Why I Dislike Big Government

pedro3131 · May 7, 2012

1Historygenius said: ↑

Are you sure that the definition I found this Alec Nove is entirely incorrect, or could it just be a form of socialism, more of a softer one?

It's not really representative of socialism. Maybe it's a characterization of certain regimes that have called themselves socialist (but even this can be argued by codification or validity) but it's not really ideologically coherent. Marx and Lassalle don't talk about financial regulations or pension plans (well Marx talks a bit about pension plans, but that has more to do with the fact he was fired from the only job he ever had), they talk about the complete reorganization of a society to bring about complete equality.

Social welfare programs purpose is to ensure that everyone has the ability to be successful. Different countries take it to different levels, but at it's core it isn't so much of a handout as it is a handicap to make up for factors outside of individuals control.

If you read the primary sources of Marxism/socialism, they're very different then what most contemporary popular authors proclaim them to be.

darthdj31 said: ↑

Again, i ask what is definition of conservatism. Is is this-
a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)
from Merriam Webster online

Meh... Mw isn't that great of a resource. It's accurate here, but it's giving a kind of hodgepodge definition that doesn't take account of the differences in conservative thought. The first part, before specifically, deals with classical conservatism, a la Edmund Burke or OVB, which came as a reaction against the French revolution and the later 1847 revolutions in Europe. Contemporary conservatism is similar, but it has different focuses and goals. Most of it's either a return to the country's founding principles, or founding values, which isn't different en face, but tends to get pretty cluttered when they try and implement it politically.

darthdj31 · May 7, 2012

pedro3131 said: ↑

It's not really representative of socialism. Maybe it's a characterization of certain regimes that have called themselves socialist (but even this can be argued by codification or validity) but it's not really ideologically coherent. Marx and Lassalle don't talk about financial regulations or pension plans (well Marx talks a bit about pension plans, but that has more to do with the fact he was fired from the only job he ever had), they talk about the complete reorganization of a society to bring about complete equality.

Social welfare programs purpose is to ensure that everyone has the ability to be successful. Different countries take it to different levels, but at it's core it isn't so much of a handout as it is a handicap to make up for factors outside of individuals control.

If you read the primary sources of Marxism/socialism, they're very different then what most contemporary popular authors proclaim them to be.

Meh... Mw isn't that great of a resource. It's accurate here, but it's giving a kind of hodgepodge definition that doesn't take account of the differences in conservative thought. The first part, before specifically, deals with classical conservatism, a la Edmund Burke or OVB, which came as a reaction against the French revolution and the later 1847 revolutions in Europe. Contemporary conservatism is similar, but it has different focuses and goals. Most of it's either a return to the country's founding principles, or founding values, which isn't different en face, but tends to get pretty cluttered when they try and implement it politically.

Ok, thanks.

Anwrise888 · May 7, 2012

You make some good points in the begging but it was to long try only wrighting the most crucial point. That way people will be willing to read the whole thing. They coming here to troll your post because the title just shows your hatred of socialism when actually the post just shows the flaws and weaknesses of socialism. Its good but its to long.

Benerfe · May 8, 2012

Socialism is just the grand stepping stone to Communism, in my book.

Can a country reach Communism? I don't know.

ComradeLer · May 8, 2012

1Historygenius said: ↑

Massive Government

First of all, Socialism results in large controlling of government that eliminates the role of individuals. It sees that government as the entirely powerful and thus it has the ability to redistributing the products of labor from the people as it sees fit, usually through high taxation to feed its large social welfare programs.

No, it doesn't.

You see, socialists believe that all the problems of society can be fixed by government programs. Government programs off course need the tax dollars to survive. They also largely regulate businesses because they believe having more control will stop bad things from happening in the economy.

No, we don't.

Stopped reading after this, as it was made fairly clear that you have absolutely no idea what Socialism is.

slydessertfox · May 8, 2012

1Historygenius said: ↑

Now I am sure that there are many Socialists on this forum. Off course you all know I am one of the few Conservatives on here. I dislike socialism for the following reasons:

According to British scholar and Socialist Alec Nove, "A society may be seen to be a socialist one if the major part of the means of production of goods and services are not in private hands, but are in some sense socially owned and operated by state, socialized, or cooperative enterprises."

Since all of socialism is far to large for this discussion I will just address three things:

Massive Government

First of all, Socialism results in large controlling of government that eliminates the role of individuals. It sees that government as the entirely powerful and thus it has the ability to redistributing the products of labor from the people as it sees fit, usually through high taxation to feed its large social welfare programs.

You see, socialists believe that all the problems of society can be fixed by government programs. Government programs off course need the tax dollars to survive. They also largely regulate businesses because they believe having more control will stop bad things from happening in the economy.

The problem is that this is not necessarily true. A larger government need more taxes which causes less wealth for the people causing you to need those social programs. So instead of one forward direction you are stuck in a cycle. You pay your taxes, you get poorer, you are forced to get assistance from the government and it never ends. Economic recessions are usually natural to, mostly with luxury goods. Unlike bottles of water, which will forever be in large demand, a luxury item is like a computer. No one really needs computer to tell you the truth and you don't need many. So when many people have computers and there is no longer a vast demand, the market reacts. Other ways for a recession to start would be in loans and credit. Taxes also causes a problem itself. If you tax too much on the businesses then chances are it will have a negative effect.

In some cases, a form of softer socialism can be worst in the long-run because it can also lead to high taxes and skyrocketing debt. Kind of like the United States since the Great Depression of the 1930s don't you think? That is believed by an Austrian economist named F.A. Hayek.

False Compassion

Now for the second reason why it is bad. Socialism is largely based on false compassion which causes some serious consequences even if they are not intended. There are 2 reasons why Socialism can be accused of this. The first is that it takes away the compassion and goodwill of individuals by taxing them and then having cold bureaucracy do it, sometimes being very inefficient and wasteful. The individual who payed the taxes has no source to where there money went if it was a good cause or not. If you donate money to a charity for poor people then you probably feel good about. For all you know let's say part of your taxes payed for chocolate bar for a lazy worker in one of the government's social programs.

The second problem is that instead of a result of goodwill and gratitude like donating to a charity. Giving money for the government to do it for you can create a sense of resentment to those who are not taxed because on occasion you get the person who may ask, "What and why I am paying for such things?" and more people usually ask that in a larger government where there may be more waste. Thus you get the possibility of more protesters because they are unhappy with the government. The people on the other side who are received that welfare check may get greedy and want more to. I am not saying abandon social programs all together as an efficient and smaller one does help, but why can't the people do it by themselves? Aren't charities set up by individual people. False compassion is largely a Socialist obsession with what they see as equality and fairness accompanied by the conviction of people who may have other ideas.

Ludwig von Mises, an Austrian economist, found that Socialists see wealth and income as an injustice even if you work hard. He was against this and it is rather common sense to understand than equality is rather impossible even if Socialists believed it. Don't tell that to the Socialist leaders who may live in fabulous mansions. Look at the failed Soviet Union, North Korea, and China as examples. The way of life in these three nations is/was not exactly perfect and equal for everyone.

Socialism Offers Empty Hope

Socialism is a fantasy that has never succeeded in practice which has resulted in terrible human suffering. Those who have enacted Socialist policies in the United States of America have either no real knowledge of Socialism and have not considered its full effects or just love their ideology too much that they just don't care. As Ludwig von Mises wrote, politicians who support Socialist policies to improve the market or promote freedom are "either hypocrites who want to bring about Socialism by deceiving the people about their real intentions, or they are ignoramuses who do not know what they are talking about."

A brief history of Socialism:
Soviet Union: 1922-1991 or less than a century if that helps.
China: In 1978 China's Deng Xiaoping announced a "second revolution" to Socialism but many of these changes look more capitalistic.
France: France's Socialist Party took power in 1981 with the intentions of creating more social programs, the economy then went into chaos that they went into a reversal.
Tanzania: Tanzania's Julius Nyerere, a Socialist, confessed, "If I call back the British to look at their old plantations, they will laugh at us because we ruined them."

As for France's new Socialist and Greece's choice to Socialism; have fun with that!

Just out of curiosity, do you think Obama is a socialist?

Frenzy · May 8, 2012

1History Genius,

I must hand it to you, I find your courage to post on a predominately socialist forum despite your conservatism quite inspiring. When I have the time I'll go through your post to do it some justice.

ironchin · May 8, 2012

You need to properly understand socialism first before you attack it. Getting your definitions from opponents of socialism isn't a good place to start.

Ardinius said: ↑

1History Genius,
I must hand it to you, I find your courage to post on a predominately socialist forum despite your conservatism quite inspiring. When I have the time I'll go through your post to do it some justice.

I appreciate and am glad of the fact that he took the time and effort, but courage? Must have taken a whole heap of courage to punch on a keyboard and send the result anonymously through the internet to other mostly anonymous people. People who are, for the most part, reasonably nonaggressive and not socialist, despite the name of this forum. There have been plenty of conservative members who have posted against socialism since the very beginning of this site.

Warburg · May 8, 2012

I think it's impossible to address Socialism as a whole, since it's so divided and the overarching definition is so ambiguous and vague.

Viking Socrates · May 8, 2012

All I know is I am Enver Hoxha and everyone I say is not socialist is not socialist, the only true communist are Stalin, Lenin, Marx, and Engels. The rest are all revisionist.

Shisno · May 8, 2012

I should start a thread in response titled: "Why We Could Give Less of a Fuck". But anyway, all hail Vermin Supreme!

1Historygenius · May 8, 2012

pedro3131 said: ↑

It's not really representative of socialism. Maybe it's a characterization of certain regimes that have called themselves socialist (but even this can be argued by codification or validity) but it's not really ideologically coherent. Marx and Lassalle don't talk about financial regulations or pension plans (well Marx talks a bit about pension plans, but that has more to do with the fact he was fired from the only job he ever had), they talk about the complete reorganization of a society to bring about complete equality.

Social welfare programs purpose is to ensure that everyone has the ability to be successful. Different countries take it to different levels, but at it's core it isn't so much of a handout as it is a handicap to make up for factors outside of individuals control.

If you read the primary sources of Marxism/socialism, they're very different then what most contemporary popular authors proclaim them to be.

OK so how does communism differ from it? Perhaps, this professor was referring to a new form of democratic socialism it seems. Or he has socialism confused with social welfare programs.

slydessertfox said: ↑

Just out of curiosity, do you think Obama is a socialist?

No, he is liberal. On occasion, he may support things that socialists would support, and that is why I think people overreact to him being a socialist. But overall I think he wants the nation to be liberal, socialists would probably go further.

DUTCHSOCIALIST!!!! · May 8, 2012

You have no idea what socialism means do you?

Demondaze · May 8, 2012

Ardinius said: ↑

I find your courage to post on a predominately socialist forum despite your conservatism quite inspiring.

You aren't even going to consider the fact that a deal of the people criticizing him for this nonsense are non-socialists and even anit-reds are you?

slydessertfox · May 8, 2012

1Historygenius said: ↑

No, he is liberal. On occasion, he may support things that socialists would support, and that is why I think people overreact to him being a socialist. But overall I think he wants the nation to be liberal, socialists would probably go further.

Well that's comforting to know you are not one of those conservatives.

RickPerryLover · May 8, 2012

Socialism, the most overused untrue insult in the American Vocabulary next to Nazi...

I say this as a Rick Perry loving Conservative, knock it off. You got the definition of Socialism all wrong.

1Historygenius · May 8, 2012

I don't quite understand how someone who is praising Socialism got it wrong. Oh well, I should change the title of this thread: Why I Dislike Whatever Alec Nove Believes!

Leutenant_Germany · May 8, 2012

After reading the first couple lines i can tell you are merely spewing your anti-socialist views and making a fool of yourself.

3man75 · May 8, 2012

let me tell you something nice in the good old U.S. When our soldiers come back from war they are
sometimes greeted with "thank you for your service" {common during 4th of july}. In mother Cuba
this term is never used because EVERYONE does a service for the country. An a service could just be like
cutting sugar cane and waiting patiently for medical service. Cuba of course is "communist" going to socialism
these days as i hear but hey a nice story isn't it kids?

Demondaze · May 8, 2012

3man75 said: ↑

let me tell you something nice in the good old U.S. When our soldiers come back from war they are
sometimes greeted with "thank you for your service" {common during 4th of july}. In mother Cuba
this term is never used because EVERYONE does a service for the country. An a service could just be like
cutting sugar cane and waiting patiently for medical service. Cuba of course is "communist" going to socialism
these days as i hear but hey a nice story isn't it kids?

The fuck you going on about now?

Log in or Sign up

Why I Dislike Big Government

pedro3131 Running the Show While the Big Guy's Gone

darthdj31 City States Map Director

Anwrise888 Well-Known Member

Benerfe Well-Known Member

ComradeLer Proud Anti-Patriot

slydessertfox Total War Branch Head

Frenzy Member

ironchin Well-Known Member

Warburg Well-Known Member

Viking Socrates I am Mad Scientist

Shisno Doesn't know who did this

1Historygenius Member

DUTCHSOCIALIST!!!! Member

Demondaze Xenos Scum

slydessertfox Total War Branch Head

RickPerryLover strawberries oh sweet Jesus strawberries

1Historygenius Member

Leutenant_Germany Active Member

3man75 Well-Known Member

Demondaze Xenos Scum

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Why I Dislike Big Government

pedro3131 Running the Show While the Big Guy's Gone

darthdj31 City States Map Director

Anwrise888 Well-Known Member

Benerfe Well-Known Member

ComradeLer Proud Anti-Patriot

slydessertfox Total War Branch Head

Frenzy Member

ironchin Well-Known Member

Warburg Well-Known Member

Viking Socrates I am Mad Scientist

Shisno Doesn't know who did this

1Historygenius Member

DUTCHSOCIALIST!!!! Member

Demondaze Xenos Scum

slydessertfox Total War Branch Head

RickPerryLover strawberries oh sweet Jesus strawberries

1Historygenius Member

Leutenant_Germany Active Member

3man75 Well-Known Member

Demondaze Xenos Scum

Share This Page

Useful Searches