Welcome, Guest

Author Topic: Why Does Socialism Always Fail?  (Read 53899 times)

phinehas

  • Regular sans EE
  • *
  • Posts: 177
Why Does Socialism Always Fail?
« on: April 14, 2014, 07:32:59 AM »
"In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state’s role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.

Nor should we turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state.

And one more point: anti-crisis measures should not escalate into financial populism and a refusal to implement responsible macroeconomic policies. The unjustified swelling of the budgetary deficit and the accumulation of public debts are just as destructive as adventurous stock-jobbing."

- Vladimir Putin, Prime Minister of Russia, February, 2009.



Socialism is the 20th century's greatest tragedy. Although its evangelists promised equality, prosperity and security, it was only responsible for misery, poverty, and absolutely 100% of the time ended up in tyranny.

Actually, it is interesting to note that socialism in the 20th century did achieve a form of equality after all, but only in the form that all people in socialist countries were equal in their misery and poverty. Having spent considerable amounts of time in actively socialist countries, I have seen the anguish of its proletariat with my own eyes... although I never thought that I would live to see the Kremlin lecture Washington on the dangers of socialism.

Just like Madoff's Ponzi pyramid scheme initially showed staggering success but then collapsed like the house of cards that it was, socialism demonstrates signs of success in its early stages. The essential problem is that all of the gains, real or imagined, fade rapidly as the basic and inescapable deficiencies of the policy of central control of an economy emerge.

I remember a gardener years ago discussing a particular way to over-fertilize a plant. That process would lead to a swift growth spurt and early blooming. Unfortunately, the plant would succumb to the excessive nutrients in the soil and would never bear fruit before it withered and died. That is an excellent metaphor for the life cycle of socialism.

The promoters of this appalling and loathsome grim joke on humanity unanimously point to the initial stages of any socialistic system where progress is made on a wide range of social issues, including universal health care, affordable housing, and guaranteed welfare. However, they unfailingly begin to suffer from amnesia when the mid to late stages of socialism arrive: Collectivism is impossible to support over a term of more than a few years due to the fact that it is based on a theory which is completely and absolutely erroneous.

Why does socialism always fail? Socialism is incompatible with the most basal and rudimentary principles of human behavior. Just like an animal has to be trained to perform a particular behavior through positive reinforcement, humans will generally not perform any act of labor unless there is acceptable incentivization. Incentives are central to a free market system: indeed the entire essence of the free market economy is to provide an elegantly interconnected infrastructure of incentives to drive and direct the socio-economic framework of the nation.

These incentives are based upon the essential human drive to possess. Under the free market economic model, individuals are enabled and empowered to gain tangible value from the fruit of their labor, and be able to build lasting security through wealth. One of the major keystones of this security is to be seen in the right to privately hold property. Permanent shelter is a fundamental human desire, and many individuals in a free market system have stated that the happiest day of their lives, after their wedding or birth of their children, is the day they burned their mortgage and thus owned their homes free and clear.

There are many other forms of value, whether it is the ability to possess entertainment, sports, leisure, professional, or convenience accessories, or to be able to invest wisely in order to ensure that children are secure while retirement comes early and is comfortable. The free market system is based this inalienable right to possess within a lattice of market-set pricing and profit-and-loss accounting. It is impossible to understate the importance of these incentives and their unparalleled power to shape the economy of a nation.

Incentives under socialism are virtually non existent. When you have a nation where all property is owned by the government there is no way for the common person to build security in any way. Individuals soon recognize that they are serfs of the state, and since they are subject to the whims of the politburo of the day, have no possibility for self determination. The only way to pull yourself out of the mire is to attempt to become one of the handful of Party authorities, who are able to live in the luxurious decadence of the top capitalists.

I know an Eastern European family whose 19th century ancestors built a lovely stone villa in a magnificent panoramic location overlooking the sea. It served as their ancestral home for over a century until the new socialist rulers of the nation served them an order to vacate. Their entire family of eleven was to be relocated to a two bedroom apartment in a Stalinist concrete block building next to a toxic chemical plant, as the villa had now been allocated to a high ranking local Party member.

This family not only received no form of compensation whatsoever, but was escorted from their ancestral home at gunpoint, to spend the rest of the century in that squallid, cramped, crumbling apartment in the core of a smog-laden, grimy city. It was only after the Fall of the Berlin Wall that they were able to engage in an expensive and draining five year long court action to restore their rightful property rights and regain the deed to their villa, which by now had fallen virtually into ruin as fifty years had elapsed.

Socialist centrally planned economies invariably fail due to their inherent and integral failure to encourage, develop, and nurture the essential potential of its people by lack of incentivization. Socialism is a failure because it suppresses the human spirit. Why else have so many thousands of people lost their lives in attempts to clandestinely escape their socialistic bondage and reach nations which embrace free market economies? In comparison, how many people have willingly left free market economies to move to socialist countries?

By its inability to foster, promote and develop the potential of people through incentives, centrally planned economies deprive the human spirit of ambition, aspiration, enterprise, determination and industry. What happens to the aspiration of a human being when there is essentially no reason to do anything? Nothing gets done.

Thus lies the core flaw of collectivist economies: When you inform a laborer that it is essentially irrelevant whether they produce one wicket a day or a hundred, and that it is also irrelevant whether those wickets are quality crafted or thrown together, as they will live in the same government owned apartment, shop at the same meagre stores, and be stuck in the same droning, monotonous job for the rest of their lives... their productivity falls steadily until almost nothing is produced. Multiply that effect by virtually every laborer in the nation, and you soon see why socialist economies are marked by long queues outside stores when the word gets out that they have soap, or bread, or eggs that day. Nobody is producing anything, thus nobody sells anything, thus there is nothing to buy.

At a time when the fault lines of capitalism are becoming exposed through the recent financial seismic shocks, it is a knee jerk reaction for the closet socialists to come out of the closet, dust off their tired rhetoric, and give it one more shot to convince the world to sing "L'Internationale" in unison. The reason why each proponent of this deficient ideology, from Vladimir Lenin, to Mao Zedong, to John Lennon has failed is due to the barren wasteland which exists within the seductive allure of socialism to the poverty-stricken masses of the world. The chimera of being able to "share the wealth of the state" is extremely tempting to those who toil in drudgery while the upper classes are whizzed by in their chauffeured limousines.

What they don't understand is that the state cannot create wealth, it can only administer it. Thus, the essence of socialism is one of universal impoverishment where even the hope that the lower classes can escape their poverty vaporizes along with the rest of the the nation's productivity.

We in the free market world are currently undergoing a severe economic adjustment. It would be fallacious to lay the blame for this convulsion on free market ideology or capitalistic structures. The current upheavals are due to the failure to enforce existing financial regulations thus letting blind greed and rampant megalomania run wild. That is not what a free market economy is all about. Just like a state cannot exist without just laws, a capitalistic system cannot function without adherence to fair and reasonable regulation. This recession was triggered by a myopic and incompetent gaggle of politicians, not by any inherent fault of the free market system.

The genius of capitalism, and the basic reason why it succeeds where socialism fails, is contained within its core tenet that the free and unfettered market determines profit and loss. Every citizen is empowered to design and market a better mousetrap, provide a better service, or implement a better idea, and let the free choice of the consumer decide to reward them. The potential success of the individual is limited only by their ambition, drive, and intellect, not by slavish adherence to a collectivist Five Year Plan.

It is at a time like this that we cannot afford to be hypnotized by the siren song of socialism, and the deleterious, titanic evils of nationalization, central planning, and government control through financing of private corporations. It is a time when we must refresh and renew our free market structures, allowing individuals the freedom and liberty to create wealth so that the rising tide will raise all boats once again. Some well known, salt of the earth companies and brand names will disappear forever, but they will be replaced and refreshed by unforeseen, startling new entities which will bring the nation new economic vitality and vigor. The United States of America is a land where ingenuity, innovation, and imagination are literally imbued in the lifeblood of the nation and its people. It has only ever existed as a framework in order to Let Freedom Ring, and none of its citizens must ever be enslaved to any degree of socialistic peonage, no matter how limited, or coated in an illusion of necessity.

Never.

Never.

Never.

By Hal Licino

vh

  • formerly mudkipz
  • *****
  • Posts: 1138
  • "giving heat meaning"
Re: Why Does Socialism Always Fail?
« Reply #1 on: April 14, 2014, 12:04:06 PM »
wan't the soviet union state capitalist

phinehas

  • Regular sans EE
  • *
  • Posts: 177
Re: Why Does Socialism Always Fail?
« Reply #2 on: April 14, 2014, 12:59:15 PM »
Straight from the Bears mouth.

"In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state’s role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.

Nor should we turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state.

And one more point: anti-crisis measures should not escalate into financial populism and a refusal to implement responsible macroeconomic policies. The unjustified swelling of the budgetary deficit and the accumulation of public debts are just as destructive as adventurous stock-jobbing."

- Vladimir Putin, Prime Minister of Russia, February, 2009.

Darvince

  • *****
  • Posts: 1821
  • gab
Re: Why Does Socialism Always Fail?
« Reply #3 on: April 14, 2014, 01:12:11 PM »
Most, if not all, prime ministers just puppet the beliefs of their nation, and Russians don't know anything other than authoritarianism so it is what they like the most, and currently, they like free capitalism combined with authoritarianism, so that is what Putin pretends to be.

phinehas

  • Regular sans EE
  • *
  • Posts: 177
Re: Why Does Socialism Always Fail?
« Reply #4 on: April 14, 2014, 01:22:08 PM »
OK, that doesn't help the case for Socialism in any way. 

vh

  • formerly mudkipz
  • *****
  • Posts: 1138
  • "giving heat meaning"
Re: Why Does Socialism Always Fail?
« Reply #5 on: April 14, 2014, 01:49:32 PM »
Quote
What they don't understand is that the state cannot create wealth, it can only administer it. Thus, the essence of socialism is one of universal impoverishment where even the hope that the lower classes can escape their poverty vaporizes along with the rest of the the nation's productivity.

just because the state cannot create wealth doesn't mean the lower classes can't escape poverty. just because momentum is conserved doesn't mean a rocket can't reach escape velocity.

phinehas

  • Regular sans EE
  • *
  • Posts: 177
Re: Why Does Socialism Always Fail?
« Reply #6 on: April 14, 2014, 02:32:41 PM »
"doesn't mean the lower classes can't escape poverty."

They can't escape poverty if they remain within the guidelines of the system.  This guy's article clearly and plainly states in multiple aspects, why Socialism, not just in theory but in practice is an epic fail and will always be one.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybowyer/2012/11/21/how-a-failed-commune-gave-us-what-is-now-thanksgiving/

People that commit the same mistakes over and over expecting a different result are what?  What does that say about the people that have viewed that person make the same mistakes, expecting a different result, wanting to do the same exact thing...expecting a different result.

vh

  • formerly mudkipz
  • *****
  • Posts: 1138
  • "giving heat meaning"
Re: Why Does Socialism Always Fail?
« Reply #7 on: April 14, 2014, 03:48:19 PM »
it failed in that scenario because it was poorly implemented, which doesn't show socialism fails.

phinehas

  • Regular sans EE
  • *
  • Posts: 177
Re: Why Does Socialism Always Fail?
« Reply #8 on: April 14, 2014, 04:01:16 PM »
I guess that's how you rationalize to yourself why it has historically failed.  Failed it has.

Darvince

  • *****
  • Posts: 1821
  • gab
Re: Why Does Socialism Always Fail?
« Reply #9 on: April 14, 2014, 04:06:52 PM »
What will you say when the current system collapses? Will you still say that laissez-faire capitalism is the way to go?

vh

  • formerly mudkipz
  • *****
  • Posts: 1138
  • "giving heat meaning"
Re: Why Does Socialism Always Fail?
« Reply #10 on: April 14, 2014, 04:21:28 PM »
I guess that's how you rationalize to yourself why it has historically failed.  Failed it has.

you might as well say the US is proof that capitalism fails and has historically failed

phinehas

  • Regular sans EE
  • *
  • Posts: 177
Re: Why Does Socialism Always Fail?
« Reply #11 on: April 14, 2014, 04:30:41 PM »
I'll point to Lincoln:

"Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest, with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer. If it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us; it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."

also, considering the current Liar in Chief: (bold my emphasis)

"It is to deny what the history of the world tells us is true, to suppose that men of ambition and talents will not continue to spring up amongst us. And when they do, they will as naturally seek the gratification of their ruling passion as others have done before them. The question then is, Can that gratification be found in supporting and maintaining an edifice that has been erected by others? Most certainly it cannot. Many great and good men, sufficiently qualified for any task they should undertake, may ever be found whose ambition would aspire to nothing beyond a seat in Congress, a gubernatorial or a presidential chair; but such belong not to the family of the lion or the tribe of the eagle. What! think you these places would satisfy an Alexander, a Caesar, or a Napoleon? Never! Towering genius disdains a beaten path. It seeks regions hitherto unexplored. It sees no distinction in adding story to story upon the monuments of fame erected to the memory of others. It denies that it is glory enough to serve under any chief. It scorns to tread in the footsteps of any predecessor, however illustrious. It thirsts and burns for distinction; and if possible, it will have it, whether at the expense of emancipating slaves or enslaving freemen. Is it unreasonable, then, to expect that some man possessed of the loftiest genius, coupled with ambition sufficient to push it to its utmost stretch, will at some time spring up among us? And when such an one does, it will require the people to be united with each other, attached to the government and laws, and generally intelligent, to successfully frustrate his designs.Distinction will be his paramount object, and although he would as willingly, perhaps more so, acquire it by doing good as harm, yet, that opportunity being past, and nothing left to be done in the way of building up, he would set boldly to the task of pulling down."

phinehas

  • Regular sans EE
  • *
  • Posts: 177
Re: Why Does Socialism Always Fail?
« Reply #12 on: April 14, 2014, 04:31:57 PM »
I guess that's how you rationalize to yourself why it has historically failed.  Failed it has.

you might as well say the US is proof that capitalism fails and has historically failed

Nope.  That's not what history shows at all.

vh

  • formerly mudkipz
  • *****
  • Posts: 1138
  • "giving heat meaning"
Re: Why Does Socialism Always Fail?
« Reply #13 on: April 14, 2014, 04:38:24 PM »
the example of the failed commune was a poorly implemented version of socialism. just because it failed doesn't mean socialism fails.

Quote
I guess that's how you rationalize to yourself why it has historically failed.  Failed it has.
yes that is how i rationalize it. but it doesn't mean socialism failed, just that particular instance of it.

openssl failed, doesn't mean open source is a failure

phinehas

  • Regular sans EE
  • *
  • Posts: 177
Re: Why Does Socialism Always Fail?
« Reply #14 on: April 14, 2014, 05:11:13 PM »
the example of the failed commune was a poorly implemented version of socialism. just because it failed doesn't mean socialism fails.

Quote
I guess that's how you rationalize to yourself why it has historically failed.  Failed it has.
yes that is how i rationalize it. but it doesn't mean socialism failed, just that particular instance of it.

openssl failed, doesn't mean open source is a failure


Just that every particular instance of it has failed = failure.  There is no evidence to suppose any other implementation of a bad idea would result in anything else.

« Last Edit: April 14, 2014, 05:24:19 PM by phinehas »

vh

  • formerly mudkipz
  • *****
  • Posts: 1138
  • "giving heat meaning"
Re: Why Does Socialism Always Fail?
« Reply #15 on: April 14, 2014, 05:31:12 PM »
the example of the failed commune was a poorly implemented version of socialism. just because it failed doesn't mean socialism fails.

Quote
I guess that's how you rationalize to yourself why it has historically failed.  Failed it has.
yes that is how i rationalize it. but it doesn't mean socialism failed, just that particular instance of it.

openssl failed, doesn't mean open source is a failure


Just that every particular instance of it has failed = failure.  There is no evidence to suppose any other implementation of a bad idea would result in anything else.



china.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_market_economy

phinehas

  • Regular sans EE
  • *
  • Posts: 177
Re: Why Does Socialism Always Fail?
« Reply #16 on: April 14, 2014, 06:13:54 PM »
vh, that's a fail as even the article shows that the economic system is nominal at best and is defined as being  state capitalism as linked.

"Analysis of the "Chinese model" by the economists Julan Du and Chenggang Xu finds that the contemporary economic system of the People's Republic of China represents a state capitalist system as opposed to a market socialist system. The reason for this categorization is that financial markets exist in the Chinese economic system, which are absent in classic models of market socialism and in the market socialist literature; and that state profits are retained by enterprises rather than being equitably distributed among the population in a social dividend or similar scheme (which are central features in most models of market socialism). They conclude that China is neither a form of market socialism nor a stable form of capitalism.[7]"

vh

  • formerly mudkipz
  • *****
  • Posts: 1138
  • "giving heat meaning"
Re: Why Does Socialism Always Fail?
« Reply #17 on: April 14, 2014, 06:15:40 PM »
and none of the other countries are wholly capitalist either, but a mixed market economy

phinehas

  • Regular sans EE
  • *
  • Posts: 177
Re: Why Does Socialism Always Fail?
« Reply #18 on: April 14, 2014, 06:20:51 PM »
Not true.  North Korea and Cuba. The point being was YOU and others are promoting a Socialist economic system...You think it's so great but you can't find any examples that were not complete failures on many levels and had to take on Capitalism .  Do you want to tout North Korea and Cuba?

TheMooCows

  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Why should I have to trust humans?
Re: Why Does Socialism Always Fail?
« Reply #19 on: April 14, 2014, 06:25:04 PM »

Why does socialism always fail? Socialism is incompatible with the most basal and rudimentary principles of human behavior.

True true true...it is very incompatible with rudimentary principles of human behavior. Such as...hmm greed which is what capitalism is based off of? Or the desire to have someone below you so that you don't feel so entirely depressed about how bad your life is under capitalism.

The idea of being an entrepreneur is to make unlimited profit. Profit, capitalism's word for greed. Make as much money as possible at whoever else's expense.

I have two historical examples of both of these points, from the civil war and the time before. For my first point, the South was driven by greed. They did not allow anything that would not directly benefit them, such as railroads and telegraphs or other internal improvements. They voted it down in congress EVERY time.

The desire to have someone below you is also evident in the South of pre-civil war. Only 25% of white men owned slaves, and yet even the impoverished defended the system. Why? Well the extremely poor knew that no matter how bad things got, at least they would be better off than those black slaves. 


I agree with you in the fact that socialism will never work in a large scale. Others in the forum probably disagree with me, but human greed prevents this from ever working on a large scale imo.

vh

  • formerly mudkipz
  • *****
  • Posts: 1138
  • "giving heat meaning"
Re: Why Does Socialism Always Fail?
« Reply #20 on: April 14, 2014, 06:37:41 PM »
north korea is a pretty cool place

phinehas

  • Regular sans EE
  • *
  • Posts: 177
Re: Why Does Socialism Always Fail?
« Reply #21 on: April 14, 2014, 06:48:47 PM »
Wanting to increase your income to have a better and more stable life for oneself and one's family is not greed.  I think your understanding of greed is erroneously too broad and thus doesn't mean much.

"Or the desire to have someone below you so that you don't feel so entirely depressed about how bad your life is under capitalism." - That might be your desire but it's not mine and I don't personally know anyone that has that desire. Climbing a ladder doesn't mean you have to kick somebody off, most of the time it's the mere fact of climbing that put's you higher.

"The idea of being an entrepreneur is to make unlimited profit. Profit, capitalism's word for greed. Make as much money as possible at whoever else's expense. " - I think you need to consult a dictionary or google some words and concepts because profit is not greed.  The vast majority of entrepreneur's don't do things at the expense of others or they wouldn't be in business very long.

"For my first point, the South was driven by greed. They did not allow anything that would not directly benefit them, such as railroads and telegraphs or other internal improvements. They voted it down in congress EVERY time."

http://railroads.unl.edu/views/item/ga_cotton_1860
http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/civil-war-innovations/
"While the South's rail system was weak, they were the first to use trains to their advantage, transporting supplies and soldiers to vital areas. The North was stymied by railroad owners more concerned with how much they could charge, than how quickly they could aid the cause. In fact, Secretary of War Simon Cameron was forced to resign when it was discovered he was trying to profit from War Department contracts for railroad shipping."

"The desire to have someone below you is also evident in the South of pre-civil war. Only 25% of white men owned slaves, and yet even the impoverished defended the system. Why? Well the extremely poor knew that no matter how bad things got, at least they would be better off than those black slaves. "

Since we can rule out that you were alive during that time...do you have any evidence such as a diary by a white male Southerner conveying such thoughts?

"I agree with you in the fact that socialism will never work in a large scale. Others in the forum probably disagree with me, but human greed prevents this from ever working on a large scale imo."

I guess you can at least admit it doesn't work, no matter how bizarre your self-concept of greed is.












phinehas

  • Regular sans EE
  • *
  • Posts: 177
Re: Why Does Socialism Always Fail?
« Reply #22 on: April 14, 2014, 06:49:43 PM »
north korea is a pretty cool place

On that note, I rest my case.

vh

  • formerly mudkipz
  • *****
  • Posts: 1138
  • "giving heat meaning"
Re: Why Does Socialism Always Fail?
« Reply #23 on: April 14, 2014, 06:51:40 PM »
North Korea is a self-described Juche (self-reliant) state,[96] described by some observers as a de facto absolute monarchy[97][98][99] or "hereditary dictatorship"[100] with a pronounced cult of personality organized around Kim Il-sung (the founder of North Korea and the country's only president) and his late son, Kim Jong-il. However, the 4th Conference of the Workers' Party of Korea said that Kimilsungism-Kimjongilism was "the only guiding idea of the party".[101]

A North Korea scholar dismisses the idea that juche is North Korea's leading ideology, regarding its public exaltation as designed to deceive foreigners.[102] In the latest version of the North Korean constitution, the state and party officially rejected North Korea's founding ideology of communism.[103]

Research based on North Korea's domestic documents, and popularized in 2009 by Brian R. Myers in his book The Cleanest Race, and later supported by other academics,[104][105] characterizes North Korean ideology as being a racialist-focused nationalism, and heavily influenced by the racialist outlook of Japan before the end of the Second World War.[106][107] Charles K. Armstrong criticizes Myers for taking the Japanese comparison too far, suggesting that North Korean ideology is "actually closer to European fascism" than to Imperial Japanese fascism, since Imperial Japan lacked a charismatic leader and mass-mobilizing party.[108]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea#Regime_ideology

so much for nk is socialist

TheMooCows

  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Why should I have to trust humans?
Re: Why Does Socialism Always Fail?
« Reply #24 on: April 14, 2014, 07:07:57 PM »
Wanting to increase your income to have a better and more stable life for oneself and one's family is not greed.  I think your understanding of greed is erroneously too broad and thus doesn't mean much.

"Or the desire to have someone below you so that you don't feel so entirely depressed about how bad your life is under capitalism." - That might be your desire but it's not mine and I don't personally know anyone that has that desire. Climbing a ladder doesn't mean you have to kick somebody off, most of the time it's the mere fact of climbing that put's you higher.

"The idea of being an entrepreneur is to make unlimited profit. Profit, capitalism's word for greed. Make as much money as possible at whoever else's expense. " - I think you need to consult a dictionary or google some words and concepts because profit is not greed.  The vast majority of entrepreneur's don't do things at the expense of others or they wouldn't be in business very long.

"For my first point, the South was driven by greed. They did not allow anything that would not directly benefit them, such as railroads and telegraphs or other internal improvements. They voted it down in congress EVERY time."

http://railroads.unl.edu/views/item/ga_cotton_1860
http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/civil-war-innovations/
"While the South's rail system was weak, they were the first to use trains to their advantage, transporting supplies and soldiers to vital areas. The North was stymied by railroad owners more concerned with how much they could charge, than how quickly they could aid the cause. In fact, Secretary of War Simon Cameron was forced to resign when it was discovered he was trying to profit from War Department contracts for railroad shipping."

"The desire to have someone below you is also evident in the South of pre-civil war. Only 25% of white men owned slaves, and yet even the impoverished defended the system. Why? Well the extremely poor knew that no matter how bad things got, at least they would be better off than those black slaves. "

Since we can rule out that you were alive during that time...do you have any evidence such as a diary by a white male Southerner conveying such thoughts?

"I agree with you in the fact that socialism will never work in a large scale. Others in the forum probably disagree with me, but human greed prevents this from ever working on a large scale imo."

I guess you can at least admit it doesn't work, no matter how bizarre your self-concept of greed is.

Greed is wanting things for yourself without regard to how it impacts others. Pretend for a second you are a professional baseball player who is one of three in your position. The star of the team (who happens to be in your position) gets seriously hurt and has to retire. Naturally, you are excited to play. The third player has been a career backup, and you are clearly better than him as his skills are waning in old age. The manager comes to you with a proposition, "You are the better player and I will give you the starting job. However if you choose you can allow this veteran to play." Would you? Probably not...you want your opportunity and after all you want this job...you're better than him don't you deserve it?
A slightly unrealistic example, but it gets the point across. You may say "oh I'd give the old-timer the opportunity" but in reality? Nope.

"Ask anyone the question, "Are you greedy?" and most will deny it. Then follow-up with, "Would you break the rules if it benefited you financially?" And the answer might be, "How much money are we talking about?" Few people identify themselves as "greedy" but when it comes to money versus principles, we like to run the numbers first. Pick an ethical scandal from the news and money will be at the core. To get a handle on business ethics and greed, we need to understand what "greed" is and who the players are.


So, what does a greedy person look like? You probably imagine a scrooge character in a tuxedo sitting atop a pile of money throwing it in the air. Or maybe you picture high profile characters like Ivan Boesky or Jeff Skilling. Although they may typify unethical people motivated by money, the real problem of greed in business is more widespread. In fact, being tempted to do something unethical for financial gain is nothing new for any employee.


In discussing greed, there is often a disconnect between the notion of greed and who the real players are. It's easy to point the finger at "greedy" executives or celebrities embroiled in scandal and overlook the thousands of employees who succumb to greed each day and find themselves unemployed as a result. The problem of greed is not just limited to the wealthy but is a human weakness."
http://www.globalethicsuniversity.com/articles/greed.htm

 In your copied essay, it states that humans need rewards to do something, such as pay and other compensations. They need to be fueled by reward. You may point to charity work and volunteering, but in most cases you get tax benefits for that and to be truthful, not a whole lot of people do that kind of work. There is a very small minority that actually does things for others with no intention or want of any reward.

Also the South had very few railroads and they voted down anything that didn't benefit themselves, such as rails in the north, which you have no proof against.

phinehas

  • Regular sans EE
  • *
  • Posts: 177
Re: Why Does Socialism Always Fail?
« Reply #25 on: April 14, 2014, 07:38:11 PM »
"Greed is wanting things for yourself without regard to how it impacts others."

Again this is your made up definition.  Most definitions of the word are basically:

"a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed."

Wanting things, a way of life, is not greed.
Wanting prosperity is not greed.

So, greed needs to be excessive.  I suppose you are the arbitrator of what a persons needs would have to be to remain below the excessive level.

Would wanting more than one of my children to have a college education be "greedy" in your eyes?  How about all of them...whoa! must be.

"but when it comes to money versus principles, we like to run the numbers first." - speak for yourself.  I don't go around with some price in mind to screw somebody over.

"In your copied essay, it states that humans need rewards to do something, such as pay and other compensations. They need to be fueled by reward. You may point to charity work and volunteering, but in most cases you get tax benefits for that and to be truthful, not a whole lot of people do that kind of work. There is a very small minority that actually does things for others with no intention or want of any reward."

Again, speak for yourself...my motivation for charity is solely to help others..I'm not even thinking about taxes.  The fact that I write that off of my TAXABLE income, is because why shouldn't I?  Why would I want to give more money to a government than I am legally obligated to?  To do otherwise is dumb.


phinehas

  • Regular sans EE
  • *
  • Posts: 177
Re: Why Does Socialism Always Fail?
« Reply #26 on: April 14, 2014, 07:48:42 PM »
Vh -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_in_Korea

So, what?  They dropped it from their worthless piece of paper AFTER the collapse of the Soviet Union...

Besides, this guy says otherwise.

http://www.pri.org/stories/2013-12-10/can-you-name-five-remaining-communist-countries-world
Here is a whole site dedicated to this place.
http://www.koreanconfidential.com/isnorthkoreacommunist.html

Point being you can wrap it up with a stupid looking Kim Jong-un haircut and it's still basically the same crap, people at the top planning the economy and lives of everyone else because they know better and can do it better than the free market.  This of course denies reality and is false.

TheMooCows

  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Why should I have to trust humans?
Re: Why Does Socialism Always Fail?
« Reply #27 on: April 14, 2014, 08:05:03 PM »


 This of course denies reality and is false.

Citation Needed

This is a matter of personal opinion and therefore cannot be neither true nor false.

atomic7732

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3781
  • caught in the river turning blue
    • Paladin of Storms
Re: Why Does Socialism Always Fail?
« Reply #28 on: April 14, 2014, 08:11:20 PM »
Would wanting more than one of my children to have a college education be "greedy" in your eyes?  How about all of them...whoa! must be.
This is interesting. I don't understand why anyone should have to work their asses off and drown in student loans to get a decent career that interests them, or be lucky to be born into a family that happens to make enough money to do such things. There is enough resources in the world to educate every person on this planet free of charge, but it doesn't quite work in a capitalist economy because for anyone to do anything, someone needs to making money off it. Isn't that right?

phinehas

  • Regular sans EE
  • *
  • Posts: 177
Re: Why Does Socialism Always Fail?
« Reply #29 on: April 14, 2014, 08:15:18 PM »
atomic7732

There is no such thing as free of charge.  Seriously how can anybody have a discussion about economics when something as basic as that is not understood.

"because for anyone to do anything, someone needs to making money off it. Isn't that right?"

Yeah, that is right.  Are you stuck in a room somewhere?  How can you not know that people do things in order to make money in order to live?  Does stuff just materialize in front of you?