Thread: Why Socialism Doesn't Work

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

I never discussed how the exact mechanics would run, neither did I say that people would earn the same amounts (you seemed to have missed pretty much my entire post in that respect). A doctor and ditch digger will not get payed the same, the doctor will certainly get more because he worked harder for it, ie he spent many years studying. Another point to be made is that you are still limited to your own abilities. Standards for jobs aren't lowered, someone who can't be a doctor must choose something else. The system is not without it's flaws as I said earlier but provides a system through which everyone has a similar chance and the population can be well educated.
You are mistaking my utopian form of socialism for communism, which it is certainly not. No one gets money for laying around doing nothing and no one is being pampered.

I know you didn't discuss the exact mechanics of your idea. That is why I asked you about them. I did not say you said anything about people earning the same amounts. That is exactly why I presented a revised grade point analogy based on your idea. How much of my post did you read?

Okay, so you want the money to be based on work involved in necessary education for jobs also. You didn't say that earlier. It's a step better, but I still think it would be a disaster. Should somebody who starts a business that brings in billions get less money than his ditch diggers because he no longer has to work much to keep the business going? How do you accomplish that without stealing what belongs to him? Also, as I asked earlier, who determines who gets what amount of money? Who are these control freaks you want to entrust with such decisions?

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

The funny thing is that my post explicitly mentions that the beauty of my form of socialism would be that money is placed second to human needs (happiness being one of them), and your reply focused almost entirely on how people would lose out money wise. That's the point, the value of money in people's lives goes down, they get can pursue their interests and live happy lives. It revolves entirely on removing the mindset that you must ascend a corporate ladder to attain happiness.

I am all for doing more than working. Look at how many posts I have on this site. My concern with your system is that it would collapse or else be extremely stagnant.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

You seem to think it's terrible because it can't produce massive economic growth, because one cannot be competitive to another. Why are these things of importance to a human being, the happiest people in the world are those who care not for money or greed. If a human can live a western lifestyle and be happy isn't that wonderful. People can express their competitive side through sports and debates, not how much more wealth they can produce within a year.

But what will make businesses function? We need them for economies to function. Laziness doesn't do the trick. Do you want us to all go back to living in caves, tee pees, and huts?

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

As for what I think about the grading analogy. It's stupid, as with any good system there must be rewards and punishments. And there is certainly no reason why the education of a country should follow communist trends. I can think of many different education systems you could implement within a socialist economy. As I said earlier, it's not about pampering anyone, it's about giving fair chances. Everyone get's their shot at their dream. If they fail multiple times they can still sustain themselves of lower ranking jobs.

I revised my grade point analogy to fit your concept of socialism.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Let's go back to the grade point analogy. What do you think of a grading system in which kids are given points based only on how hard they work? If a kid works hard and makes what would be a C, he makes an A. If a supergenius studies for 5 minutes for a test and gets every answer right, he gets a D because he didn't work that hard. Would that be a good system? What would be wrong with it?

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

Lastly, the reason the united states was successful was because they managed to exploit half the world for their labour and resources, not because it was "land of the opportunity". The American lifestyle has always been unsustainable and relies entirely on a large number of people somewhere in the world being taken advantage of. Anyone who thinks it's a reasonable way of living is delusional.
That is what makes socialism attractive, people can be content with a sustainable life, unlike capitalism where grand materialistic lifestyles are endorsed.

A lot of Americans have exploited people of other nations, but that is not the secret of our success. Extreme determination to succeed is what made the United States so successful. All of these greedy people you keep saying are misguided are the business owners and operators who made our society advance so much.

I ask you again who would decide the amounts of money people get. Although your idea is a bit different from other socialistic models, other models involve exactly that problem. Think about how it has been handled. What have North Korea, Cuba, the Soviet Union, the Eastern Bloc, and China done to regulate the distribution of money? Is it just a big coincidence that they were/are so oppressive? The laid back lifestyle of happiness you have been discussing has not existed where socialism has been tried. It has been a total nightmare every time.