Is Socialism really that bad?

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

is socialism good or bad?

  • good
  • bad
0 voters

In short, yes a socialistic government is very dangerous it’s citizens. Once a group of individuals gives too much power and trust into their government, corruption starts to occur and the government becomes too powerful over their citizens. Since the beginning of civilizations we have seen this happen, where the ruler is given too much power and respect where the system revolves around him. But not until the 18th century is when people have started to realize this divine right they worship their rulers with is destroying their economy, society, and of course their natural rights. This philosophical movement of the 18th century helped fuel the American Revolution, French Revolution, and influenced many monarchies to become constitutional monarchies. Even though this has changed most of the first world countries into democracies or flawed democracies, there are still many examples in the last 100 years of the rights of citizens being taken away by their government. Some extreme examples are Nazi Germany, North Korea, and Communist Russia. These examples show clearly how a powerful and trusted central government can become disastrous quickly. Nations like these not only affect their citizens but cause major issues around the world.

As time progresses, less monarchies/dictatorships are established and are replaced by democracies. This is very beneficial to the people in the reign, but sooner or later, the middle/lower class become frustrated over their lack of representation or become envious of the upper class’s success and feel that their government is rigged towards providing to the upper class(which is mostly the case). All of this is just natural human behavior and thoughts, when someone does nothing more than you did and achieves greater success(mainly addressing wealth inequality). This causes the middle/lower class to want to reform the government into a socialism or something comparable to a socialism, where everyone is treated “equally”. Of course not all socialisms are created that way, some are created out the greed of rulers. Which whom want to deceive their citizens into thinking they will be treated fairly and equally.     

From the philosophical point of view, socialism has it’s pros and cons. Idealistically through a socialistic government, everyone is treated equally and given the amount of money everyone thinks their occupation deserves. This allows for no envy since everyone is given the same opportunities through their government’s programs. But since everyone is created and given everything the same as everyone else, this allows for no creative work and little progress in a society. If one doctor is more trained and more professional than the other, they deserve more pay for the service, but in a socialism this is not the case, which prevents anybody from being progressive and creative since it will not have any added benefits.  

From a statistical point of view, socialism is terrible in the long run (3+ years), ruining economies and businesses all throughout the country. Let’s take Venezuela for example; for over fifteen years Venezuela has been a socialistic society, which seemed to have great benefits at first. In the first three years, unemployment went down and income and spending increased which boosted their economy. This is mostly due to the fact that before the ”socialist revolution”, Venezuela was one of the wealthiest countries in South America, allowing more money to be put into the government at the beginning of the reformed government. But after fifteen years and many elections, their economy has grown to be the worst in the world, and it has come to the point where there is no more food or toilet paper left on the shelves. Major companies have left Venezuela, such as Coca-Cola, and  the unemployment rate is one of the highest in the world. There are many more examples of socialism failing economically, such as Greece, Cuba, and many many more. 

Socialism overall allows for no growth and little variation in the market and society. Putting too much power into a centralized government is an open gateway for corruption and an economic disaster. Hopefully in the next few years, Venezuela and countries alike will look around them and see how they should take a stand and change their government into a fair and justice system.

comment below if you agree or disagree with what I’ve said

2

I agree with most things you said but it seems at times you’ve confused socialism with communism. Democracy has most often been related to capitalism and communism with socialism. But we should never mistake socialism or capitalism as a systematical way of running your government. It really comes down to the problem of whether the government and the national economy should be separate or together and to what extent. Most countries in modernity have mixed economies with their obvious influences of democracy, communism and despotism from how their country has evolved over time. Communism should be considered as you have because it seems absolute rule leads to the atrocities you do a great job of identifying. But before labeling socialism as terrible for a nations health and wealth, you should look into the European forms of Democratic socialism. This kind of institution has gotten rid of some problems pure communo-socialism has produced and has continued to rely on the justice true democracy provides for the people. However, as you said, all these forms of mixed economies have their pros and cons and it is hard to fully vouch for one system of the other without realizing the great change that should occur during this century.

I like your bit on the natural reactions of man to rebel, but I have always interpreted these revolutions (American, French, Marxist, Russian) as having the intention of pure equality but what they are really looking for is balanced equity. Equity and equality are similar, but for the sake of realizing what people really want, they should recognize pure equality is impossible in such a diverse world. The drive towards a higher form of equity attempts to reset the balance between social status and another because one social distinction felt unjust because of another distinction or because of the multiple impetus’ that could’ve brought about the revolt.

I suggest you look into democratic socialism and get a better grasp on the complex aspects of mixed economies.

3

Thank you for your reply. I do understand the concept of a democratic socialism, especially in Europe. I’ve actually written part two to this post a little earlier about that concept, but this post was mainly about the countries that are full of corruption and powerful central government. I actually have little to no experience with actual economic studies, but have read a lot of articles explaining how socialism ruined one country or another. After I have submitted my part two, I will stop posting about politics and economy probably all together.

4

“Socialism” is just a buzz word, pure ideology.

5

Socialism and capitalism two systems of the elites to enslave the masses worldwide.

You have a choice between aids or hepatitis c.

6

Yes. Globalism is the synthesis of techno-creditism (capitalism) and socialism (communism). It is easier and more efficient to enslave the masses by both than by merely one of both.

7

Unfortunately we’re a part of a small handful of individuals that can see all of that as a majority of people lay stuck within their slavish team perspectives. My team is better than yours, no mine is better…

A world full of unaware puppets completely oblivious to their own state of captivity.

8

So would you suggest that being aware of your social captivity is any better than being an ignorant slave?

We will always be ignorant to the things that sway our lives one way or another but that doesn’t mean being ignorant to any of those conditions is so menacing and brainwashing as you seem to generalize it as. We can change those conditions if we really apply ourselves. We will never completely rid the world of social vices and systematic control but we can inspire change the way we see fit for that point in time. Why do you always sound like a whiny teen who just finished reading 1984?

9

no socialism isn’t that bad, but the problem is it has never been tried…
We would have a better sense of socialism if we have some real examples
of it instead of the pretend socialism/communism of the last century which
were dictatorships and nothing more…

Kropotkin

10

Change is not always morally good but often morally bad, evil. The problem is that change is happening anyway. So we would have to do the change also in order to prevent change, a different change, or to live according to something like an amor fati as the alternative choice. We are experiencing the change either actively or passively.

11

Whiny teenager? I’m more than likely your elder you young whippersnapper. I bet you’re still wet behind the ears yet.

Yes, I think it’s better to be aware of one’s own captivity compared to the average moron who believes they’re free waving flags everywhere with their nostalgic bullshit patriotism as the government is thoroughly ramming it up their asses simultaneously within their delusional fixation. Well, I certainly hope this post clarifies some things.

12

That question reminds me of a similar question as a similar title in a similar thread.

My answer: