Can socialists explain to me in economic terms on how socialism will benefit us economically?
Don't use "for the benefit of everyone". I want you to explain the economics to me and why you think it is superior to capitalism.
- 10 years agoBest Answer
They think that capitalism is evil because the rich steal money from the poor (which makes no sense because the rich employ the poor...most people in the US are employed by small business owners) and so they go to a system where the poor steal from the rich (socialism) via progressive tax rates and distribution of wealth through social programs. Somehow that is morally right in their minds.
I noticed how nobody explained in economic terms how socialism will benefit us economically. Socialism puts a cap on how well somebody can do in exchange for preventing people from hitting rock bottom. I think that people should be allowed to hit rock bottom and fail. That is how people learn, through their failures. The problem is nowadays when people fail the left cries out "rich people are evil" and their solutions are welfare and higher taxes instead of encouraging charity and a "don't give up" mentality. My grandparents came to the US from Hungary with NOTHING. My grandfather got a job, worked his *** off, and ended up making more money that a lot of people and lived a great life. THAT is what America is about. Socialism goes against that, and I hope I never see the day when America becomes like Europe.
- BenLv 410 years ago
Pure socialism will not benefit us economically, but restrictions will.
In pure capitalism, monopolies arise, and smaller companies are quickly bought out. When there's no more competition, the large companies make the price as high as possible.
In order to balance this out, government (or some administrative council) places price caps on necessities such as food and water. These are socialist in nature, but that doesn't make the entire economy socialist.
This council also restricts the ability of large companies to form monopolies, allowing smaller businesses to flourish. You could say that a government enacting socialist policies actually creates a freer market.
But at the point where the government buys a company to save it from debt is stepping into some dark water. On one hand, the company is responsible for its own money (capitalism), but you also depend on that company for something (i.e. insurance)
So all in all, a mixed economy is best. In my opinion, the market should be as free as possible while restricting monopolies and placing price caps on necessities.
Then there's the social aspect, whether law enforcement/emergency response should be privatized or state-funded. As long as someone pays for it and it exists, I'm fine with any system.
So that's my long-winded opinion. Thanks for two points :)
- socialistpbLv 610 years ago
There will be no economics in Socialism, as it means a moneyless society without wages or prices or accounts. It will involve free access to what has been produced, without the rationing of money. It will be possible to produce far more useful goods, since (a) there will no effort wasted on useless things like tickets and credit cards and banks, (b) there will be no effort wasted on destructive things like armies and weapons, (c) there will not be a situation where useful things are not produced because they cannot be sold at a profit. Also, what is produced will be shared among the people, rather than the lion's share going to the millionaires as happens now. So yes, it will benefit the overwhelming majority of people.Source(s): http://www.worldsocialism.org
- SusanLv 44 years ago
Socialism? The damage of Socialism is readily identifiable Western Civilization. The dole or welfare, encourages those who are least capable to procreate the most. Universal Suffrage, which is an integral part of Western Democracy, allows for those least capable, our Welfare Recipients, and their sympathetic supporters to outnumber and to out-vote the contributors. Consequently, the takers will continue to take more and more until the contributors are no longer capable of supporting the system. To change this system, those who are the contributors must have more influence upon government than those who receive the government largess. Otherwise, once the productive cannot provide for themselves plus for all of those non-productive, the system fails, anarchy will reign, and the final result will most probably be that of the non-productive forcefully taking all that remains, eliminating those who produced, then fighting among themselves until only the buildings and the roads remain .... no law, no groceries, no schools, no power plants. The East or the Middle East will be the inheritors of our demise. Originally - Socialism in short was "the empowering of the working class". However, Socialism has metamorphosed into "the empowering of the non-working class".
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- judLv 510 years ago
Socialism believes that capitalism takes advantage of its citizens, steals from poor, and give it to the rich. Meaning, you can be a brilliant student with a fantastic future, but if your friend is rich, failing every class, and stoned out of his mind most of the time, he'll still get into that private university you can only dream about. (im talking from personal experience) Capitalism feeds money to the wrong people. In Socialism, you'll always have a job, your kids will always go to school, and you might not make as much as you hope, but you will never have to worry about the 'not knowing'. There is no "poor class" in Socialism; there is only "middle class", and the very few rich who run the country. Education and work is taken seriously, and there are far way better educated people come out of that system. Socialism teaches people to work with one another, while capitalism teaches competition in the individual.
- 10 years ago
Almost everyone will become poor, so they achieve economic equality. If everyone is poor, nobody is poor. Naturally, the ruling class will do very well. Everyone will work for the State, so there will be no more oppression by private business. There will always be government cheese provided by central planning. They get to follow a nice dictator with all his friends in the police state.
Sorry, I am unable to see a flaw. It sounds like a worker's paradise to me.
- Bob HLv 710 years ago
Health care in the US is the 3rd leading cause of death, behind cancer and heart disease. that puts us firmly in 37th pl in the world. Longevity is 50th in the world. Child mortality is such an embarrassment, I can't find a stat. And (little drum roll) it's by far the most expensive. No other nation even comes close or has to. That's not capitalism, it's theft and extortion and fear peddling.
- CharlieLv 710 years ago
Pure socialism is as big a failure as pure capitalism. The best of both seems to be a well regulated market economy, and a strong social safety net - something like we have now. This is where countries with strong democratic traditions seem to end up.
- Dairy's ScaryLv 410 years ago
I'm not really a socialist any more than anything else. I will say though, that a country that provides for its people the things they need simply to survive, will have a happier, safer and cleaner world to live in. For one 7th the GDP America could provide housing, food and clothes for its entire population. That isn't really socialism as much as common sense.
Is there any crime where you live? Any poverty? Anybody who can't find a job? Anybody with an education that is making crappy hourly wage?
If we had food, shelter and clothing, we could spend our hard earned money in the economy instead of one these simple things.
- Anonymous10 years ago
I guess your question must be aimed at the time machine to the time when a Socialist government still existed. Please let us know when you get an answer.