Socialism kills

[slavdogg]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=34372

[Almighty Colin]

Though I count myself as an anti-socialist, I don't see that the author makes a point as to how socialism killed 11,000 people. Maybe it is so but he used the headline and then sort of ran off all over the place. The Chicago Heat Wave in the 1990's killed more than 500 people.

[Wizzo]

I've always thought of myself a anti-socialist as well, but anything that knocks 11,000 french off, can't be all bad... :P

[wig]

The articles title was a stretch for sure. It should be Why Socialism Doesn't Work, because it had little to do with the incident in question.

BUT, Socialism is a slow growing danger in the US.

Socialism is anti individual, anti liberty, anti capitalism and anti freedom. It trains people to rely on the government instead of themselves. It champions equal results instead of equal opportunity. It destroys capitalism by rewarding underachievement and punishing achievement. And it destroys freedom with laws aimed at controlling and managing populations.

It is said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. 99% of people (PD feel free to chastise me) who hold socialist ideas believe they are doing the noble thing. After all, most of these people do not believe they are socialists.

In the world of theory, ideas are judged by their beauty. There, socialism ranks as a noble ideal. But in the real world, ideas are judged by their effects on real people. Here, socialism is a failure.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by wig@Sep 3 2003, 07:18 AM
In the world of theory, ideas are judged by their beauty.

Then Adam Smith's invisible hand SHOULD be judged the best. I certainly find the elegance of capitalism to be a more beautiful idea than the controlled economy and society of Marx.

Interestingly, in many fields of science, there is a recent great interest in bottom up network architecture. How do the individual neurons of the brain each following their own rules and with no apparent leader become "the mind"? How do individual birds each following their own rules and with no leader become a flock? (that one is for Peaches) How do individual bees each do their own dance pointing to a potential new place to move the hive eventually make an aggregate decision for the entire hive without a leader?

And of course on to the question of why it is that pricing decisions are best determined by the aggregate factors of supply and demand rather than a bureaucrat sitting in an office in Moscow or Beijing.

[JR]

[wig]

Then Adam Smith's invisible hand SHOULD be judged the best. I certainly find the elegance of capitalism to be a more beautiful idea than the controlled economy and society of Marx.

I agree. In reality, it yields better fruit despite the shortcomings.

Interestingly, in many fields of science, there is a recent great interest in bottom up network architecture. How do the individual neurons of the brain each following their own rules and with no apparent leader become "the mind"? How do individual birds each following their own rules and with no leader become a flock? (that one is for Peaches) How do individual bees each do their own dance pointing to a potential new place to move the hive eventually make an aggregate decision for the entire hive without a leader?

Good questions. Perhaps because they are not subject to an overruling force or stringent social rules. Why do you think this is the case?

And of course on to the question of why it is that pricing decisions are best determined by the aggregate factors of supply and demand rather than a bureaucrat sitting in an office in Moscow or Beijing.

Because one person or group of people are incapable of determining what prices, level of production, etc. will yield the best results. It is simply to complex and there are too many factors to consider.

[Almighty Colin]

Wig,

On your second comment, I think it's pretty much the same reason that capitalism works. In the long run, a weighted summation of behavior will benefit more people than the individual decision-making of any one of them. The same with bees. It's thought some bees dance more excitedly to reflect a better site for a new hive (or more nectar) than other bees. Bees that return to the hive without finding anything of note don't dance. Bees that find a field of flowers return very excitedly. More bees then leave to check out the various sites. The excited bees elicit more responses than the non-excited beeds. It's an accumulating effect.

It's sort of a logical solving machine. The buzz phrase is "emergent behavior".

Such systems are not perfect and they are conditional. Capitalism cannot force urbanization or education at nearly the rate that a Mao Zedong or Joseph Stalin can. This explains why poor small-economy socialist states can often grow faster than their capitalist counterparts. In the end though,
such economies have always bogged down under the weight of planning. They tend to be very poor, as we all of course know, at adjusting to new markets and preferences. Soviet slowness in adapting the microchip for military purposes is an excellent example.

One might wonder if the problems such states always eventually reach could be eliminated by computerized planning and pricing. Could a computer program set prices in a way more rational than the free market? I think that doesn't make sense. Since half of the equation is what humans are willing to pay for products, market participants would have to be polled in some way. This is exactly what a capitalist market already does.

[Danny_C]

Socialism saved us from the Great Depression.

[wig]

Colin, as always you explain yourself very well. ;-))

DannyC, please offer some proof that it was Socialism that saved us and that we would not have otherwised persevered.

By your line of thinking socialism caused the Great Depression as well.

[wig]

JR. fuck you and your anthem!