6 ms·

Socialism versus the Family

3 points by danielam 8y ago

mimixco 8y ago
Thank you for posting this. Few people realize how much of this comes straight from Marx's playbook. Socialism is incompatible with the family because it requires that everyone and everything be subjugate to the state. If people are allowed to care more about their families than they do about the state, they might take actions to protect their families over protecting the state, and that was anathema to Marx. Socialism and communism (two words for the same thing) are a scourge upon the earth. They've been responsible for more death and destruction than any other ideas in history. It's alarming to see that, despite these facts, how many people today cling to them as a "solution" to what ails the world.
- luckylion 8y ago
  I don't really think a lot of people think of socialism as a "solution", but rather as a alternative to try again vs hyper capitalism that evolves into "gig economy" aka "freelancers shoulder all the entrepreneurial risk, get paid below minimum wage, have to provide the capital to buy cars + gas themselves, are then stiffed on tips, get no health insurance and will be thrown out if they ever so much as look at the CEO wrong". People appear not to like the US/Silicon Valley style (including "too big to fail" socialized losses for corrupt companies), and since they don't get offered a "capitalism with rules" as an alternative, they're willing to consider other things. In the end: communism might suck, but being one hospital visit away from bankruptcy, being spied on 24/7 by a corporate-state-hybrid, and working for $10 an hour while a small apartment costs $3k sucks too. And who knows, maybe "this time" it'll work. You know, now that we have block chain or whatever some lunatic thinks will change human biology. Offer them a chance and they won't grasp at socialist straws. But offering them a chance would cut into profits, so that's not an option, obviously.
  - sparkie 8y ago
    The "gig economy" you speak of is only part of the economy and centred in certain industries. It's a high risk, high reward which leads people to put in the effort for low pay now, because if they are successful, they'll be afforded greater financial freedom in future. It is not necessary for anyone to actually take up these roles, as there are businesses which will hire and pay employees well, for stable jobs, but with little options for making a fortune unless they accumulate shares over many years, and the company does well long-term. The fact that people take up the high risk jobs is part of the human condition - everyone wants to get rich as quick as possible. > People appear not to like the US/Silicon Valley style (including "too big to fail" socialized losses for corrupt companies), and since they don't get offered a "capitalism with rules" as an alternative, they're willing to consider other things. This is blaming socialist intervention for the perceived problems of capitalism. Under capitalism, companies don't get bailed out but they go bankrupt and get replaced by better competition. The reality is we live in "capitalism with too many rules" and too much state meddling. The abundance of rules is beneficial to the big players who can afford big legal teams, and harms the individual who cannot open a simple family business without battling with so much red tape, meaning the big players don't have to worry about small competitors. The big players also make use of IP laws to gain advantage over smaller players. IP laws are a socialst idea too. Working $10/hr and having reduced purchasing power is also a result of socialist policies. The idea of a "minimum wage" is perhaps the most horrendous of policies. All it does is create a ceiling for what was intended to be a floor for unskilled workers. Meanwhile, it forces the cost of all goods and services upwards to compensate for the additional wages employers must pay, and it means that people who are not productive enough to make "minimum wage" can't earn anything at all, and must rely on welfare (another socialist programme). Socialists have played the devil's greatest trick, in pretending that many of the problems we have are a result of capitalism, but they are in fact, a result of hidden socialism. And the solution to those problems: more socialism. This has been the "progression" since post WW1. It is also a mistake to look at profit making as a sin, and here lies the root of socialism: jealousy. Although capitalism benefits society as a whole by increasing the standard of living for everybody through innovation, some people make far more money than others and it breeds resentment among the ones whose lives only improve by a little in comparison. Instead of being grateful that their standard of living is improving as a result of capitalism, they are become ungrateful and bitter. A welfare state adds to this by making them dependant, instead of responsible.
bkmeneguello 8y ago
Don't confuse capitalism with corporativism. Capitalism is only free market and private property respect. The today corporations are much more state than market. Socialism is the denial of human being, it's decivilisatory. The collectivism does not works because there is always individuals in charge of the decisions.

3 points by danielam 8y ago

Thank you for posting this. Few people realize how much of this comes straight from Marx's playbook. Socialism is incompatible with the family because it requires that everyone and everything be subjugate to the state. If people are allowed to care more about their families than they do about the state, they might take actions to protect their families over protecting the state, and that was anathema to Marx. Socialism and communism (two words for the same thing) are a scourge upon the earth. They've been responsible for more death and destruction than any other ideas in history. It's alarming to see that, despite these facts, how many people today cling to them as a "solution" to what ails the world.

luckylion 8y ago
I don't really think a lot of people think of socialism as a "solution", but rather as a alternative to try again vs hyper capitalism that evolves into "gig economy" aka "freelancers shoulder all the entrepreneurial risk, get paid below minimum wage, have to provide the capital to buy cars + gas themselves, are then stiffed on tips, get no health insurance and will be thrown out if they ever so much as look at the CEO wrong". People appear not to like the US/Silicon Valley style (including "too big to fail" socialized losses for corrupt companies), and since they don't get offered a "capitalism with rules" as an alternative, they're willing to consider other things. In the end: communism might suck, but being one hospital visit away from bankruptcy, being spied on 24/7 by a corporate-state-hybrid, and working for $10 an hour while a small apartment costs $3k sucks too. And who knows, maybe "this time" it'll work. You know, now that we have block chain or whatever some lunatic thinks will change human biology. Offer them a chance and they won't grasp at socialist straws. But offering them a chance would cut into profits, so that's not an option, obviously.
- sparkie 8y ago
  The "gig economy" you speak of is only part of the economy and centred in certain industries. It's a high risk, high reward which leads people to put in the effort for low pay now, because if they are successful, they'll be afforded greater financial freedom in future. It is not necessary for anyone to actually take up these roles, as there are businesses which will hire and pay employees well, for stable jobs, but with little options for making a fortune unless they accumulate shares over many years, and the company does well long-term. The fact that people take up the high risk jobs is part of the human condition - everyone wants to get rich as quick as possible. > People appear not to like the US/Silicon Valley style (including "too big to fail" socialized losses for corrupt companies), and since they don't get offered a "capitalism with rules" as an alternative, they're willing to consider other things. This is blaming socialist intervention for the perceived problems of capitalism. Under capitalism, companies don't get bailed out but they go bankrupt and get replaced by better competition. The reality is we live in "capitalism with too many rules" and too much state meddling. The abundance of rules is beneficial to the big players who can afford big legal teams, and harms the individual who cannot open a simple family business without battling with so much red tape, meaning the big players don't have to worry about small competitors. The big players also make use of IP laws to gain advantage over smaller players. IP laws are a socialst idea too. Working $10/hr and having reduced purchasing power is also a result of socialist policies. The idea of a "minimum wage" is perhaps the most horrendous of policies. All it does is create a ceiling for what was intended to be a floor for unskilled workers. Meanwhile, it forces the cost of all goods and services upwards to compensate for the additional wages employers must pay, and it means that people who are not productive enough to make "minimum wage" can't earn anything at all, and must rely on welfare (another socialist programme). Socialists have played the devil's greatest trick, in pretending that many of the problems we have are a result of capitalism, but they are in fact, a result of hidden socialism. And the solution to those problems: more socialism. This has been the "progression" since post WW1. It is also a mistake to look at profit making as a sin, and here lies the root of socialism: jealousy. Although capitalism benefits society as a whole by increasing the standard of living for everybody through innovation, some people make far more money than others and it breeds resentment among the ones whose lives only improve by a little in comparison. Instead of being grateful that their standard of living is improving as a result of capitalism, they are become ungrateful and bitter. A welfare state adds to this by making them dependant, instead of responsible.

bkmeneguello 8y ago

Don't confuse capitalism with corporativism. Capitalism is only free market and private property respect. The today corporations are much more state than market. Socialism is the denial of human being, it's decivilisatory. The collectivism does not works because there is always individuals in charge of the decisions.