Why do you feel socialism is bad?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PlipPlop
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Part of the discussion about “feel socialism is bad” is the definition of socialism. If we cannot agree on the definition, then the whole discussion falls apart.

Part of the discussion must also take a look at examples of countries that are socialist and what we like or dislike about them.

Part of the discussion must also focus on freedom and the definition of freedom and whether or not socialism infringes on freedom. Is socialism a voluntary association? Or is is compulsory? Is it a form of tyranny? How does socialism differ from democracy? How does socialism differ from Communism? How does socialism differ from republicanism? At what point does “socialism” slide into tyranny?

So, the discussion becomes rather complicated rather quickly.

Here is a current illustrative article, which is helpful:

investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=515788

Read Mark Levin’s book, “Liberty versus Tyranny” available at www.marklevinshow.com
 
PlipPlop said:
Okay. Give proof. I’ve given (what I consider to be) sufficient proof, and you folk have ignored or rejected it.
Click to expand...
You answered with Sweden, which isn’t even a socialist country. Unless you have something else to use as an example, the burden of proof is still upon you.
 
“The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money…” M. Thatcher

I think the Margaret Thatcher quote is on point.

Socialism works OK as long as there are enough productive people to pay high enough taxes to support the entire population. Social programs cost a lot, and taxes must be very high, particularly in a large country such as the United States.

The U.S. has a lot of social programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, which are running on borrowed time and borrowed money. We have added high debt to high taxation to keep everything running. This has been going on since the 1940’s and is now reaching a point at which the whole scheme will come tumbling down. Fiscal insolvency is around the corner. We have a choice of depression or hyperinflation, neither of which is desirable.

Perhaps the socialist desire is that when that happens, there will be a socialist revolution. If so, it will not improve anyone’s lot because the money will be gone.
 
JimG said:
“The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money…” M. Thatcher

I think the Margaret Thatcher quote is on point.

Socialism works OK as long as there are enough productive people to pay high enough taxes to support the entire population. Social programs cost a lot, and taxes must be very high, particularly in a large country such as the United States.

The U.S. has a lot of social programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, which are running on borrowed time and borrowed money. We have added high debt to high taxation to keep everything running. This has been going on since the 1940’s and is now reaching a point at which the whole scheme will come tumbling down. Fiscal insolvency is around the corner. We have a choice of depression or hyperinflation, neither of which is desirable.

Perhaps the socialist desire is that when that happens, there will be a socialist revolution. If so, it will not improve anyone’s lot because the money will be gone.
Click to expand...
No it will be printed, that why we were taken off the gold standard.
 
JimG said:
“The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money…” M. Thatcher

I think the Margaret Thatcher quote is on point.

Socialism works OK as long as there are enough productive people to pay high enough taxes to support the entire population. Social programs cost a lot, and taxes must be very high, particularly in a large country such as the United States.

The U.S. has a lot of social programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, which are running on borrowed time and borrowed money. We have added high debt to high taxation to keep everything running. This has been going on since the 1940’s and is now reaching a point at which the whole scheme will come tumbling down. Fiscal insolvency is around the corner. We have a choice of depression or hyperinflation, neither of which is desirable.

Perhaps the socialist desire is that when that happens, there will be a socialist revolution. If so, it will not improve anyone’s lot because the money will be gone.
Click to expand...
you saying the economic juggernaut of the USA will collapse?
 
As the late Adrian Rogers said, “you cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”
This man is truly a genius!

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before,
but had once failed an entire class.
That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”.
All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.
The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.
As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D!
No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
 
Part 1
The following is taken in part from a bulletin insert that appeared in our church in the fall of 2009:
If you give a man a fish then he will be back tomorrow for a fish, but if you teach a man to fish then he will feed himself from that point on. This age old adage is a great example of how the Church thinks; for the Church thinks that we should be helping people by giving them a hand up and not just a hand out. We should be helping people to become more independent, and not dependant. The Church does not believe in a welfare state, socialism, or any other form of collectivism.
What is Collectivism?
Collectivism is a system in which everything is collectively controlled as a group and not as an individual. It is derived from the socialist theory holding that the interests and welfare of the collective group are of greater importance than the interests and welfare of any individual. Socialism and communism are examples of collectivism. Capitalism and free enterprise are the opposite of collectivisms. Collectivism is not in line with Catholic social teaching.
What should we support then?
We should be supporting subsidiarity systems and not collectivisms.
What is Subsidiarity?
Subsidiarity is an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. Matters should effectively belong more to the smallest, lowest or least centralized authority than to a dominant central organization. The principle is based upon the autonomy and dignity of the human individual, and holds that all other forms of society, from the family to the state and the international order, should be in the service of the individual human person and not in the service of a group. So subsidiarity is anti-collectivism. Subsidiarity is 100% in line with Catholic social doctrine, capitalism, and free enterprise.
What does the Catechism have to say on the matter?
CCC 1885: The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order.
What do the Popes say about socialism (collectivism)?
“…Socialism…cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth.” - QUADRAGESIMO ANNO, 117, Encyclical of Pope Pius XI
Reconstruction of the Social Order, May 15, 1931
“…no Catholic [can] subscribe even to moderate Socialism.” - MATER ET MAGISTRA, 34, Pope John XXIII On Christianity and Social Progress, May 15, 1961
“Socialists…debase the natural union of man and woman…the [family] bond they…deliver up to lust. Lured…by the greed of present goods…they assail the right of property. While they seem desirous of caring for the needs and satisfying the desires of all men, they strive to seize and hold in common whatever has been acquired either by title, by labor, or by thrift.” - QUOD APOSTOLICI MUNERIS, 1, Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII On Socialism, December 28, 1878
“A particular manifestation of charity and a guiding criterion for fraternal cooperation between believers and non-believers is undoubtedly the principle of subsidiarity, an expression of inalienable human freedom. Subsidiarity is first and foremost a form of assistance to the human person via the autonomy of intermediate bodies. Such assistance is offered when individuals or groups are unable to accomplish something on their own, and it is always designed to achieve their emancipation, because it fosters freedom and participation through assumption of responsibility. Subsidiarity respects personal dignity by recognizing in the person a subject who is always capable of giving something to others. By considering reciprocity as the heart of what it is to be a human being, subsidiarity is the most effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state. It is able to take account both of the manifold articulation of plans — and therefore of the plurality of subjects — as well as the coordination of those plans.” - CARITAS IN VERITATE, 53, Encyclical of Pope Benedict XVI on Integral Human Development In Charity And Truth, June 29, 2009)
What is emancipation?
Emancipation: to free from restraint, control, or the power of another; especially to free from bondage; to release from paternal care and responsibility; to free from any controlling influence; to free from a dominant central organization.
 
Part 2
The following is taken in part from a bulletin insert that appeared in our church in the fall of 2009:
Socialism opposes having private property of any kind. What does the Church say?
From the Catechism: 2211 The political community has a duty to honor the family, to assist it, and to ensure especially… the right to private property, to free enterprise, to obtain work and housing. 2403 The right to private property, acquired or received in a just way, does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind. The universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise. In other words we have a right to private property.
Doesn’t Scripture say that we should be forming a material collective in Acts 4:32-37 & Acts 5:1-10:
First of all, and most importantly, it was the Church and the Apostles that received the people’s material gifts, not Caesar or any secular government. Modern Collectivisms centers around giving everything to a secular government or institution and not to the Church, which is the complete opposite of what is illustrated in Acts 4:32-37. Secondly, no one was under any obligation or command to sell everything and give it to the Church, for people who did so acted with complete freedom in Acts 4:32-37. This is the complete opposite of collectivism where it is mandatory to hold everything in common, so there is no freedom. Furthermore, God allows us freedom, and we should imitate him in allowing freedom as well. Third, Ananias and his wife are struck down because of their hypocrisy and deception in Acts 5:1-10, and not because of any refusal to give everything to the Church. God detests hypocrisy and deception which are forms of lying and bearing false witnessing. With God there is only honesty and truthfulness.
What about helping the less fortunate?
The Church always encourages people to give of themselves personally to help those less fortunate, but our long term goal is to help people achieve independence. This isn’t just an individual goal, but it should be a goal that affects us politically as well. Even countries that need our help should be helped in order to ultimately achieve their independence. Only those individuals who can’t help themselves, like the chronically ill or severely handicapped, need extra attention and help, but that help should come from family, friends, neighbors, and any local subsidiarity first (depending on the need). A person who needs immediate attention should get it from family, friends, neighbors, and any local subsidiarity first (depending on the need), and those helping should address the problem of, “how can we get this person to be independent so they can help themselves?” We should be helping the less fortunate ourselves and not relying on some welfare state to do it.
What do you mean “depending on the need”?
If it is simply a problem of paying a bill or helping someone with food then that can be provided by family, friends, neighbors, and any local subsidiarity, but if a family member has medical needs then you need to see a local medical professional like a local doctor. If there is an immediate medical need then you should call 911. If, for example, family members need to chip in together to get a chronically ill, or severely handicapped, family member long term care by a local subsidiarity then they should consider it. Depending on the need depends on the help. Always if there is nothing critically hindering a person, like being chronically ill or severely handicapped, then an effort should be made to help those in need to become independent so they can take care of their needs themselves.

Sorry but if abortion is out of the picture then it changes nothing.
 
qui_est_ce said:
As the late Adrian Rogers said, “you cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”
This man is truly a genius!

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before,
but had once failed an entire class.
That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”.
All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.
The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.
As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D!
No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Click to expand...
Socialism is evil and a failure exactly for this reason. I know people on welfare that are perfectly happy with the existence that have. One asked me, and this is a paraphrase,

Why should I have to go to work when I’m doing fine. I sit down and watch TV all day and have the food and money I need to survive because you work and make it available to me. I know several people like that, and at times I am ashamed. They are friends. They are lazy. They are happy living a lower standard of living than many other people because they get what they want. They sell food stamps to buy liquor ( I realize they are using ebt cards, but they buy food for someone with them, and are paid cash in return by that person).

I’ve heard many people say that Christianity may have been the first form of socialism. But St Paul admonished those that did not do enough for the community, but yet took from it.

Theoretically socialism is great. When EVERYBODY performs to the best of their ability to provide for the community, then the less fortunate receive the needed help. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way. The lazy remain lazy. The hard working continue to work hard. The takers take and give nothing in return. That is not Christianity in my opinion. What-so-ever you do for the least of my brothers does not mean being a fool. Jesus admonished those that took life for granted. Man’s view of socialism encourages the lazy taking what they get for granted.

How many people that are members of CAF work hard. Get up early to get to work. Work overtime or two jobs to feed their family and pay bills? Charity is a great thing. Forced charity is STEALING.
 
aspawloski4th said:
No it will be printed, that why we were taken off the gold standard.
Click to expand...
You are most likely right. The money will be printed. The debt will be monetized, and we will have chosen hyperinflation over depression.

But that’s not a guarantee that we still won’t get both. Those who have saved diligently will see their savings become worthless. Those who have not saved, will see their debt disappear at a fraction of its original value. But the process of hyperinflation may turn us into a third world country. And the world will never again trust the stability or value of the dollar.
 
JimG said:
You are most likely right. The money will be printed. The debt will be monetized, and we will have chosen hyperinflation over depression.

But that’s not a guarantee that we still won’t get both. Those who have saved diligently will see their savings become worthless. Those who have not saved, will see their debt disappear at a fraction of its original value. But the process of hyperinflation may turn us into a third world country. And the world will never again trust the stability or value of the dollar.
Click to expand...
That is why the Federal Reserve has got to go!
 
Karl Marx wrote something along the lines of “from each according to ability and to each according to their needs”. There is just one problem with that philosophy - human ‘needs’ can be a bottomless pit of acquisitiveness. Look up the synonyms of that word and see where socialism can lead human nature. Britain embarked on a socialist experiment before Margaret Thatcher came along to clean up the resultant mess. Did you know that under that socialist experiment, a family could show they needed a TV for their kids education and so apply for and be given a free TV. The greed of the trade unions knew no bounds. They hijacked the running of many businesses. A great example was their insistence that unprofitable coal mines in the north of England remain open and operating to make sure unemployment did not occur. Who picked up the tab? Why, the public purse, of course. Britain was a divided society back then, as people resented the giving of handouts to those who did not earn them.

Australia too tried a socialist experiment from the mid 1970s onwards and the ‘handout mentality’ became a growth industry. The union- government cable made economic decision making a nightmare. unions did all they could to raise the minimum wage, including making it impossible for a kid to get a first job at McDonalds for bucks an hour. Unemployment became entrenched in certain sections of society and there were instances of entire families who had existed on welfare for three generations. Why should they work? As rational people they understood that the state would ‘help’ them.

The difference between communism and socialism is one of degree. A democratic socialism uses a body of elected representatives, but freedoms are still limited because of the redistribuion of wealth. Communism simply replaces the ruling group with another, non-elected group, while the redistribution of monies is more severe and the ownership of the means of production is more severe. Both systems encourage cronyism and corruption. The system has failed miserably in Russia and will always fail because human nature, being what it is, requires incentive to maximise effort. It is the striving which brings out the best in people. Democratic socialism failed in Britain because the system encouraged cronyism and elite power groups, such as the trade unions. The economic cost was horrendous.

The US constitution says all men are created equal. Maybe, but not all men develop equally and that is why some rise up above a situation and others succumb. Those who continually strive will do so because they hope to achieve. Take away that hope and they will surrender to circumstance. In Russia, alcoholism was a perennial problem because people’s hopes for the future were consistently dashed by the system. Some men have the potential to achieve, to develop new ideas and to do great things. By dragging them down to the lowest common denominator, the public is actually made poorer.

Socialism debases people. It debases those who strive and have the rewards for their efforts taken from them and it debases those who receive handouts from the government, because they are made reliant upon the system.

Charity begins at home and cannot be replaced by a nanny state which institutionalises ‘helping’ and ‘giving’. The statutory demand that one help thy neighbour does not encourage a helping, caring heart to develop. Russia was a souleless society and charitable institutions and individuals non-existant. The state can never care the way an individual can. Bureacracy can never take the place of a closeknit, caring society. The former raises false expectations, the latter gives an example to all of what human nature is capable of.

Take Bill and Melinda Gates as magnificent examples…
 
JimG said:
You are most likely right. The money will be printed. The debt will be monetized, and we will have chosen hyperinflation over depression.

But that’s not a guarantee that we still won’t get both. Those who have saved diligently will see their savings become worthless. Those who have not saved, will see their debt disappear at a fraction of its original value. But the process of hyperinflation may turn us into a third world country. And the world will never again trust the stability or value of the dollar.
Click to expand...
But you forget, we were taken off the gold standard which leaves no basis for the value of the dollar thus making it able to be manipulated by those in power to do so.
 
First to the OP, pray tonight that you understand why abortion is wrong.

Now, who said something to the effect of this, “if you are young and not a liberal, then you are heartless and if you are old and not a conservative then you are dumb?”

My reasons against socialism:

1.) The Church opposes extreme forms of socialism.

2.) Economic incentives are thrown out the window.

3.) Charity becomes theft.

4.) The lazy do better than they should.

5.) I find the best way to combat poverty is to create poverty instead of divide it.

6.) Children pay for the benefit of today.

7.) Private sector can do better.

8.) Politicians can gain more than the hard worker.

I do not oppose all socialist ideas like unemployment insurance nor does the Church, but for the most part a lot of what the government does can be done better in the private market. For instance, the only problem with our health care today is cost. Universal health care will just ruin more than it “hopes” to do.

This is not to say the government can provide better due to economies of scale and the freeloader problem than the private sector, but in most cases this is not true.
 
After Independence from England, India embraced socialism.

India starved.

Then they began to wake up and began to embrace some aspects of free market economics.

India doesn’t starve any more.

Yes, they still have problems. But more and more people in India want to learn computers and make big bucks.
 
I remember back in college when we would study socialism. Socialism looks great on paper, I mean all men should be equal, no one should go without basic needs. But the problem is a human needs to over see those needs and wants. Humans by our very nature are greedy. So the overseers, as has been shown in all socialist societies get greedy, they prosper while the rest go with out.

The only way we can live this Utopian lifestyle is to follow the commandments love our neighbor and by the grace of God get into Heaven.
 
Im confused…Im just trying to figure out why you list yourself as “Catholic”, yet have disagree with Holy Mother Church on such an important and NON-NEGOTIABLE issue
PlipPlop said:
Also, regarding abortion: what if the baby’s life is in danger? What if the baby will only live for, say, 5 days, maximum? What if rape occurred? Rape comes under mental reasons. I’m not a mother, and I will never be a mother (pretty sure it’s impossible :p), but wouldn’t a woman who was forced to have a baby be resentful of it? It seems like an awfully cruel existence to be unwanted by your own mother.

I don’t disagree that getting an abortion because you don’t like the gender that the baby is, because you changed your mind, and so on is murder, however.

Pro-abortionists will often say “but it’s not murder, because the fetus isn’t alive yet!” Well, we don’t know exactly when a fetus becomes alive. To avoid destroying that precious life, abortion should be avoided.

P.S. I’m sorry if I appear disrespectful. I do not mean to insult your beliefs, but I don’t agree with them. If you feel I step out of line, please don’t hesitate to tell me why. I can only learn from my mistakes if I know I make them. 🙂
Click to expand...
 
And coming off The Gold Standard was one of the worst decisions we ever made…and I have to wonder, do you think there won’t be consequences for the economic well being of our country if we just keep printing more and more money to support the programs you are always an ardent supporter of?
aspawloski4th said:
No it will be printed, that why we were taken off the gold standard.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top