Why do people in USA fear socialism so much?

[kokjo]

Yeah, kokjo say this, so this must be true.

im not in favor of communism, im way more a center person. people on this forum is just narrow minded and needs to know that there are alternatives, it is therefor i am arguing in favor for communism.
and if it came down to which side im on in the epic intellectually battle of the crazy-libertards and the evil-commies, i would be on the commies side. they are both about equally bad.

Why you're wasting your time on forum about money, anyway ?

for the discussions, trolling, and the tech stuff.
do you say that i should not be here because i have different opinions then the rest of you? are you afraid?

[1714170530]

1714170530

[1714170530]

1714170530

[1714170530]

1714170530

[myrkul]

first dude: "hey i have way too many potatoes, here is some".
second dude: "i have too much milk, here is some."

First dude: I have too many potatoes, but sure would love some milk. Want to trade?
Second dude: Sure, I have way too much milk, and I'd love some potatoes. What do you say to 5 potatoes per gallon?
First dude: It's a deal, and any time you want more, just come on by.

Of course, this is inefficient, and there's no guarantee that the guy who has milk wants potatoes. Maybe the guy who wants potatoes has corn, and the guy who has milk wants corn, but not potatoes. That's why we invented money. To facilitate trade.

[kokjo]

first dude: "hey i have way too many potatoes, here is some".
second dude: "i have too much milk, here is some."

First dude: I have too many potatoes, but sure would love some milk. Want to trade?
Second dude: Sure, I have way too much milk, and I'd love some potatoes. What do you say to 5 potatoes per gallon?
First dude: It's a deal, and any time you want more, just come on by.

Of course, this is inefficient, and there's no guarantee that the guy who has milk wants potatoes. Maybe the guy who wants potatoes has corn, and the guy who has milk wants corn, but not potatoes. That's why we invented money. To facilitate trade.

simpler solution: put it one big pile, take what you need.

[myrkul]

first dude: "hey i have way too many potatoes, here is some".
second dude: "i have too much milk, here is some."

First dude: I have too many potatoes, but sure would love some milk. Want to trade?
Second dude: Sure, I have way too much milk, and I'd love some potatoes. What do you say to 5 potatoes per gallon?
First dude: It's a deal, and any time you want more, just come on by.

Of course, this is inefficient, and there's no guarantee that the guy who has milk wants potatoes. Maybe the guy who wants potatoes has corn, and the guy who has milk wants corn, but not potatoes. That's why we invented money. To facilitate trade.

simpler solution: put it one big pile, take what you need.

That might work. Except: How do you deal with the people who inevitably take more than they "need"? Or who takes, but doesn't add to the pile? For that matter, how do you decide how much you "need"?

[liberty90]

and if it came down to which side im on in the epic intellectually battle of the crazy-libertards and the evil-commies, i would be on the commies side. they are both about equally bad.

You can organize commune in free-market society; while you cannot organize free-market enclave in communist society.

[vampire]

and if it came down to which side im on in the epic intellectually battle of the crazy-libertards and the evil-commies, i would be on the commies side. they are both about equally bad.

You can organize commune in free-market society; while you cannot organize free-market enclave in communist society.

Not true. Lenin was all for a version of a free market and implemented a short lived version of it. Stalin killed it.

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

[myrkul]

and if it came down to which side im on in the epic intellectually battle of the crazy-libertards and the evil-commies, i would be on the commies side. they are both about equally bad.

You can organize commune in free-market society; while you cannot organize free-market enclave in communist society.

Not true. Lenin was all for a version of a free market and implemented a short lived version of it. Stalin killed it.

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

Looks more like fascism lite than capitalism... and there will always be a "Stalin."

But yes, you could probably set up a capitalist enclave in a socialist anarchy. You might have to chase the hippies away from your yard on a fairly regular basis if you lived on the outskirts, but I doubt they'd bother you too much. Of course, a Commune set up in an AnCap society would be left totally alone, so long as they didn't try to "share" in their neighbor's stuff.

[darkmule]

first dude: "hey i have way too many potatoes, here is some".
second dude: "i have too much milk, here is some."

In a small group or family, sure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number

To the extent this is true (I think some people have no difficulty with enormous numbers of social relations while some have difficulty getting along with more than their immediate family), it explains why communism, outside of voluntary communities like kibbutzim, never work.

Eventually, people get in control of the state and only want to protect their immediate tribe.  Maybe not even them, e.g., Stalin.  The philosophy of communism almost guarantees a form of government tailor-made for a dictator to step in.  That has happened in every case of a communist revolution on a large scale.  There is, simply, no successful example of a communist state.

There is also no successful example of a purely capitalist state with no elements of socialism.

Fanatics on both sides should take note.  The lack of success of a system, when it occurs throughout all of history since the invention of an idea, should be fairly convincing evidence that the system does not work because IT DOES NOT WORK.  It is not that every single country that tried to implement it did it wrong.  It is not that some perfect messiah will come along and magically make it work in the future.  It is that it is a bad idea and DOES NOT WORK.

That said, capitalism has a better track record, and when the free market works, it works REALLY WELL.  That's pretty much why the Western world is still trucking along and the Soviet Union has ceased to exist.

[myrkul]

There is also no successful example of a purely capitalist state with no elements of socialism.

If by "no elements of socialism" you mean no social support structure, then yeah. But if you mean no state-operated social programs, whoo, buddy are you dead wrong.

[nebulus]

I think its deeply rooted in materialistic way of thinking.

Taken to the extreme, people are pro-socialist when it gets them free stuff and are anti-socialist when their stuff gets taken away...

The problem I have with socialism is that somebody else decides what, how much and when to away from you. I'd rather "cope" with never ever getting anything for free than cope with having what I earned go to somebody else because someone "smarter" decided it the right thing. First, they take your money, then your property and, finally, your freedom.

[kokjo]

first dude: "hey i have way too many potatoes, here is some".
second dude: "i have too much milk, here is some."

First dude: I have too many potatoes, but sure would love some milk. Want to trade?
Second dude: Sure, I have way too much milk, and I'd love some potatoes. What do you say to 5 potatoes per gallon?
First dude: It's a deal, and any time you want more, just come on by.

Of course, this is inefficient, and there's no guarantee that the guy who has milk wants potatoes. Maybe the guy who wants potatoes has corn, and the guy who has milk wants corn, but not potatoes. That's why we invented money. To facilitate trade.

simpler solution: put it one big pile, take what you need.

That might work. Except: How do you deal with the people who inevitably take more than they "need"? Or who takes, but doesn't add to the pile? For that matter, how do you decide how much you "need"?

change the "need" to "want", does not really matter. if people are unwilling to trade, there would be no gain for a "thieve", except having rotten potatoes laying around.

[myrkul]

first dude: "hey i have way too many potatoes, here is some".
second dude: "i have too much milk, here is some."

First dude: I have too many potatoes, but sure would love some milk. Want to trade?
Second dude: Sure, I have way too much milk, and I'd love some potatoes. What do you say to 5 potatoes per gallon?
First dude: It's a deal, and any time you want more, just come on by.

Of course, this is inefficient, and there's no guarantee that the guy who has milk wants potatoes. Maybe the guy who wants potatoes has corn, and the guy who has milk wants corn, but not potatoes. That's why we invented money. To facilitate trade.

simpler solution: put it one big pile, take what you need.

That might work. Except: How do you deal with the people who inevitably take more than they "need"? Or who takes, but doesn't add to the pile? For that matter, how do you decide how much you "need"?

change the "need" to "want", does not really matter. if people are unwilling to trade, there would be no gain for a "thieve", except having rotten potatoes laying around.

I see. Doesn't really answer how you deal with the "free rider" problem. Bill, Alice, Carl, and Dave all contribute what they can to the pile, and take what they need. Edward, however, takes their produce, and goes home, adding nothing. After a while of this, Felicia sees that Edward is getting away with it, so she starts just taking from the pile, too. Perhaps Dave see Edward and Felicia just taking, and, fed up, stops adding. How long before no one is adding to the pile any more?

[Luckybit]

Socialism destroys any natural incentive that comes from human desire and puts it in the hands of elected bureaucrats that are incapable of true failure. They get paid no matter how well their mandates work and can only be fired every term or so. That's assuming they are held accountable. There's no competition to do that.

In conclusion, due to little true accountability and the inability to fail, socialist services are inherently inferior in terms of product output and the vast amount of inefficiency required to generate said product.

This assumes motivating people either requires fear or greed. This is not true.

[Luckybit]

There is also no successful example of a purely capitalist state with no elements of socialism.

If by "no elements of socialism" you mean no social support structure, then yeah. But if you mean no state-operated social programs, whoo, buddy are you dead wrong.

The USA has always been socialist. FDR was a socialist and socialism is necessary when a country reaches a certain size. I think the population size and size of a nation necessitates socialism due to the mere fact that people who don't know you wont care about you unless forced to and while small towns where everyone knows each other don't need social programs, large towns where no one knows each other or where one part of the country doesn't know the other part, this requires socialism. It's just a matter of the kind it requires, authoritarian sociaiism is not the kind of socialism I endorse.

But there should be a basic income. That should be mandatory both for economic reasons (it's better for the economy if everyone has at least some money to spend), and humanitarian/human rights reasons. Human rights are important and the basic income helps to protect the human rights of those who receive it.

I think also education or the opportunity to self improve has to be considered a human right. If it requires socialism to have that then so be it, but if we don't allow people to work hard and improve themselves over time then we are wasting their lives, skills and talents and it will show in our economy. Already the USA suffers from ignorance due to the fact that education is so expensive.

[Luckybit]

I think its deeply rooted in materialistic way of thinking.

Taken to the extreme, people are pro-socialist when it gets them free stuff and are anti-socialist when their stuff gets taken away...

The problem I have with socialism is that somebody else decides what, how much and when to away from you. I'd rather "cope" with never ever getting anything for free than cope with having what I earned go to somebody else because someone "smarter" decided it the right thing. First, they take your money, then your property and, finally, your freedom.

Some stuff has to be taken away to have a society at all though. The bare minimum. This would mean enough of a basic income so everyone can have food, shelter, clothes, education and healthcare. This is the minimum any human should be able to expect from any society. Even prisoners have that so to say we shouldn't give people that is inhumane.

Beyond that, no one is entitled to a good job or a good life, just the opportunity to pursue it as the Constitution says. So some level of socialism is necessary just so people have the opportunity to pursue happiness or to better their lives. Education for example, if you cannot educate yourself or pursue knowledge then you're basically static and can never advance in anything. You can be against socialism, but on some level you have to also be against ignorance, because to be for ignorance but against socialism is not only bad for your self interest but bad for the economy as well. So education is necessary and while it does not have to be public run, it must be public funded and funded nationally.

[myrkul]

There is also no successful example of a purely capitalist state with no elements of socialism.

If by "no elements of socialism" you mean no social support structure, then yeah. But if you mean no state-operated social programs, whoo, buddy are you dead wrong.

The USA has always been socialist.

Try going back a little farther than FDR if you want to support "always."

[kokjo]

first dude: "hey i have way too many potatoes, here is some".
second dude: "i have too much milk, here is some."

First dude: I have too many potatoes, but sure would love some milk. Want to trade?
Second dude: Sure, I have way too much milk, and I'd love some potatoes. What do you say to 5 potatoes per gallon?
First dude: It's a deal, and any time you want more, just come on by.

Of course, this is inefficient, and there's no guarantee that the guy who has milk wants potatoes. Maybe the guy who wants potatoes has corn, and the guy who has milk wants corn, but not potatoes. That's why we invented money. To facilitate trade.

simpler solution: put it one big pile, take what you need.

That might work. Except: How do you deal with the people who inevitably take more than they "need"? Or who takes, but doesn't add to the pile? For that matter, how do you decide how much you "need"?

change the "need" to "want", does not really matter. if people are unwilling to trade, there would be no gain for a "thieve", except having rotten potatoes laying around.

I see. Doesn't really answer how you deal with the "free rider" problem. Bill, Alice, Carl, and Dave all contribute what they can to the pile, and take what they need. Edward, however, takes their produce, and goes home, adding nothing. After a while of this, Felicia sees that Edward is getting away with it, so she starts just taking from the pile, too. Perhaps Dave see Edward and Felicia just taking, and, fed up, stops adding. How long before no one is adding to the pile any more?

people are easily bored, and people wants to support the pile-community. maybe there are nothing for Edward to do, or his "job"/function is another one, he fixes houses or something. Edward would be free to do what he likes. and he will not forget who fed him, while he was working on some potato farm research.

Edward would be bored if he does not do something, and that something could be productive for the community. Consider Edward a investment.

Mathematicians are often "inventing" stuff that are useless, just for the lulz, and then the stuff gets useful. They are fed full even when they don't contribute with anything useful.

and Alice would not quit, for the same reason. what would she do instead?


(oh god, im hungover. feel like im shit in explaining)

[myrkul]

first dude: "hey i have way too many potatoes, here is some".
second dude: "i have too much milk, here is some."

First dude: I have too many potatoes, but sure would love some milk. Want to trade?
Second dude: Sure, I have way too much milk, and I'd love some potatoes. What do you say to 5 potatoes per gallon?
First dude: It's a deal, and any time you want more, just come on by.

Of course, this is inefficient, and there's no guarantee that the guy who has milk wants potatoes. Maybe the guy who wants potatoes has corn, and the guy who has milk wants corn, but not potatoes. That's why we invented money. To facilitate trade.

simpler solution: put it one big pile, take what you need.

That might work. Except: How do you deal with the people who inevitably take more than they "need"? Or who takes, but doesn't add to the pile? For that matter, how do you decide how much you "need"?

change the "need" to "want", does not really matter. if people are unwilling to trade, there would be no gain for a "thieve", except having rotten potatoes laying around.

I see. Doesn't really answer how you deal with the "free rider" problem. Bill, Alice, Carl, and Dave all contribute what they can to the pile, and take what they need. Edward, however, takes their produce, and goes home, adding nothing. After a while of this, Felicia sees that Edward is getting away with it, so she starts just taking from the pile, too. Perhaps Dave see Edward and Felicia just taking, and, fed up, stops adding. How long before no one is adding to the pile any more?

people are easily bored, and people wants to support the pile-community. maybe there are nothing for Edward to do, or his "job"/function is another one, he fixes houses or something. Edward would be free to do what he likes. and he will not forget who fed him, while he was working on some potato farm research.

Edward would be bored if he does not do something, and that something could be productive for the community. Consider Edward a investment.

Mathematicians are often "inventing" stuff that are useless, just for the lulz, and then the stuff gets useful. They are fed full even when they don't contribute with anything useful.

and Alice would not quit, for the same reason. what would she do instead?

Read books all day. Watch TV. Smoke pot. Plenty of non-productive entertainment to keep everyone from getting bored, especially if they don't need to do anything to support themselves.

[Mike Christ]

people are easily bored, and people wants to support the pile-community. maybe there are nothing for Edward to do, or his "job"/function is another one, he fixes houses or something. Edward would be free to do what he likes. and he will not forget who fed him, while he was working on some potato farm research.

Edward would be bored if he does not do something, and that something could be productive for the community. Consider Edward a investment.

Mathematicians are often "inventing" stuff that are useless, just for the lulz, and then the stuff gets useful. They are fed full even when they don't contribute with anything useful.

and Alice would not quit, for the same reason. what would she do instead?


(oh god, im hungover. feel like im shit in explaining)

To make an example of the free-rider, take a look at spoiled middle to upper class children.  They're handed everything from day one, and will always expect their parents to clothe and feed them in return for nothing.  It is pretty fucking hard to get such a child to go out and make a living, unless the parent decides to turn around and make their lives hell, to the point that the child wants to leave for good.  Why is it that these children do not have an innate desire to contribute to the family and keep their way of life going?  They don't have any trouble whatsoever free-loading.  How do you get these people to stop on a large scale?  Now you must introduce the parent; you must introduce the state.

[kokjo]

Mathematicians are often "inventing" stuff that are useless, just for the lulz, and then the stuff gets useful.

tell me what use there is for algebraic topology, other then the lulz.