tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1042042552998680556.post6806319534674582386..comments2024-02-02T08:15:38.747-08:00Comments on The Elephant in the Room: A Well-Written Article About the Fallacies of Socialist PoliciesLMEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18429716019519498131noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1042042552998680556.post-24991716846484182182012-07-17T09:22:53.785-07:002012-07-17T09:22:53.785-07:00Hi Dara, hope all is well.
When I said that, I wa...Hi Dara, hope all is well.<br /><br />When I said that, I was speaking strictly from a definitive point of view in how the theory of socialism is detailed. There are of course many different variations/levels of socialism, but the ultimate principles don't revolve around any kind of exclusive focus on the rich. <br /><br />I mean, if you go far enough, the highest level of socialism eliminates currency. How can the idea of "rich feed the poor" exist when there are no monetary value differences between people? <br /><br />Not that I agree with that kind of extreme or societal structure, but my point is only in the whole ‘tax the rich for the poor’ mantra is at the very least a misleading representation of the theory of socialism. <br /><br />In all fairness though, history has shown us that all modern theories have failed to produce the kind of utopian society they claim/strive to be. Everything is with advantages, disadvantages, trade-offs and risk of corruption/collapse/failure. Socialism appears to be no exception, as does Capitalism. <br /><br />Of course, arguments could be made in that we never have had a “true” capitalist society, but the same applies for the “true” socialist society. So in the end, who knows! Not much more we can do than sort of guess/estimate. :)RKennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1042042552998680556.post-75448048049280213872012-07-17T08:02:36.367-07:002012-07-17T08:02:36.367-07:00Hi RKen
'Also, no part of socialism is built...Hi RKen <br /><br />'Also, no part of socialism is built up on the idea of ‘the rich pay for the poor.’ A true socialistic society requires contribution from everyone in the community; not just a particular group of it.'<br /><br />Sorry, I gotta disagree with your analogy. Do the words 'redistribution of wealth'('spread the wealth around' in Obamaspeak)ring any bells? Or how about 'from each according to his ability, to each according to their needs.'?<br /><br />Socialism ALWAYS fails, soon or later. And history shows us that once it does, the government for that rises in its ruins (bottom up, top down, inside out) -- is (and always has been)despotism/totalitarianism or communism.Darahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10612923804586600664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1042042552998680556.post-4033993834467131162012-07-16T11:24:09.180-07:002012-07-16T11:24:09.180-07:00Hey there LME!
I feel that the debt argument is a...Hey there LME!<br /><br />I feel that the debt argument is a different subject all-together (from the topic of socialism). I don’t think anyone from either side would argue that continuing to accrue debt, particularly as a way to pay for programs, is any definition of sustainable or ideal. <br /><br />Of course they are often discussed in tandem, in that socialism encourages higher levels of government spending, but it doesn’t encourage irresponsible spending and/or accrual of debt to fund the programs anymore than any other economic/societal theory. As you correctly related LME, that is far more a result of political campaigns attempting to win votes by promising ‘freebies.’ Which, I’d like to add further upon in that it very much goes both ways. Promising tax cuts without paying for them is no more or less financially responsible than promising social programs without paying for them. <br /><br />Also, no part of socialism is built up on the idea of ‘the rich pay for the poor.’ A true socialistic society requires contribution from everyone in the community; not just a particular group of it.<br /><br />That said, John Campbell’s article is an assessment of how he believes socialism can fail when propped up on debt and what amounts to a form of mob rule (minority pay for majority), as exemplified through his analysis of the current Europe situation. But you can’t fairly draw anything major other than that from Europe. This is more of a statement in how governments can fail to implement responsible social policies, than how the social policies themselves fail. Which sure, is a valid argument in itself, but in all fairness he appears to try to make it mean more than it really does.RKennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1042042552998680556.post-52015643725304461412012-07-16T10:55:34.180-07:002012-07-16T10:55:34.180-07:00What is the fair share of someone else's earni...What is the fair share of someone else's earnings?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1042042552998680556.post-64530886781968541592012-07-16T07:16:24.930-07:002012-07-16T07:16:24.930-07:00Your assessments and connections to the original a...Your assessments and connections to the original article are correct. It's a good job of taking Campbell's point and running to the next level. Thank you for posting your other analysis in the links you gave.PineTree151noreply@blogger.com