Can anyone give a short summary of the issues they have with it?
shareI don't know enough to comment much on it beyond simply stating this: several developed countries that partake in it sure seem a whole hell of a lot happier than we Americans.
shareAnd yet you say you're not a leftist. So why don't you just pack your bags and zip over to Venezuela permanently? 😂😂😂
sharehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fdfru9NHGvE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKhR9i5CGkA
Prager is an incredibly biased source. Can't trust them to accurately represent socialism.
shareOkay. Can you refute the things presented in the video? If it is biased can you tell me what the biased information that is presented in the videos? You at least know that one of the aspects socialism is redistribution of wealth, right? You do recognize that Venezuela is a socialist country, right? How is that redistribution working out for Venezuelan citizens?
This video has three problems:
1. Human benefit is a nice sideffect of capitalists wanting to make profit, not it’s necessary result. Just look at casinos and labor conditions in third world countries.
2. Capitalism assumes, that human benefit is all an economy has to offer, which is wrong. If an economy ditches on ecology, it has also to provide a way to fix it.
3. Capitalism might be somewhat democratic in it’s early-stage, but in the current stage, 60% of US GDP is large corporations. How’s that democratic? Socialism is always interpreted in a way, that it can only exist as an authoritarian government. But if the economy is socialist, and the state fully democratic (there are other forms of democracy other than USA, look up delegative/hybrid democracy) where is the problem?
What do you mean by "human benefit"?
shareGenerally speaking, and in my opinion, it’s morally wrong. It’s stealing. It devalues hard work and the satisfaction of actually earning something. It takes from those who do and rewards those who don’t. It makes people lazy. It destroys innovation, creativity, and quality. It’s pathetic. It makes everyone as miserable as 2020 liberals.
shareSimple. Productivity.
People don’t work for free. They want to be compensated for their work. When they have the opportunity to choose what they do, how much they do it, and how much they make, they work harder. They start businesses. For the opportunity to make more money. Capitalism.
Socialism requires central planning. Meaning there is no freedom. You are assigned a job, a number of hours to work, and how much you will make. There is no freedom of opportunity.
The only people who benefit from a socialist economic system are those involved in the central planning. Why? Because they reward themselves.
Never in history has a socialist country succeeded. They collapse because eventually you run out of other peoples money. Once the money is gone people stop working. Why? Because people don’t work for free.
Because it detracts from the human spirit; the human pleasure derived from capitalism.
shareSocialism is just the foundation all societies create to make a floor where nobody falls below. Capitalism and communism determine where the height of that floor should be based on current resources which are limited.
Capitalism is the belief in a low floor and a high ceiling. In order for some to fly, others must be in the mud, but most of us are on solid ground.
Communism is the belief the floor and ceiling are somewhere in the middle. Nobody is flying, nobody is in the mud, and everyone is on solid ground.
On paper, both of those systems work. But in practice, communism stagnates while capitalism progresses. However, as progress increases, so do the resources. And if the majority of those extra resources go to the top who are already flying to make them fly higher, while people are still in the mud, then communism begins to be desired.
Wrong as usual. Communism has never existed as a country can never pass the socialism phase. How long was the USSR in the socialism phase? 70 years? Longer? How long is it supposed to take?
Socialism doesn't work because of redistribution of wealth and state controlled businesses. If there is zero incentive given tot the workers, where are the technological advances going to come from? Where's the creativity? Are there any Michelin star restaurants in Moscow? Why not? That's a big city. How about Havana? Cuba food is delicious.
Using the USSR as an example, people were guaranteed a job. If you're guaranteed a job, is there an incentive to do a good job to keep it? Your productivity would be just enough to be satisfactory and nothing more. There's no promotions or bonuses.
So would you rather live in a society where you're just a cog doing a job, but you have state healthcare and a state education, or would you rather live in a society where the sky's the limit based off of your own talents and your own ambitions?