WHY is socialism (or communism) bad for a country? (interstate, Mexicans, legal)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Economic ism's are the thing that theorists argue about while the worlds population goes about it's business in some type of modified/ism economic system. None of the scholarly works of various economists are actually put into practice for one over riding reason, Human greed. Socialism like all the other isms looks do-able on paper but in practice fails to adhere to the core principles of the theory. Communism also failed to address the well being of the majority of the citizens who lived under it's dictates. Capitalism has had it's heyday also, now we see it floundering under the strain of the unmitigated greed innate in it's actual practice here in the US.
The lack of a good basic understanding of economics on the part of most peoiple is probably one of the reasons the world hasn't seen any economic system work very well. Most if not all have some glaring fault that manifests itself as a poor distribution of the wealth created by the majority of a nations people. Here in our country we can easily see the failure of government to represent the people in all things economic, that flaw is duplicated around the globe to include every nation regardless of it's choice of economic constructs. The global poor are on the increase, that much we know for sure, machines, labor at the lowest cost, and a desire to maximize the money for profits all add to the problem of huge imbalances in economic well being.
I've see the various threads here that allude to a wishful world of a type of systemic financial health, unfortunately most of us will continue to be part of a economic system that is stratified, characterized by a minority on top and the multitudes on the bottom, ALL the economic isms regardless of how they may differ in their adherence to theory have this imbalance as their defining form. Dimitri Orlov writes about the laughable notions that most westerners had about Russia's economic reality, the truth was more like the western nations own high rolling class who really ran things in the politburo. Of course we all know of the latest debacle here in our own country brought to us by the uppermost wealthy of our fellow citizens. Human greed is universal, it knows no national boundary, poverty is poverty no matter where you find it, it's all relative to a nations overall wealth picture.
We probably should study the theories that these brilliant economists, past and present, have offered for our perusal, we may find that our own national economic hubris is simply another evidential item of the fact of greed being the real driver of economics and not the scholarly works that have produced the various theoretical isms......
How do capitalism and human rights reconcile with each other? Guarantees of minimum wage and overall welfare?
Human rights as in rights such as those protected by our Bill of Rights....
I contend that most countries based on communism or strong socialism suppress these rights to maintain order. Communism has proven over and over that eventually the population grows dissatisfied with lowest common denominator equal rights.
Capitalism is only indirectly associated with human rights. Because more people are content with their situation in democracies based on capitalism, human rights are supported by the government. Note that I didn't say everyone is content. Just more, and content enough not to rebel and overthrow the government.
It's always a hoot to see the leftist fanatics screeching that we don't know how socialist or communist countries actually work.
After the deliberate mass starvations of its people in the 1930s and the disruptions of war in the 1940s, the USSR's economy ground slower and slower through the 1960s, 1970, 1980 etc., with its people waiting in longer and longer lines for everything from wheat to butter to toilet paper. It missed plan after plan as its "leaders" laid down goals for what would be accomplished in the next ten yearrs, then the next five, then the next three--- only to miss it goals time after time. When floods, crop failures, etc. hit time after time, it was unable to cope with the bulk of its people's needs and had to rely up help from other countries (invariably capitalist countries) to stave off disaster. Finally it made the mistake of letting its people find out how those other eeeevil capitalist countries were doing, and its people turned and kicked out the socialists, preferring to take their chances with their own efforts and their own responsibilities.
China went through a remarkably similar era when communists took over in the 1940s, and who proceeded to oppress them for decade after decade. Human (instead of machine) cultivation of basic foodstuffs, and washing clothes by beating them against rocks in a stream bed, continued without relief, mostly without even the benefits of motorized vehicles or indoor plumbing, until new leader Deng Xiaoping finally introduced a plan in the 1980s where government loosened its grip and allowed them to start businesses, trade with each other etc.... in short, by introducing the roots of capitalism and reducing the fear of heavy government restriction. Chinese prosperity has exploded since then, though they still have difficulty dealing with earthquakes, floods etc.
You silly folks who keep pushing socialism and blustering that OTHERS don't know how it "really works", had best open a history book or two. You'll find you've been accusing the wrong people of "ignorance". Fortunately, most sensible people know better than you, and are learning to ignore your weird, empty-headed dreams of "how socialism really works".
Human rights as in rights such as those protected by our Bill of Rights....
And that has nothing to do with Capitalism. Heaven forbid if your idea of human rights is enumerated in bill of rights. Which, by itself, would be funny considering that the Bill of Rights itself includes the premise that such rights cannot be enumerated (ninth amendment).
So, why would a minimum wage not be a human rights issue? Why would humane working conditions be a human rights issue? You preached against China based on those grounds, or do you exclude these grounds?
CCCP was not a Communist or Socialist nation. It was a Totalitarian Stalinism. It didn't even come close to being either of the fore mentioned
I visited the CCCP back in the 1980s and it was very socialist "free" education, "free" healthcare and empty shelves in stores. Stalin had been dead 50 years ago by then.
They were promised communism by 2000 but the whole thing collapsed much sooner.
So, why would a minimum wage not be a human rights issue?
A government-mandated Minimum Wage paid by the employer, cannot be enacted without a corollary government-mandated level of Minimum Performance delivered by the employee. And how on earth could you enforce the latter-- presupposing that you would even want to?
You CANNOT separate one from the other, though, since employer-delivered wages cannot exist without employee-delivered performance. It would be like splitting a boat down the middle and expecting one half to float without the other. That was tried a hundred years ago to the day, as I recall the results were unsatisfactory... to everyone except the movie and newspaper industries, the usual media.
Mandating employer-delivered wages without mandating employee-delivered performance, simply results in the vanishing of all jobs below the level of the mandated wage, and corresponding unemployment of the people who cannot deliver performance beyond those jobs' requirements, whether due to youth and inexperience, or age and infirmity, or simple mental or physical inability.
The only thing that increases, is the number and virulence of lawsuits filed over low-wage jobs, since those wages are now a matter of law rather than of employer need or employee merit.
GREAT job, government. You have succeeded in creating Job Security for yourselves. Too bad your constituents don't get such security... in fact, those at the lower wage scales lose what little security they had.
Last edited by Little-Acorn; 04-16-2012 at 02:47 PM..
A government-mandated Minimum Wage paid by the employer, cannot be enacted without a corollary government-mandated level of Minimum Performance delivered by the employee.
You CANNOT separate one from the other, since employer-delivered wages cannot exist without employee-delivered performance. It would be like splitting a boat down the middle and expecting one half to float without the other. That was tried a hundred years ago to the day, as I recall the results were unsatisfactory to everyone except the movie and newspsper industries - the usual media.
Mandating employer-delivered wages without mandating employee-delivered performance, simply results in the vanishing of all jobs below the level of the mandated wage, and corresponding unemployment of the people who cannot deliver performance beyond those jobs' requirements, whether due to youth and inexperience, or age and infirmity, or simple mental or physical inability.
The only thing that increases, is the number and virulence of lawsuits filed over low-wage jobs, since those wages are now a matter of law rather than of merit.
GREAT job, government. You have succeeded in creating Job Security for yourselves. Too bad your constituents don't get such security... in fact, they lose what little security they had.
You failed to address a key issue: How does capitalism address and promote human rights?
You failed to address a key issue: How does capitalism address and promote human rights?
Hint: It isn't about human rights.
That's like asking how the Basic Driving Rules of U.S. roads, addresses the Right to Speak Freely.
They are unrelated, of course - other laws address the latter. And only to the extent of saying that no one is allowed to stop you from speaking your mind. No one proposes laws (excpet our fanatic leftists) requiring that you be provided a platform and an audience - those things are up to you.
Nice try at pretending capitalism has some flaw, by pointing out an unrelated field.
Back to the subject:
Our big-government pushers keep demanding that anything not fully subscribed by existing social structures, must be taken over by government. Thus they stumble into a requirement that government fully control and regulate, not only the wages paid by employees for certain people, but also the level of performance delivered by the employees themselves. This represents government an order of magnitude larger than what we already have (the mind boggles!).
What a surprise that government keeps expanding and expanding, when these leftists get their way, eh?
That's like asking how the Basic Driving Rules of U.S. roads, addresses the Right to Speak Freely.
They are unrelated, of course - other laws address the latter.
Nice try at pretending capitalism has some flaw, by pointing out an unrelated field.
Are you suggesting that stacking up capitalism against human rights makes for an invalid argument?
Quote:
Our big-government pushers keep demanding that anything not fully subscribed by existing social structures, must be taken over by government....
The bigger problem is a lack of acknowledgement that government is always bigger for as long as men consider self an angel.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
