Why does socialism usually fail?

Little-Acorn

Little-Acorn

New member
Some socialists try to point out that socialist (or communist, its kissing cousin) policies are "sound". Sure, if you can get people to follow them. They include the policy that govenment owns all industry, business, etc., and gives its workers the housing, food, education etc. they need. The ides is, that they will work for the greater good of society, and keep the businesses flourishing. There are other features of socialism, but these are some of the most important.

But people in a socialist system generally don't want to obey socialist policy. It's a tendency that increases with time. Rather than work harder at something that brings them no additional benefit for it, some slack off while most keep working hard. Later the hard workers notice the slackers, and a few more slack off. Later a few more, etc. The system doesn't collapse suddenly, but merely gets more and more inefficient and unproductive over the years, or even over generations. Then when other problems happen (natural disaster, foreign invasion, etc.) recovery is difficult or impossible when the country has slid far enough into sloth. This is the cause of the repeated failures of socialist economies.

And the only thing the leaders can seem to do about it, is force people to work hard whether they like it or not, whether their pay goes up commensurately or not. In other word, they must rule contrary to the will of the people, rather than in accordance with it. In other words, they must become dictators.

Socialism breeds dictators. But it's not the dictators that bring down the society. Socialist policy, and the disinterest in the population in following it, bring down the society.

Capitalism, with its tendency to (usually) reward hard work and initiative, has it flaws, but that isn't one of them. And so it survives and prospers, however roughly and unevenly, where socialism fails.
 
Best government there is on paper. It is just like unfettered caplitalism will always lead to corruption and a world of the many ruled by the few when appied in the real world.

That is why it takes a careful balance between the two to work for real people.
 
Last edited:
Little-Acorn said:
Some socialists try to point out that socialist (or communist, its kissing cousin) policies are "sound". Sure, if you can get people to follow them. They include the policy that govenment owns all industry, business, etc., and gives its workers the housing, food, education etc. they need. The ides is, that they will work for the greater good of society, and keep the businesses flourishing. There are other features of socialism, but these are some of the most important.

But people in a socialist system generally don't want to obey socialist policy. It's a tendency that increases with time. Rather than work harder at something that brings them no additional benefit for it, some slack off while most keep working hard. Later the hard workers notice the slackers, and a few more slack off. Later a few more, etc. The system doesn't collapse suddenly, but merely gets more and more inefficient and unproductive over the years, or even over generations. Then when other problems happen (natural disaster, foreign invasion, etc.) recovery is difficult or impossible when the country has slid far enough into sloth. This is the cause of the repeated failures of socialist economies.

And the only thing the leaders can seem to do about it, is force people to work hard whether they like it or not, whether their pay goes up commensurately or not. In other word, they must rule contrary to the will of the people, rather than in accordance with it. In other words, they must become dictators.

Socialism breeds dictators. But it's not the dictators that bring down the society. Socialist policy, and the disinterest in the population in following it, bring down the society.

Capitalism, with its tendency to (usually) reward hard work and initiative, has it flaws, but that isn't one of them. And so it survives and prospers, however roughly and unevenly, where socialism fails.
Click to expand...

In the USSR if you slacked off you were sent to Siberia. Talk about an economic policy that conservatives would love.
 
Little-Acorn said:
Some socialists try to point out that socialist (or communist, its kissing cousin) policies are "sound". Sure, if you can get people to follow them. They include the policy that govenment owns all industry, business, etc., and gives its workers the housing, food, education etc. they need. The ides is, that they will work for the greater good of society, and keep the businesses flourishing. There are other features of socialism, but these are some of the most important.

But people in a socialist system generally don't want to obey socialist policy. It's a tendency that increases with time. Rather than work harder at something that brings them no additional benefit for it, some slack off while most keep working hard. Later the hard workers notice the slackers, and a few more slack off. Later a few more, etc. The system doesn't collapse suddenly, but merely gets more and more inefficient and unproductive over the years, or even over generations. Then when other problems happen (natural disaster, foreign invasion, etc.) recovery is difficult or impossible when the country has slid far enough into sloth. This is the cause of the repeated failures of socialist economies.

And the only thing the leaders can seem to do about it, is force people to work hard whether they like it or not, whether their pay goes up commensurately or not. In other word, they must rule contrary to the will of the people, rather than in accordance with it. In other words, they must become dictators.

Socialism breeds dictators. But it's not the dictators that bring down the society. Socialist policy, and the disinterest in the population in following it, bring down the society.

Capitalism, with its tendency to (usually) reward hard work and initiative, has it flaws, but that isn't one of them. And so it survives and prospers, however roughly and unevenly, where socialism fails.
Click to expand...


Excellent observations and post! I commend you, sir! :)

I would like to add, Socialism has worked in certain areas. It requires a populous which is largely confined to tight-knit family units and communities. In Sweden, it is cold most of the year, so most people stay indoors, they don't travel around, and are mostly a family-oriented people. In this environment, socialist models will work well for many years, because it is on a much smaller scale and without the pitfalls of a 'hustle and bustle' society. There is no 'social competitiveness' in these countries, no need to 'keep up with the Doofhenflossells'. Absent the presence of class envy, the small populations in confined geographic areas, can make Socialism work.

Desh makes a good point as well, and I tend to agree, on paper, Socialism is about the best possible system of economics. Just as Libertarianism is the best possible social policy on paper, it simply fails in practicality. Why? Human nature. The "on paper" models fail to factor in human behavior, which will ultimately compromise the principles of the ideal. Libertarian social policy fails because people can't be personally responsible enough to make it work, it is against human nature. Socialism doesn't work because people without motivation, become stagnant and inefficient bums of the state. Again, human nature, we don't strive for success if there is no reward for success, what is the purpose?
 
Calm down Little Nut. No person in any position of influence in the U.S. has, or will advocate socialism.

If I had a nickel for every time a Con told me they had no recourse but to vote republican to "stop socialism", I'd be lighting cigars with hundred dollar bills.

Little nut, this is embarrassing. Stop shadow boxing the phantom and non-existent threat of encroaching "socialism", and get a real hobby.
 
LOL @ everything on this thread.

Stupid arguments against socialism, and stupid arguments trying to downplay it.
 
Looks like no one has any reply to the OP, other than the usual "This is stupid", "Stop disussing this", "This is embarrassing", etc. and lies claiming no one advocates socialistic policies; along with the usual namecalling.

The OP outlined, of course, the reason entire nations have collapsed time and again while trying these socialistic policies. Policies similar to those that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and even John McCain to some extent, advocate today.

These policies offer little incentive for individuals to improve, and little for them to avoid laziness and corruption. Government must rule against this "will of the people", and so cannot succeed over the long term.
 
communism fails becuase people are human. Lazy, selfish, power hungry, etc.

Socialism never totally fails, we will always have some socialism.
Try and find any govt / country without some socialism in it.
 
Cypress said:
Calm down Little Nut. No person in any position of influence in the U.S. has, or will advocate socialism.

If I had a nickel for every time a Con told me they had no recourse but to vote republican to "stop socialism", I'd be lighting cigars with hundred dollar bills.

Little nut, this is embarrassing. Stop shadow boxing the phantom and non-existent threat of encroaching "socialism", and get a real hobby.
Click to expand...

:)
 
Socialism doesn't usually fail -- it ALWAYS fails.

And in the process, it usually kills millions of people. :(
 
Gotta love this forum. Here we have some leftists insisting no one's trying to practice socialism here, and other leftists saying that the socialism practiced here hasn't hurt anything, or has somehow "saved lives".

These people really need to get their stories straight. I'm not holding my breath.
 
OK .. as the resident socialist, I'll bite.

What is Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, unions, and the inevitable universal healthcare that the vast majority of Americans are clamoring for?

As resources continue to shrink, is the individual going to be most important, or will the whole of society be?

There is plenty, plenty, plenty state and government ownership in America, schools, national parks, universities, libraries, utilities, transportaion systems, etc, etc, etc, .. but America is not a socialist nation .. thus government ownership does not define socialism. Socialism takes many forms, but here in America it's strictly defined as the old Soviet style of an aggressive military (we have that), one party rule, secret police, a centrally planned economy, bureaucracies, and no personal incentive .. none of which defines socialism.

I believe in mixed societies, mixed economies, and a mix of socialism and democracy that is collectivism, a truly defensive military, civill liberties, a multi-party democracy, and true diversity.

America is a democratic nation, but money is the giant gaping hole in the concept of democracy. Money controls the democracy. How much money does it take to be the POTUS these days.

Countries with nationalized energy companies are paying about 23 cents a gallon for gas.

Countries with nationalized healthcare deliver far better services to their citizens.

Cuba, even in the face of economic boycott and oppression, has made great strides in literacy and education, and public health. They are a more literate people than Americans and they have some of the best doctors in the world.

The simplistic Hollywood versions of socialism don't even belong in a discussion of real socialism.
 
Little-Acorn said:
Looks like no one has any reply to the OP, other than the usual "This is stupid", "Stop disussing this", "This is embarrassing", etc. and lies claiming no one advocates socialistic policies; along with the usual namecalling.

The OP outlined, of course, the reason entire nations have collapsed time and again while trying these socialistic policies. Policies similar to those that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and even John McCain to some extent, advocate today.

These policies offer little incentive for individuals to improve, and little for them to avoid laziness and corruption. Government must rule against this "will of the people", and so cannot succeed over the long term.
Click to expand...

I can't honestly recall anytime a communist government has advocated a social welfare program.
 
blackascoal said:
Cuba, even in the face of economic boycott and oppression, has made great strides in literacy and education, and public health. They are a more literate people than Americans and they have some of the best doctors in the world.
Click to expand...

Cubas greatest success is healthcare, education, and literature.

Their gretest failure is breakfast, lunch, and dinner...
 
Epicurus said:
LOL @ everything on this thread.

Stupid arguments against socialism, and stupid arguments trying to downplay it.
Click to expand...

Especially the downplaying arguments. Cypress is suddenly shocked that anyone would think that our politicians are socialist leaning. LOLOLOLOL

Someone left the gate unlocked, the idiots are everywhere.
 
Public libraries, if they didn't already exist, would be shot down as "encroaching socialism" if the idea were thought of today. Books that everyone shares, run by teh GUBMENT, all for free! OMG!
 
ib1yysguy said:
Public libraries, if they didn't already exist, would be shot down as "encroaching socialism" if the idea were thought of today. Books that everyone shares, run by teh GUBMENT, all for free! OMG!
Click to expand...

Lame. I pity the newspaper that hires you and/or you Miata.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top