Socialism, as far as Marx was concerned, is a transitional stage to Communism. This is why it gets a lot of push back. Because of that connection. Worse, youve got generations of people conflating the two. And worse still, you have a few examples of people who were claiming to be socialist, who were really just using socialism for their own ends.
The reality is that Socialism is about everything being about the betterment of the people. That assets are a shared ownership, rather than privately owned. This in turn creates a fairer distribution of the wealth generated. So everyone’s lives improve.
The issue, the real issue, is that socialism needs a very large government in order to work. The fear is that this would create out of control bureaucracy. With middle mangers everywhere doing middle manger things that would create a system that was slow and worse far easier to corrupt. On top of that, you have the issue of competition not being the driving force of innovation. The government would control and mandate investment and innovation. Which again comes back to the middle mangers. There is also an issue with free speech. After all, if the government controls everything, where do you go if that government doesnt see the issues that its created? And worse still, how might it handle those dissenting voices?
The reality is that no one system is “the best” and really what would work best is a mixed system. One that builds a well regulated economy while maintaining a safety net for the people. So you would have private businesses, competition, innovation combined with free healthcare, free education, unemployment support, worker rights, high taxes, and high transparency and accountability.
Any time I put forward concepts of a hybrid between socialism, capitalism, UBI, and all of that, there is a lot of push back. While it is possible that it is because my ideas suck, I get the feeling it is more because it doesn’t fit into the worldview of existing systems.
Say, for example, the idea of giving everybody free mattresses. Someone says that is unrealistic, because people would try to sell the beds they receive. Or that fixing income from UBI and jobs with fixed incomes would promote corruption…despite it all about preventing the existence of billionaires and huge wealth gaps. They say it would make people lazy, because there is no reward for working harder. Also, for some reason, eliminating wealth gaps, workers voting on leadership pay rank, and making education a paid job promotes a caste system. And so on.
Mind, there has been helpful input, it is just that many of the criticisms seem to be based on not fitting into what we had.
Socialism, as far as Marx was concerned, is a transitional stage to Communism. This is why it gets a lot of push back. Because of that connection. Worse, youve got generations of people conflating the two. And worse still, you have a few examples of people who were claiming to be socialist, who were really just using socialism for their own ends.
The reality is that Socialism is about everything being about the betterment of the people. That assets are a shared ownership, rather than privately owned. This in turn creates a fairer distribution of the wealth generated. So everyone’s lives improve.
The issue, the real issue, is that socialism needs a very large government in order to work. The fear is that this would create out of control bureaucracy. With middle mangers everywhere doing middle manger things that would create a system that was slow and worse far easier to corrupt. On top of that, you have the issue of competition not being the driving force of innovation. The government would control and mandate investment and innovation. Which again comes back to the middle mangers. There is also an issue with free speech. After all, if the government controls everything, where do you go if that government doesnt see the issues that its created? And worse still, how might it handle those dissenting voices?
The reality is that no one system is “the best” and really what would work best is a mixed system. One that builds a well regulated economy while maintaining a safety net for the people. So you would have private businesses, competition, innovation combined with free healthcare, free education, unemployment support, worker rights, high taxes, and high transparency and accountability.
Any time I put forward concepts of a hybrid between socialism, capitalism, UBI, and all of that, there is a lot of push back. While it is possible that it is because my ideas suck, I get the feeling it is more because it doesn’t fit into the worldview of existing systems.
Say, for example, the idea of giving everybody free mattresses. Someone says that is unrealistic, because people would try to sell the beds they receive. Or that fixing income from UBI and jobs with fixed incomes would promote corruption…despite it all about preventing the existence of billionaires and huge wealth gaps. They say it would make people lazy, because there is no reward for working harder. Also, for some reason, eliminating wealth gaps, workers voting on leadership pay rank, and making education a paid job promotes a caste system. And so on.
Mind, there has been helpful input, it is just that many of the criticisms seem to be based on not fitting into what we had.