[gunsite]

Why are the limits of socialism so inviting to people, government control, regulating, limited opportunities, and basically living a life of just EXISTING.

Limited Freedom

[ingliz]

Why are the limits of capitalism so inviting to people, government control, regulating, limited opportunities, and basically living a life of just EXISTING?

Limited Freedom

[RonPaulalways]

because the idea of living off of the fortunate and strong is appealing to people.

In reality socialism is exploitation of the masses by the politically connected elite, but the selling point is parasitism: that's how the average Joe is encouraged to support it.

[ingliz]

In reality socialism is exploitation of the masses by the politically connected elite

But isn't capitalism the exploitation of the masses by a parasitical elite and that, for you, is OK as long as there's no nasty government interfering.

...almost all fortunes are made out of the capital and labour of other men than those who realize them. Indeed, large fortunes could rarely be made at all by one individual, except by his sponging capital and labour from others

[jaakko]

In libertarian capitalism, everyone is free to be a capitalist and no one has to be a worker. The only subject of exploitation is risk.

[RonPaulalways]

But isn't capitalism the exploitation of the masses by a parasitical elite and that, for you, is OK as long as there's no nasty government interfering.

No it's not, believe it or not. Capitalism is liberty for each individual.

In a libertarian society, you're free to live on a commune with other like-minded socialists, just as you're free to start your own company in the hopes of becoming rich.

In a libertarian society you choose what products/services you buy, rather than having the collective decide for you through taxation/government-services.

[Shayn]

But isn't capitalism the exploitation of the masses by a parasitical elite and that, for you, is OK as long as there's no nasty government interfering.

Not really. What you're describing is the current system which is the continuation of the plutocractic society that was established in the feudal age. It masquerades as capitalism, but has nothing to do with what Adam Smith described.

I'm not defending capitalism, just stating that what we know of it from practical experience is erroneous. I believe like all defensible economic ideologies, it has its good ideas and its bad. A parasitical elite are not inherent of capitalism, they just think they believe in it.

[ingliz]

The current system isn't capitalist?

... the mission of all governments, monarchical, constitutional, or republican, is to protect and maintain by force the privileges of the classes in possession

-

[Shayn]

The current system isn't capitalist?

I don't believe so. It sure isn't what Adam smith wrote about. It's a mash-up of capitalism, plutocracy, oligarchy, socialism, fundamentalist and protectionist trading systems. Most importantly, its whatever the ruling class needs to maintain control.

[ingliz]

It sure isn't what Adam smith wrote about.

Well it's exactly what Marx wrote about and he coined the word "Capitalism"

[smkneale]

Why are the limits of socialism so inviting to people, government control, regulating, limited opportunities, and basically living a life of just EXISTING.

Limited Freedom

Socialism generally doesn't prescribe limited freedom of people, tending only to limit the freedom of corporations. In fact, hence it's given name, Socialism is concerned with allowing peoples social freedoms that are often curtailed by conservative politics. If you look at the movements to which Socialists would say historically mark the basis of their ideology they would point to the Leveller and Digger movements of the mid-17th century. These movements were mass, popular peasant movements campaigning for equal right before the law, freedom of religion, popular sovereignty and an extended voter franchise.

The reason Socialism is popular is two-fold. Firstly, it works on the principle that each should pay according to his ability and each should gain according to his need. This ideal is particularly popular amongst those who have very little and have great need and the largest group in any voting franchise are always the have-nots. This being the case, they stand to benefit the most from Socialism therefore support it. Of course, there are exceptions to such a generalisation but it is one possible reason for support. Secondly, Socialism seeks to liberate groups of people that would otherwise be neglected their perceived rights. As such, Socialism is going to be more popular amongst minority groups than Conservatism. Individually, of course, minority groups make up little of the population, however, a number of different minority groups who all find solace in Socialism liberal policy can make a sizeable majority. Ultimately, as with anything that is popular, those who support it either find that it is the ideology that benefits them the most or an ideology that fits their own personal moral compass of helping those less fortunate than themselves.

The pertinent question would be, why do people not support Socialism? The tendency is that those who don't support it are doing well under the current system and do not see outside their own circumstances. Such people don't want to see a change that would damage themselves financially despite the massive benefits to others. In reality, those in opposition to Socialism tend to portray high levels of greed and incredibly low levels of empathy with those much worse off than themselves.

[jaakko]

Well it's exactly what Marx wrote about and he coined the word "Capitalism"

Also, as a Marxist concept 'capitalism' refers not to an ideology but to a socio-economic system which, like others, produces ideology (including our dear libertarianism).

[Ryan P. McCarter]

I would like to respectfully disagree that our present system is not what Adam Smith wrote about. He was very well aware that in general, business owners and the wealthy elite would constantly try to exploit their workers and the public. In fact, he even says at one point something to the effect of "Regulation in favor of the workers is always just and equitable, but it is sometimes otherwise when in favor of the masters."

[canadiancapitalist]

... the mission of all governments, monarchical, constitutional, or republican, is to protect and maintain by force the privileges of the classes in possession

Seems about right, Ingliz. Now the question is, can it ever be otherwise?

[SpiderMonkey]

Why are the limits of socialism so inviting to people, government control, regulating, limited opportunities, and basically living a life of just EXISTING.

Limited Freedom

You've defined socialism, a vast intellectual landscape, in extremely limiting terms, and then attacked it. Where is the point in that?

You've failed to address the complexities of socialism, the reaction of various socialist schools of thought to real world socialist experiments, and the fact that all the things you mention occur in capitalist society (except favouring 1% of the population instead of 90% of them) - and you've jumped straight to a Fox News talking point, complete with its wrong headed assumptions and deeply embedded linguistic bias.

[Mikolaj]

Why are the limits of socialism so inviting to people, government control, regulating, limited opportunities, and basically living a life of just EXISTING.

Well, I can only speak for myself here and of the type of socialism that appeals to me.

I'm a socialist because I like freedom.

In general terms - and this could be any office, I hate when I punch in and I am not free for the next 8 hours. I do not have a say in how things are run. I have to do exactly as they say. I'm at the bottom of a hierarchy, with the boss at the top, supervisors in the middle, and drones at the bottom. It's like a little feudal pyramid with a king, knights, and serfs. We are not equals. I have to be careful around the boss. And it's exploitative. I - work, which generates $$$. The boss takes the $$$, keeps the majority for himself, and gives back a few "pennies" to live on. In short, for the next 8 hours, I'm not in an economic democracy. I want to extend democracy to the economic sphere.

That's what I perceive socialism as: economic democracy. Where society owns the means of production in common, and uses them for the benefit of all (instead of a small few).

[Ademir]

In short, for the next 8 hours, I'm not in an economic democracy. I want to extend democracy to the economic sphere.

That's what I perceive socialism as: economic democracy. Where society owns the means of production in common, and uses them for the benefit of all (instead of a small few).

Don't forget that political democracy is impossible without economic democracy. What we have now is not democracy, even in the political sphere.

[Dave]

Why on Earth would anyone want political democracy in the first place?

[Dr House]

The idea is to guarantee that people are ruled to their benefit. Untrammeled democracy has ended up doing the opposite, but the fact is there is a need to design a systemic guarantee of that. A dictatorship, as you well know, is only as good as the dictator.

[Coisdealbhach]

Also, as a Marxist concept 'capitalism' refers not to an ideology but to a socio-economic system which, like others, produces ideology (including our dear libertarianism).

capitalism: commodity production by wage labour

ideology: turning the world upside down

ideology helps the bosses and priveliged intellectuals portray the rule of capital as something to do with freedom. it is purely about extracting wealth from others. in any other situation this would be considered theft.