination of the whole socialist experiment goes right out the window.

2. ENVY, once again when one has a little more than another the other wants it. unfortunately it is in human nature to want what one can not have...

Of course, greed and envy exist in capitalist societies, too. But there, they go toward making people more productive, not less. Because what you get it tied to what you do, not to what someone thinks you "ought" to have. So for most people in a capitalist society, greed and envy drive them to do more; where in a socialist society, greed and envy drive people to duck the rules and disobey the law.

Not everyone in a capitalist society responds by working to do more - capitalist societies have their share of slackers and outright criminals who try to duck the rules. But it capitalism, that's actively discouraged and punished, where in socialist societies government usually has its hands so full trying to force people to obey rules they don't like, it has little time to punish slackers and often lets them slide.

[midcan5]

Socialism is ownership by the workers and on the larger scale by society on the whole. Socialist ideas are evident even in capitalism with employee stock options as an example. The area in which socialism fails is in the resolution of conflict. As far as any system being a motivator of people, that's a hard thing to pin down, as there are lots of working people who are as lazy as any welfare recipient. What often happens to motivate, is opportunity and some success, if those things are present most people succeed. Bush would be an exception to this rule. Communism on the other hand was centralized planning and that often fails because things change. Imagine raising children as a centralized planner, some times it works often not. Communism was quite successful in some areas, they got into space before us, for instance. But again CP was evident in Nixon's administration and it lead to the incredible interest rates that doomed Carter. I don't give Carter much credit either but he didn't have a lot of time to correct the mess and the oil embargo was another thorn in his (our) side.


"[A] theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." socialism

[Hagbard Celine]

...

[Hagbard Celine]

Socialism fails because there is no incentive for success in socialist economies. If one succeeds in life, the government steals the proceeds, allowing you to live off a fraction of your earnings. If one fails to succeed, one lives off government subsidies. Since economic success is punished and laziness is rewarded, the socialist economy falters.

Tell that to Europe, Australia, Japan, Iceland, Finland, Sweden and the rest. All of those countries are economically successful and yet, they all have universal healthcare programs, government-controlled businesses, wonderful mass-transit systems and the Pound and Euro are worth more than twice as much as the US dollar. And you want to continue to pretend that socialist policies don't work? What a joke :laugh2:

The neo-conservative fantasy continues...

[Little-Acorn]

Socialism is ownership by the workers and on the larger scale by society on the whole.
More importantly, it is CONTROL of businesses etc. by "society as a whole", as your own definition points out and you try to ignore here. Since "society as a whole" can't control anything, that control winds up in the hands of faceless bureaucrats, and stripped away from the people in the business themselves. This is the main failing of socialism - that and the fact that the workers do not get the benefits of their work, but are only paid what someone thinks they need.


The area in which socialism fails is in the resolution of conflict.
The area where socialism fails is in the GENERATION of conflict: it does too much of it, by taking away people's incentive to work hard and then expecting them to work hard anyway. As I said in the OP, a few of the workers then begin slacking, others notice this after a while, and a few more who were on the edge, begin slacking too. And then later some more, etc. It can take years or even decades for an economy to sink into sloth, but there is no internal motivation for it to stop the slide, so the sinking becomes inevitable.

At the same time, government must become massive enough to force each and every one of them to do what increasing numbers of them don't really feel like doing: work hard. And the workers must be forced to document their hard work with endless paperwork - the only way government can keep track. And government expands even more to keep track of all the paperwork. Productivity falls while "busy-ness" increases.


As far as any system being a motivator of people, that's a hard thing to pin down
Actually it's quite easy to pin down. If people know they'll get great bennies from their hard work, they'll mostly work harder. If they know they won't get any particular bennies, some will work hard anyway while a few slack off, then gradually more etc., and the slide begins.

Motivation is only hard to pin down if you're looking at a socialist-based system - because there isn't any.


there are lots of working people who are as lazy as any welfare recipient.
Yes, lazy people are everywhere, among those who are hard workers or at least start that way. But the lazy are threatened with pay cuts or job loss in capitalist societies, a threat that at least prevents the hard workers next to them from slacking off. But the lazy in a socialist system must still get paid, and they know it. Not only is there little incentive for them to improve, they remain as living examples of why you may as well idle along at "barely acceptable" levels. And even formerly hardworking people eventually start following their easier path.


"[A] theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." socialism

Control is the important part. Ownership implies complete control. But our present government takes control of many things while ostensibly leaving ownership in the hands of private individuals - as if ownership without control were worth the paper it's printed on.

Socialism fails because its people have little or no hope of bettering themselves, and so eventually decide not to try very hard.

[LOki]

In pure theoretical socialism, even run by people with the very best intentions, any individual is an expendable means to the common good of society. (http://www.usmessageboard.com/general-global-topics/30557-on-socialism.html#post407938)

[April15]

people making poor decisions does not equate to them getting screwed when those who make the loans are also losing moneyThe broker didn't lose money, the originator of the loan didn't lose money, the company that sold the loan to a bond company didn't lose money, the people who bought the bonds did lose money. So who got screwed?

[Little-Acorn]

The bottom line remains the same. Socialism expects people to work hard, but get paid only according to what they need. When they don't work hard, they still get paid according to what they need. So if they want more money, working hard isn't the way to get it. Becoming more needy, is. So there's little incentive to work harder, but lots of incentive to burden the system with your needs.

Such a system encourages the worst parts of human nature and does nothing to promote the best. And attempt after attempt at building a socialist nation, slides slowly down into ruin, as the USSR did.

This is the reason most people abhor a socialist system. And the reason why such a thing must not be implemented in the U.S.

But everywhere you look in this country, you find politicians proposing to pay out more tax money in unemployment payments, welfare payments, etc., while increasing taxes on people who work hard ("soaking the rich"). These are trappings of socialism... and they are the parts that hurt societies the most.

[AllieBaba]

Wrong. Avatar nailed it: capitalism works because firms provide goods and services that people want.

And reward people for hard work.

[AllieBaba]

The broker didn't lose money, the originator of the loan didn't lose money, the company that sold the loan to a bond company didn't lose money, the people who bought the bonds did lose money. So who got screwed?

The people who got screwed were the ones who thought they were going to get something for next to nothing.

Which is as it has always been and the way it should be. If you've been working at K-Mart for 6 months part time and your hubby manages McDonald's you really ought to be a little suspicious if somebody is willing to finance a $200,000 house for you.

[5stringJeff]

Tell that to Europe, Australia, Japan, Iceland, Finland, Sweden and the rest. All of those countries are economically successful and yet, they all have universal healthcare programs, government-controlled businesses, wonderful mass-transit systems and the Pound and Euro are worth more than twice as much as the US dollar. And you want to continue to pretend that socialist policies don't work? What a joke :laugh2:

The neo-conservative fantasy continues...

Such economies have both capitalist and socialist properties, the former of which would explain their economic success, and the latter of which would explain the higher tax rates in those countries.

[Said1]

Tell that to Europe, Australia, Japan, Iceland, Finland, Sweden and the rest. All of those countries are economically successful and yet, they all have universal healthcare programs, government-controlled businesses, wonderful mass-transit systems and the Pound and Euro are worth more than twice as much as the US dollar. And you want to continue to pretend that socialist policies don't work? What a joke :laugh2:

The neo-conservative fantasy continues...

To tell you the truth Hag, most so called socialist countries have progressive socialist policies. Or gradualist policies - meaning that over time, less government control, more liberal markets and private enterprise. With the exception of health care and other things that fall under the municiple or provincial umbrella, decentralization is the way to go if you want to join the fine international organizations that control our fine global markets. Even membership intot he EU requires set/limited social spending. :laugh2:

[April15]

The people who got screwed were the ones who thought they were going to get something for next to nothing.

Which is as it has always been and the way it should be. If you've been working at K-Mart for 6 months part time and your hubby manages McDonald's you really ought to be a little suspicious if somebody is willing to finance a $200,000 house for you.The actual response is that you are over joyed that a house could be yours. As most working Americans are not financial wizards or legal minds they trust those who are in the business to be honest. Unfortunately with the lack of regulation in the mortgage markets ethics went into the toilet.

[midcan5]

More importantly, it is CONTROL of businesses etc. by "society as a whole", as your own definition points out and you try to ignore here. Since "society as a whole" can't control anything, that control winds up in the hands of faceless bureaucrats, and stripped away from the people in the business themselves. This is the main failing of socialism - that and the fact that the workers do not get the benefits of their work, but are only paid what someone thinks they need.

It would be too easy to counter that point if you look at the work the workers do, and the difference between them, and the upper level executives who pad their pockets. That isn't a good argument nor does it hold water in the real world. But a point in this discussion of being rewarded for hard work would make sense if we could assume a level playing field in which everyone had similar opportunity. Bush could fail numerous times, and has, as have other well to do people, but they are far enough up the food chain to bounce back. When you are on the bottom it is harder to bounce back and the opportunity itself does not exist.

http://www.amazon.com/Persistence-Poverty-Economics-Well-Off-Cant/dp/0300120907/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212452525&sr=1-1


PS I also think socialism is a smoke screen, an irrelevancy that isn't pertinent in the modern age and is only used as a rhetorical stick.

[Hagbard Celine]

Such economies have both capitalist and socialist properties, the former of which would explain their economic success, and the latter of which would explain the higher tax rates in those countries.

No duh. You didn't really think liberals in this country have been pushing for true Socialism did you?
My point is that these policies work and work well. Why haven't we adopted them? Is it simply because voters can't wrap their minds around paying higher taxes? The difference would be negligible once you factor in the savings on healthcare alone.

[Hagbard Celine]

To tell you the truth Hag, most so called socialist countries have progressive socialist policies. Or gradualist policies - meaning that over time, less government control, more liberal markets and private enterprise. With the exception of health care and other things that fall under the municiple or provincial umbrella, decentralization is the way to go if you want to join the fine international organizations that control our fine global markets. Even membership intot he EU requires set/limited social spending. :laugh2:

I know that. Tell that to US conservatives. They seem to think that social programs are the devil and that committing to making them work would mean sacrificing capitalism in the marketplace. (shakes head)
They seem to ignore the fact that we already have SOCIAL security.

[5stringJeff]

No duh. You didn't really think liberals in this country have been pushing for true Socialism did you?
My point is that these policies work and work well. Why haven't we adopted them? Is it simply because voters can't wrap their minds around paying higher taxes? The difference would be negligible once you factor in the savings on healthcare alone.

Except you aren't factoring in the loss of liberty, both of the citizen to choose their own doctor/health insurance, and the decreased income of those who subsidize the "free" health care.

[Hagbard Celine]

Except you aren't factoring in the loss of liberty, both of the citizen to choose their own doctor/health insurance, and the decreased income of those who subsidize the "free" health care.

I think it's more a "loss of liberty" for a citizen to go into debt because of high healthcare costs than it is to lose the ability to choose their doctor. But that's just me.
Who cares which doctor you get anyway? I certainly don't. My relationship with my doctor is all business. I go in when I'm sick, get it cured and leave. I don't stay and chat him up. Do you?

[avatar4321]

The actual response is that you are over joyed that a house could be yours. As most working Americans are not financial wizards or legal minds they trust those who are in the business to be honest. Unfortunately with the lack of regulation in the mortgage markets ethics went into the toilet.

actually the problem was overregulation requiring companies to offer such poor deals.

[Hagbard Celine]

actually the problem was overregulation requiring companies to offer such poor deals.

Actually it was under regulation allowing companies to sell mortgages to anyone and everyone who applied almost regardless of their income bracket and/or credit status.

[April15]

actually the problem was overregulation requiring companies to offer such poor deals.What I think you are making reference to is the low income mortgage program. It was to allow a minimum number of high risk mortgages.

[Said1]

I know that. Tell that to US conservatives. They seem to think that social programs are the devil and that committing to making them work would mean sacrificing capitalism in the marketplace. (shakes head)
They seem to ignore the fact that we already have SOCIAL security.

I don't want to name names, BUT someone on this board wrote in a thread that people who take advantage of 'free' health care related social service programs are 'leaches'. Then, in another thread, this same poster boasted about taking advantage of 'free' health care related social services for a family member. :laugh2:

What do you mean by social programs/spending, exactly?

[Little-Acorn]

someone on this board wrote in a thread that people who take advantage of 'free' health care related social service programs are 'leaches'.

Wasn't me - I would have spelled it correctly. :poke:

Back to the subject:
The parts of socialism that cause the harm I have described, are the policies of paying people a fixed amount, rather than paying them by merit and allowing free enterprise where they can take in as much as the market will bear. This takes away most incentive to work harder and take risks, the characteristics that fuel progress and prosperity.

To do this, government must take the money of those who make a lot, and give it to those who don't make so much. Any government that does those two things, is drifting toward socialism and the debilitation it brings. That's why our government was strictly forbidden to do either of them by the people who designed it - those who wrote and ratified the Constitution.

Sure, most people like to take freebies - that is, things that other people have been compelled to pay for. Does that make it right? DeToqueville pointed out that democracies last only until people find they can vote themselves largesse from the state treasury. Politicians who encourage giveaways such as Welfare, unemployment compensation, sugar subsidies, etc.; and taking money from those who make more via "progressive" income taxes, "corporate" taxes etc., are encouraging that very thing. Only to the extent that some of us refuse them and keep working hard, will the country stave off the slide that deToqueville (and many others) predicted.

A little free stuff would be all right - if there were any guarantee that policitians wouldn't keep increasing it, competing with each other to buy the most votes. But it ALWAYS increases, of course. The people who designed the government knew that, and knew that the only way to avoid the debilitation of socialism, was to forbid even the beginning of it. Naturally, the vote-buyers are doing their best to defeat the Constitution's prohibitions, amending them out of existence where they can (16th and 17th amendments etc.) and flatly violating them where they can't (10th amendment, 5th amendment, restrictions imposed by Commerce and General Welfare clauses etc.).

Socialism breeds sloth, and it also breeds dictators as people gradually decide they'd rather take it easy and still get paid the same, and government finds it must force them to work hard. We're not at the point where government must force us all against our will... but we're heading that way. Only the capitalism that remains in this country, staves off the slide into tyranny and ruin that socialism inevitably brings.

[Trigg]

I know that. Tell that to US conservatives. They seem to think that social programs are the devil and that committing to making them work would mean sacrificing capitalism in the marketplace. (shakes head)
They seem to ignore the fact that we already have SOCIAL security.

Social Security, you mean that wondeful system that won't be around when it's time for me to retire? Great example of the gov. screwing around with my money instead of letting me invest it.


Who cares which doctor you get anyway? I certainly don't

Maybe it's just me, but I do care who my Dr is. I don't want the guy who went to the University of Grenada and graduated last in his class. Personally I want someone who knows what the hell he's talking about when he tries to make a diagnosis. I certainly don't want someone telling me who I have to see.

[5stringJeff]

I think it's more a "loss of liberty" for a citizen to go into debt because of high healthcare costs than it is to lose the ability to choose their doctor. But that's just me.
Who cares which doctor you get anyway? I certainly don't. My relationship with my doctor is all business. I go in when I'm sick, get it cured and leave. I don't stay and chat him up. Do you?

The difference is that you are free, in this country, to work your way out of debt. Or not. You are also free to declare bankruptcy, free to pay the minimum payments on your credit cards, etc. There's a great quote out there that says, in effect, denying someone's liberty in fear that they may abuse it is one of the worst forms of tyranny. I would agree.

[Said1]

The difference is that you are free, in this country, to work your way out of debt. Or not. You are also free to declare bankruptcy, free to pay the minimum payments on your credit cards, etc. There's a great quote out there that says, in effect, denying someone's liberty in fear that they may abuse it is one of the worst forms of tyranny. I would agree.
Aside from the obvious, where are you not free to do the above? Let's use western countries, not China or other dictatorships that claim to be social democracies - let's use a realistic example like Sweden or Canada.

And to clarify, aren't there restrictions in the US with respect to bankruptcy? Or at least in certan places?

[MtnBiker]

The broker didn't lose money, the originator of the loan didn't lose money, the company that sold the loan to a bond company didn't lose money, the people who bought the bonds did lose money. So who got screwed?

Hmmm, I wonder what Jim Johnson thinks about that?