10 Reasons Why You Should Reject Socialism

[Trump Gurl]

10 Reasons Why You Should Reject Socialism
TFP Student Action https://tfpstudentaction.org/blog/10-reasons-to-reject-socialism

1. Socialism and communism are the same ideology
Communism is but an extreme form of socialism. From the ideological standpoint, there is no substantial difference between the two. In fact, the communist Soviet Union called itself the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922-1991) and communist China, Cuba and Vietnam define themselves as socialist nations.

Who disagrees with reason 1

 

[Trump Gurl]

Most educated people

That's not you.

 

[Trump Gurl]

10 Reasons Why You Should Reject Socialism
TFP Student Action https://tfpstudentaction.org/blog/10...ject-socialism

1. Socialism and communism are the same ideology
Communism is but an extreme form of socialism. From the ideological standpoint, there is no substantial difference between the two. In fact, the communist Soviet Union called itself the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922-1991) and communist China, Cuba and Vietnam define themselves as socialist nations.

Who disagrees with reason 1

Reason 2. Socialism violates personal freedom
Socialism seeks to eliminate "injustice" by transferring rights and responsibilities from individuals and families to the State. In the process, socialism actually creates injustice. It destroys true liberty: the freedom to decide all matters that lie within our own competence and to follow the course shown by our reason, within the laws of morality, including the dictates of justice and charity.

Who disagrees with reason 2

 

[Trump Gurl]

Okay then how about Number Three

3. Socialism violates human nature
Socialism is anti-natural. It destroys personal initiative – a fruit of our intellect and free will – and replaces it with State control. It tends to totalitarianism, with its government and police repression, wherever it is implemented.

Who disagrees with reason 3

 

[Trump Gurl]

Who disagrees with reason 3

Nobody? Moving along then:

4. Socialism violates private property
Socialism calls for "redistributing the wealth" by taking from the "rich" to give to the poor. It imposes taxes that punish those who have been able to take greater advantage of their productive talents, capacity to work or thrift. It uses taxation to promote economic and social egalitarianism, a goal that will be fully achieved, according to The Communist Manifesto, with the "abolition of private property."

 

[User Name]

Socialism calls for "redistributing the wealth" by taking from the "rich" to give to the poor. It imposes taxes that punish those who have been able to take greater advantage of their productive talents, capacity to work or thrift.

From The Catechism of the Catholic Church:
.

A theory that makes profit the exclusive norm and ultimate end of economic activity is morally unacceptable. The disordered desire for money cannot but produce perverse effects. It is one of the causes of the many conflicts which disturb the social order...The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with "communism" or "socialism." She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of "capitalism," individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for "there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market." Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended. -- http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a7.htm#2424​

 

[Trump Gurl]

That was a good try, but a failure. The first sentence shoots you down: "A theory that makes profit the exclusive norm and ultimate end of economic activity is morally unacceptable."

American Capitalism does NOT make profit the "exclusive norm" and it does NOT make it the "ultimate end" of economic activity." Therefore what you have quoted does not describe America's economic system. Most American businesses contribute in m,any ways to the good of the community and actually want to improve life with good products.

Then there is this: "The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with "communism" or "socialism." She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of "capitalism," individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor."

I agree. However, America does NOT engage is "the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor." We have labor laws up to our necks. American labors is among the most protected on earth. We are awash in safety regulations.

America is exactly as described in the last sentence: Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.

America, by the Catechisms' standards, is to be commended as it is. But it will be condemned if a communist socialist like Bernie gets his way.

You should really pay more attention when you read.

 

[Trump Gurl]

[h=2]5. Socialism opposes traditional marriage[/h]
Socialism sees no moral reason for people to restrict sex to marriage, that is, to an indissoluble union between a man and a woman. Furthermore, socialism undermines private property, which Friedrich Engels, founder of modern socialism and communism along with Karl Marx, saw as the foundation of traditional marriage.

 

[Traditio]

Literally every proposition on this list is wrong.

"1. Socialism and Communism are the same thing."

That's just not true. The definition of socialism is worker ownership of the means of production, whether 1. directly (as in the case, e.g., of worker owned coops) or 2. indirectly, through the State (this latter form of socialism is also called state capitalism, which is what Soviet Russia was).

The definition of communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society (thus, anarcho-communism and communism are the same thing). A communist society (if such a thing even could exist, which it can't) would also be socialist, but you can have socialist societies that aren't communist. You can have socialism but also have a state (as in the case of Soviet Russia). You can even have socialism in the context of a market economy (market socialism; it's a thing; look it up).

 

[Traditio]

"2. Socialism violates personal freedom

Socialism seeks to eliminate 'injustice' by transferring rights and responsibilities from individuals and families to the State. In the process, socialism actually creates injustice. It destroys true liberty: the freedom to decide all matters that lie within our own competence and to follow the course shown by our reason, within the laws of morality, including the dictates of justice and charity."

As I've explained above, not all forms of socialism involve State ownership of the means of production. Socialism also can be achieved if the economic conditions were such that all workers were either self-employed or part of worker-owned coops. In this state of affairs, "the freedom to decide all matters that lie within our own competence," etc., would actually be placed in the hands of workers, not taken from them.

[Personally, I am in favor of a mix of State ownership, worker owned cooperatives and self-employment.]

But you know what economic system DOES take away our "freedom to decide all matters that lie within our own competence," etc.? Capitalism. It hands over almost all of the economic and political power to a small handful of people and reduces everyone else to the status of wage slaves (if they're not unemployed, that is; with the advent of automation, it's becoming increasingly more profitable to buy robots than to hire wage slaves).

 

[Traditio]

"3. Socialism violates human nature

Socialism is anti-natural. It destroys personal initiative – a fruit of our intellect and free will – and replaces it with State control. It tends to totalitarianism, with its government and police repression, wherever it is implemented."

Again, as I've explained above, that's simply not true. The system that you're thinking of is CAPITALISM, in which almost all of the economic and political power is placed in a relative handful of billionaire oligarchs. And you want to talk about government and police oppression? Once again, that sounds a lot more like capitalism.

 

[Traditio]

4 is technically true, but misleading:

"Socialism violates private property."

Socialists recognize that it is against the interests of working people for capital to be concentrated in the hands of a relative handful of billionaire oligarchs. So in that sense, yes, it is true that socialists reject the private property "rights" of the capitalist class. It is in the economic and political interests of working people that the means of production be owned by them, not by a handful of billionaire oligarchs, and that economic and political decisions be made by them, and not by a handful of billionaire oligarchs.

Socialism does not reject, however, the right of people to own property at all. If you want to own a house, a car, or even a business (assuming that you don't use it to profit off of the labor of wage slaves), that's fine. What we reject is the "right" of capitalists to profit off of the labor of wage slaves, or the "right" of capitalists to have almost all of the economic and political power consolidated in their hands.

 

[Traditio]

"5. Socialism opposes traditional marriage."

Marriage has nothing to do with worker ownership of the means of production.

"6. Socialism opposes parental rights in education."

Parental rights in education has nothing to do with worker ownership of the means of production.

"7. Socialism promotes radical equality."

No, it doesn't. If you have a worker owned coop, and all of the workers had an equal say in how the coop was to be run, the workers would generally agree that the manager should probably be paid more than the janitor.

What is true is that billionaires would not exist.

Also:

#BillionairesShouldNotExist

 

[Traditio]

"8. Socialism promotes atheism."

Atheism has nothing to do with worker ownership of the means of production.

"9. Socialism promotes relativism."

Moral relativism has nothing to do with worker ownership of the means of production.

"10. Socialism mocks religion."

Religion, and the mockery thereof, has nothing to do with worker ownership of the means of production.

 

[Traditio]

Final point:

You know what system actually does threaten marriage, religion, traditional values, the very idea of the nation-state itself, etc.?

Capitalism.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...-term_obligation_to_the_people_they_rule.html

 

[Traditio]

Long story short, what socialism amounts to is rejecting the idea that a handful of billionaire oligarchs should own and control everything. Workers should own and control everything.

To me, that just seems like a "duh" position.

Capitalism means an economic system where you have people who own and do not work and people who work and do not own.

Call me crazy, but I think that the people who work should also be the people who own.

I don't think that we should have a class of economic parasites who get wealthy from the labor of other people.

I say, as did St. Paul, "if any man will not work, neither let him eat" (2 Thessalonians 3:10).

If you're not talking about how workers should own the means of production, then you're talking about something other than socialism.

 

[User Name]

Long story short, what socialism amounts to is rejecting the idea that a handful of billionaire oligarchs should own and control everything. Workers should own and control everything.

To me, that just seems like a "duh" position.

I'm with you up to a point but what do you mean by "Workers should own and control everything"? Should workers own and control Tesla? Do you think they are smart enough to do that?

Can you point to another country that has successfully implemented your economic model?

 

[User Name]

#BillionairesShouldNotExist

At what point would you cap a person's income? $1 million? $10 million? ???

 

[Traditio]

I'm with you up to a point but what do you mean by "Workers should own and control everything"? Should workers own and control Tesla? Do you think they are smart enough to do that?

In this context, "worker" is opposed to "capitalist." Capitalists are people who own the means of production. [Corporate CEOs are technically workers. They don't actually own the company. They're just upper level managers of the company.]

The objection that you're bringing forward is that everyone isn't equally qualified for any given position.

Of course not. Nobody thinks that.

But you don't need capitalism to have an appropriate division of labor within a company or to hire qualified people to do a given job or set of jobs.

In fact, let's take something like Walmart as an example.

How often do you think the Walton family actually makes any real managerial decisions?

As far as what I am saying being feasible:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

 

[Traditio]

At what point would you cap a person's income? $1 million? $10 million? ???

You don't need a legally mandated cap on income. In a worker owned cooperative, the cap is going to come from the level of inequality that the workers are democratically willing to agree to.