5 ms·

We'll need less people, or smarter people, not socialism. Socialism, as a whole, leads to Bad Things. Sprinklings of socialism help and are good, but if you s

We'll need less people, or smarter people, not socialism. Socialism, as a whole, leads to Bad Things. Sprinklings of socialism help and are good, but if you subscribe fully to any specific socialist doctrine, history shows your group will be harmed by it.

tartle 13y ago
first of all, it depends what you define as socialism. what seems more important, history shows that there are no Iron Laws Of History Written In Capital Letters. what we see is always an outcome of particular circumstances. like - "trying to establish a particular form of socialism (i would rather say this was communism, not socialism, but let's not open an argument here...) in an isolated, pre-capitalist country, that was recently destroyed by war, and has no democratic culture, produces shitty effects". that doesn't tell much about choices we have today.
vacri 13y ago
Patent nonsense. The 'specific socialist doctrine' of Social Democracy is what the countries with the highest quality of life currently run. If you mean 'communist', then say 'communist'.
- smsm42 13y ago
  That's like saying Lance Armstrong took performance drugs, so if you want to bike like Armstrong then drugs is the best way to get there. In fact, for most people drugs would much faster get you into the hospital then into the Olympics. Same with socialism - some rich countries can take a lot of it and still maintain health, but less rich countries would just collapse.
  - vacri 13y ago
    Stop trying to shoehorn all of the kinds of socialism into the same bucket - it's a disease of modern American political discourse. Not to mention that there isn't any system which survives your counterargument.
    - smsm42 13y ago
      There's only one kind of socialism - one that is based on forcibly taking the resources from producers and redistributing them by political whim. Everything else is a window dressing. >>> Not to mention that there isn't any system which survives your counterargument. If you can't distinguish good from harm or follow casual links - maybe. Fortunately, many people can.
      - vacri 13y ago
        It is comments like this that make people think libertarianism is simple-minded twaddle.
        smsm42 13y ago
        I am impressed by the depth of your analysis. Obviously, anybody who says "twaddle" on the internet immediately wins the argument. Congratulations!
        vacri 13y ago
        You called me a moron, but you did it in 'civil' language. Exactly what kind of deep analysis did you expect?
        smsm42 13y ago
        No I didn't. But I must admit I didn't expect any depth of analysis from a socialist - if a socialist were capable of depth of analysis, he'd stop being a socialist. Socialism if a very natural feel-good idea, but it completely disintegrates as soon as one considers how it is actually supposed to work. That's why the only way it can exist is to be a parasite on capitalist systems in some rich country. Given to its own devices, socialism produces North Korea.
      - reginaldjcooper 13y ago
        > forcibly taking the resources from producers and redistributing them by political whim The producers are actually the poor bastards working 40+ hours a week on the factory floor. The entities forcibly taking resources from them are the wealthy, by controlling the means of production, increasing CEO salaries, and colluding with legislators to provide more tax cuts and loopholes that only the wealthy can take advantage of. The political whim is that congressmen get more dollars from corporations after Citizen's United. It's fucking ridiculous to be an Objectivist. You can continue to assert that poors are able to fight their way into the "producer" class by "not being lazy" or whatever. But the reality is when you can barely support your housing, food, transportation, and healthcare you don't have many rational options for aggressive advancement.
- diminoten 13y ago
  Average quality of life is not the goal of the US, nor should it be the goal of any country interested in creating wonders and advancing the whole of humanity.
saraid216 13y ago
If you define worker processes as workers, virtually all software is creating little socialist empires. This is basically a premise of jamesaguilar's comment.

tartle 13y ago

first of all, it depends what you define as socialism. what seems more important, history shows that there are no Iron Laws Of History Written In Capital Letters. what we see is always an outcome of particular circumstances. like - "trying to establish a particular form of socialism (i would rather say this was communism, not socialism, but let's not open an argument here...) in an isolated, pre-capitalist country, that was recently destroyed by war, and has no democratic culture, produces shitty effects". that doesn't tell much about choices we have today.

vacri 13y ago

Patent nonsense. The 'specific socialist doctrine' of Social Democracy is what the countries with the highest quality of life currently run. If you mean 'communist', then say 'communist'.

smsm42 13y ago
That's like saying Lance Armstrong took performance drugs, so if you want to bike like Armstrong then drugs is the best way to get there. In fact, for most people drugs would much faster get you into the hospital then into the Olympics. Same with socialism - some rich countries can take a lot of it and still maintain health, but less rich countries would just collapse.
- vacri 13y ago
  Stop trying to shoehorn all of the kinds of socialism into the same bucket - it's a disease of modern American political discourse. Not to mention that there isn't any system which survives your counterargument.
  - smsm42 13y ago
    There's only one kind of socialism - one that is based on forcibly taking the resources from producers and redistributing them by political whim. Everything else is a window dressing. >>> Not to mention that there isn't any system which survives your counterargument. If you can't distinguish good from harm or follow casual links - maybe. Fortunately, many people can.
    - vacri 13y ago
      It is comments like this that make people think libertarianism is simple-minded twaddle.
      - smsm42 13y ago
        I am impressed by the depth of your analysis. Obviously, anybody who says "twaddle" on the internet immediately wins the argument. Congratulations!
        vacri 13y ago
        You called me a moron, but you did it in 'civil' language. Exactly what kind of deep analysis did you expect?
        smsm42 13y ago
        No I didn't. But I must admit I didn't expect any depth of analysis from a socialist - if a socialist were capable of depth of analysis, he'd stop being a socialist. Socialism if a very natural feel-good idea, but it completely disintegrates as soon as one considers how it is actually supposed to work. That's why the only way it can exist is to be a parasite on capitalist systems in some rich country. Given to its own devices, socialism produces North Korea.
    - reginaldjcooper 13y ago
      > forcibly taking the resources from producers and redistributing them by political whim The producers are actually the poor bastards working 40+ hours a week on the factory floor. The entities forcibly taking resources from them are the wealthy, by controlling the means of production, increasing CEO salaries, and colluding with legislators to provide more tax cuts and loopholes that only the wealthy can take advantage of. The political whim is that congressmen get more dollars from corporations after Citizen's United. It's fucking ridiculous to be an Objectivist. You can continue to assert that poors are able to fight their way into the "producer" class by "not being lazy" or whatever. But the reality is when you can barely support your housing, food, transportation, and healthcare you don't have many rational options for aggressive advancement.
diminoten 13y ago
Average quality of life is not the goal of the US, nor should it be the goal of any country interested in creating wonders and advancing the whole of humanity.

saraid216 13y ago

If you define worker processes as workers, virtually all software is creating little socialist empires. This is basically a premise of jamesaguilar's comment.