Socialist rant

Economics Political Theory
1

Well i wouldn’t really call this person a socialist, i just wrote it in the title to hopefully attract attention.

This was posted in another forum:

I do not claim to be an expert in politics or economics. Simply a high school student concerned with the welfare of our country as a whole.

Socialism is a reaction to the social inequity caused by capitalism, which (at least in this country) disproportionately favors the wealthy. In 2001, 10% of the population in the United States owned over 71% of all the wealth. This number is rather mind-boggling, as I fail to see how some people can be so rich while others in the same nation can be so poor.

Large corporations have tremendous influence over the legislation passed, trying to maximize profits at the expense of the middle and lower classes. Why do you think that some of the loudest complaints about the new health care bill have come from the health insurance industry? Here in the United States, we pay the most per capita than any other country in the world, and yet we have a relatively low life expectancy, far below that of other countries in the world who have socialized health care.

The average cost of health care in the United States is around $5,000 per person. The average family consists of 3 people, and earns an average of $30,000 - $40,000 per year. This means that the average family is spending a huge amount of their income just to have the ability to see a doctor. Personally, I don’t think this is fair at all.

When it is shown that people will not take responsibility to look after the welfare of their fellow man, I believe that the federal government must take up the slack and look after its people, after all, they (the people) have entrusted it (the government) with their safety and well being.
I believe that it has a moral obligation to look after the people more so than the corporations.

Look where 200 years of capitalism has gotten us today? You can blame whoever you want, Democrats, Republicans, etc, but I think it is obvious that this system is definitely not perfect. During the Great Depression, Roosevelt enacted several policies which could be described as Socialist in order to stop the economy from degrading even more. These, such as social security and bank deposit insurance still exist today.

The thing is, I do not believe that one political/economic policy is inherently better than all the others. It really depends on the way in which it is implemented. You could have a really prosperous capitalist state just as much as you could have a prosperous socialist state. However, in light of recent events and the social/economic problems which “regular” people face (middle, working, lower class), I have decided that in our country, capitalism is not working quite according to plan.

A common misconception is that converting to a socialist state would require a fundamental and traumatic change in the way we govern and run our country, and possibly lead to communism. I will be the first to tell you that socialism is very far away from what communism is (the Soviet Union was not really “true” communism). We can have the same type of representative government and the same constitution that we cherish today.

Yes, taxes will probably go up, but not necessarily on you. Barak Obama has repeatedly stated that taxes will be raised on the rich (who are taxed incredibly little in proportion to their earnings), not on the middle class. However, with higher taxes, the government will be able to provide more public services, and hopefully move towards a more equitable and stable country.

When one solution is found to be broken, you throw it out, and search for another suitable one which will adhere to everyone’s needs.

This kid put a lot of time into the post, im thinking of the best line-by-line refutation, or a concise LRC/mises.org link to address the common claims made by the youngin

2

He is in part right, but unfortunately makes the wrong conclusions.

This is right, and the power large corporations get is to a degree illegitimate, it comes through cooperation with the state, who is by itself illegitimate as it relies on violence.

But getting rid of the corporations is where he makes the mistake. The power is still there, the corrupted bureaucracy is still up for grabs by whoever is best at using it for their self intrests. He refuses to analyze the state as the source of the legislation, as if the corporations were some big bad man taking advantage of a child who is by its nature virtuous, but only does bad things due to being molested. The naive belief in the state is the source of socialist fallacies.

Also the idea of classes, low middle, high classis completely arbitrary, but rather classes should be looked at as parasites who take more than give and rely on an apparatus of violence to get it, and the hosts, who receive less than give to the state and are the victims.

Citing paragraphs of Ethics of Liberty, especially those from part 3 about the state would work well, because it would fundamentally show it for what it is rahter than mumble on about technical and historical facts of the depression and constitution and policies which arent that fundamental and are open for interpretation,

3

He’s right on one thing: Capitalism has completely failed. It will never be able to promise (as opposed to deliver) as much as any flavor of Socialism so it’s doomed. Capitalism entice personal responsibility and accountability, doesn’t give free lunches or rides and since it is just an economical model as opposed to a political theory it has no time nor leisure for high rhetoric. This is not what people want, as Mises rightly said they know that under a free market system they’d either be forced to work much harder or be relegated to a second-tier position. Also the image of the Capitalist Fatcat wearing a monocle and tall hat and mercilessly exploiting workers has become so embedded in the political and social DNA that it may never be eradicated.

I am more and more convinced that while Europe will (hopefully) slide into nothingness peacefully the US will desperately race faster and faster toward Socialism: this “kid” (around here it means a newborn goat…) is the epitome of years of compulsory schooling and merciless propaganda. remember that for every young person listening to Ron Paul podcasts or reading LvMI books there are a hundred or more of these useful idiots. Yes, the situation may well be irrecoverable.

4

Individuals can actually believe that socialism can work without “years of compulsory schooling and merciless propoganda.”

5

Perhaps he should start by taking his own advice…

6

“It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.”

7

Then STFU.

This country isn’t capitalist as defined by Marx. It is fascist/mercantialist. We haven’t had capitalism for about 100 years. You’re putting the wagon before the horse. People who were dirt poor became wealthy because of capitalism.

Not completely true, government favors some rich people over other rich people. Fallacy you committed: ad hominem. Madicare and medicaid are socialist and they are bankrupt. The so-called “private healthcare industry” is fascist/mercantilist, not (free-market) capitalist.

False, who here signed the Constitution? Constitution is not valid. No such thing as social contract.

Hoover also implemented socialist policies. FDR made Hoover’s severe recession into a great depression.

Capitalist state = oxymoron. Capitalism isn’t at work at all. Fascism and socialism are. Wait, what plan?

The rich leave to a country where there is more liberty. Bye bye, capital. Btw, government services have been proven to be a failure.

F*** your collectivism.

8

Now that is productive!

9

lol

10

The history of socialism seems to contradict this even now.

“The USSR was not communist because communism is perfect, therefore it could not have been communist” LOL

“Only tax the rich”…that’s the answer… wow

11

More like look where 200 years of government has gotten us.

12

I think he should read Higgs’ Crisis and Leviathan, Dilorenzo’s How Capitalism Saved America, Higgs’ Depression,War,and Cold War; and Golko’s Triumph of Conservatism for starters…

13

We have to be exposed to the ideas before holding them. The school system advertises only the socialist idea. It requires an exceptional circumstances to evade that trap.

Though I’m an unflinching anarcho-capitalist now, I was a totalitararian communist until after I finished school. Yet, I have to this day never read any communist book.

I once read a local story about mock elections held in high schools in ridings in my area. The results in most cases placed NDP (the most communist party) and the Green Party (the next most communist party) at the top and the Conservative Party (least communist) at the bottom- even though most of the real elections were won easily by the CP, wheras NDP and GP had never come close.

14

Don’t forget about the model U.N.

15

The rich people own capital goods, which also, I think, is accounted as a measure of their personal wealth. It actually forms a huge part of their wealth. And capital goods are in their hands because they are efficient at directing it towards the production of consumer goods which satisfy the masses. It’s actually good if an economy allows capitalists to accumulate money Capital, which can be invested to increase the per head capital of the economy. Notice: industrialized nations are richer than third world countries because they have a higher per head capital.

Even if you are going to democratize economic affairs(like what Noam Chomsky keeps asking for), and make workers manage these factories and other capital goods, the few most efficient workers(who properly anticipate consumer demand) will eventually end up owning the capital goods(provided the system allows profits and losses to be taken by the workers who take the risks). It’s just a case of people doing what they are best at doing. Not all can be entrepreneurs. The market does this allocation with the profit-loss system.

Actually I was baffled to see the poverty figures in the United States. It was like people who owned cars, television set, air conditioners and houses were categorized as people under the poverty line. Such things are luxuries in countries like mine. Although Indians have made lots of savings traditionally, businesses never really did well because they were taxed so heavily in the pre-1991 era.

So it is very important that we realize the importance of capital accumulation, and how the market allocates capital to the most efficient entrepeneurs who serve consumers the best. Capital owned by billionaires, although they add to the wealth figures of these billionaires, have no real economic value unless they produce goods which the consumers demand. Once these entrepreneurs turn inefficient in satisfying consumer demands, the Capital will very soon move out of their hands and be transferred to the more efficient entrepreneurs. So, the businessmen don’t really ‘own’ Capital unless they use it to serve consumer needs.