The Problem with Socialism
Posted by freedomforall 7 years, 9 months ago to Books
From the publisher:
What’s the Problem with Socialism? Let’s start with…everything. So says bestselling author and professor of economics Thomas J. DiLorenzo, who sets the record straight in this concise and lively primer on an economic theory that’s gaining popularity—with help from Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders—despite its universal failure as an economic model and its truly horrific record on human rights. In sixteen eye-opening chapters, DiLorenzo reveals how socialism inevitably makes inequality worse, why socialism was behind the worst government-sponsored mass murders in history, the myth of “successful” Scandinavian socialism; how socialism is worse—far worse—for the environment than capitalism, and more. As DiLorenzo shows, and history proves, socialism is the answer only if you want increasing unemployment and poverty, stifling bureaucracy if not outright political tyranny, catastrophic environmental pollution, rotten schools, and so many social ills that it takes a book like this to cover just the big ones. Provocative, timely, essential reading, Thomas J. DiLorenzo’s The Problem with Socialism is an instant classic comparable to Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson.
Thomas DiLorenzo is professor of economics at Loyola University Maryland and a member of the senior faculty of the Mises Institute. He is the author of The Real Lincoln; How Capitalism Saved America; Lincoln Unmasked; Hamilton’s Curse; Organized Crime: The Unvarnished Truth About Government; and The Problem with Socialism.
What’s the Problem with Socialism? Let’s start with…everything. So says bestselling author and professor of economics Thomas J. DiLorenzo, who sets the record straight in this concise and lively primer on an economic theory that’s gaining popularity—with help from Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders—despite its universal failure as an economic model and its truly horrific record on human rights. In sixteen eye-opening chapters, DiLorenzo reveals how socialism inevitably makes inequality worse, why socialism was behind the worst government-sponsored mass murders in history, the myth of “successful” Scandinavian socialism; how socialism is worse—far worse—for the environment than capitalism, and more. As DiLorenzo shows, and history proves, socialism is the answer only if you want increasing unemployment and poverty, stifling bureaucracy if not outright political tyranny, catastrophic environmental pollution, rotten schools, and so many social ills that it takes a book like this to cover just the big ones. Provocative, timely, essential reading, Thomas J. DiLorenzo’s The Problem with Socialism is an instant classic comparable to Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson.
Thomas DiLorenzo is professor of economics at Loyola University Maryland and a member of the senior faculty of the Mises Institute. He is the author of The Real Lincoln; How Capitalism Saved America; Lincoln Unmasked; Hamilton’s Curse; Organized Crime: The Unvarnished Truth About Government; and The Problem with Socialism.
"“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
- Margaret Thatcher
socialism IS the problem to say what is the problem with socialism is to break it down into components. there is nothing good about socialism in its entirety, so socialism IS the problem!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The politics of Socialism are incompatible with the moral requirements of Man. More fundamentally, they are incompatible with the metaphysics of existence and the epistemology of reason.
In summary, they are inconsistent with the nature of Man and life on Earth. THAT is the reason all variants of Socialism endlessly produce the results they invariably MUST.
An old white-haired gentleman with a sometimes kindly demeanor, except for a lot of shouting, drives around your neighborhood and offers a free ride and many free goodies to unsuspecting children. Though many persons seem to like him, he is really a monster because he invariably offers the children free poisoned candy. He just doesn’t say it’s poisoned, though any sensible adult should recognize it as such. He disregards the pile of corpses that his candy produces and goes on to the next neighborhood—blustering away to a fresh crop of unsuspecting children, all too ready to accept his offer of free delights. When media warn about evil crimes being perpetrated, he angrily shouts, “People are sick of hearing about your damn emails.”
Imagine the candy he gives away to the unsuspecting children is deadly, poisonous socialism. Now imagine that old gentleman monster is Bernie Sanders. Wait, you didn’t need to imagine anything at all.
Bernie is a monster. He offers free delights via socialism. But it is a poisonous system of evil and death, with an unremitting legacy of social and economic destruction, along with history’s largest pile of dead millions. Why am I the only one who calls him what he is, a monster?!
Have you ever watched your coworkers get drunk because there is a "free bar"? These are people who can certainly afford to buy alcohol in sufficient quantities to become drunk without concern for the price. They generally avoid doing that, but if it's free, they'll make asses of themselves.
An explination of a complex issue from a intellegent person, well done
Insuring that you will forfeit your liberties and future.
In the fifteen minutes he was gone, hundreds of cars, trucks and buses passed by, each with different destinations, routes, purposes, and options. I thought, a socialist is a person who thinks that they are capable of controlling and managing an economy thousands of times more complex than the those cars and that they could do it better than all those drivers individually.
No wonder socialism ends up as a massive wreck.
Pure socialism requires government ownership and control of both production and consumption, which is a task destined to fail, proven by socialist governments repeatedly. "Democratic" socialism leaves the means of production in private hands, but under heavy government regulation and control. The latter works, but at less efficiency than a real free market with purposefully limited government restriction.
CG already mentioned Bernie and Donnie.
I would refer to Trump as statist, not a racist.
If Trump finally straightens out immigration, gives us some fairer trade and generally makes the government a little less wasteful, I'll consider it successful and vote for someone who will do even more next time.
As I said, almost the entire country is statist. You will not solve that by a dictator taking control who will, in a few short years remove all of the support for government that has been carefully built up over decades. You solve that by education -- and possibly a few good examples.
Resistance is futile.
You propose to entrust government to Trump, someone who has a proven record of looting for his own benefit, and who throws irrational proposals out just to get votes. Same old rubbish.
So just ignore history and conclude that no one will ever fix government so it gives you an excuse to consent to statist evil.
Trump has used the system. I admit I do too. I think it's really stupid to have tax credits for buying "energy efficient" furnaces, but when I replaced mine I took the money. I guess I'm a statist too.
I don't think any career politicians is really going to make significant inroads in the power of government. I think it will take someone who has spent most of their lives in the private sector. Trump has done so. Yes, he does make me bang my head against my desk from time to time -- but then he may have a better understanding of what the populace will support than we do.
Yes, the solution will be gradual but it must be done by someone who is ethical and opposes government programs. If you keep consenting to statist control, the gradual solution is just delayed again, as it has been for 30 years of GOP betrayals interspersed with aruably more "honest" Democrat socialism.
Everyone is not statist, but Trump is.
Back in the 80s New Zealand had a revolution in government and turned away from socialism to free market solutions. It you read the accounts from the insiders who achieved that miracle, its clear that it was only done because they were relentless in pursuit of free market solutions, not because they made continual compromises. I think this is an example that should be followed in the US.
(NZ gradually returned to more socialism, so there is no rest for those who know that liberty is the solution.)
The same but differently can be said about Capitalism, (the crony kind)...Our rulers are of the favored class, not part of the system but if they were...their would be no need for big government.
Just the opposite of the thoughtlessness of Marx, Stalin or the Fabian Socialist.
Taking away individual freedom is the result.
To the RINO's thanks for nothing!!!
I also notice the word is Greek, which may also explain the current state of Greece.
Note to self: store "kakistocracy" in my little dino brain for future use both here and elsewhere.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/kaki...
I would add no conscience .
Most are deviant and I feel evil. They are like puppets manipulated from the shadows.
Must be a quantum entanglement of sorts...laughing
"The socialist poison in America is the greatest danger to our society. That's why HilLIEry is so dangerous - far more than Trump because Trump is really naive about these things. HilLIEry, Obama, and Sanders and the so-called "progressives" have created a path to the destruction of the greatest wealth-producing machine the world has ever known which they will blame on the very people who created it because a 19th century German "philosopher" created a ridiculous idea that there should be economic equality and that "the state" should impose this, and this would "miraculously" lead to peace and harmony. We have over 100 years now of how IT HAS FAILED EVERYWHERE!! And yet they insist that everywhere else just didn't do it "the right way". That's because IT DOESN'T WORK!!" -- Patric Hale
Patric writes eloquently and enthusiastically pro-capitalism and anti-socialism, and has switched to supporting Gary Johnson. I may drop in some more of his comments that this group may enjoy.
"Human Nature"
Be it for human nature, Socialism in theory is great but you MUST assume that 100% of the entire population works and strives for the benefit of everyone else without exception, never takes more than they need, and all surplus is evenly distributed.
Since that will NEVER happen Socialism will never ever work.
The problem with socialism is that it just doesnt work. It flies in the face of human nature so much that the side effects of it overcome anything it tries to do and renders it a total failure.
By the time one reworked and tempered socialism so that it actually worked, we would have capitalism.
Same thing with monarchy. Before you would ever find the benevolent and all knowing person to be king, you might as well give capitalism a shot.
This is all apart from the philosophical arguments against statism of course.
I have pondered why socialism seems to be the "go to" economic system which is gaining strength every day- and it always seems to get a pass when it comes to its failures.
I think not enough time and effort is spent on taking away this free pass. Socialism is a practical failure everywhere its tried and this needs to be shown at every turn to get the attention of enough people to turn the tide.
High flying morality arguments are just going right over their heads at present.
Ignoring the facts of reality IS WHY socialism doesnt work. Looking at what works is a pretty good indication of how a system is in line with the facts of reality actually.
You can use Venezuela as a way to support your arguments against the efficacy of socialism, but the crux and premise of your argument cannot be "we shouldn't do this because it makes people poorer." It should be "Socialism is based in collectivism, and it therefore denies the self and is inherently immoral. Every small step towards it is an evil. It's continual failures are evidence that it is an attempt to work contrary to nature, which makes it irrational and immoral. However it is not its failures that make it immoral or irrational."
The moment you concede the "argue from results" method, you are accepting that the purpose of a government or political system is to make the public happy, improve an economy, distribute wealth, take care of the sick, poor, infirm, lazy, or just plain unable to contribute. While a free economy will certainly help all of these classes of people by making it easier and cheaper to obtain the basic necessities of life, that is not why it is desirable.
I'd say that the best way to introduce this to a "rational" socialism fan is to possibly begin with some of its failures and atrocities, and then point to why any theory like it that is based on collectivism will, by its very nature, eventually result in this... Thereby introducing the flawed philosophy and having an opportunity to present an alternative view; Objectivism.
I agree that the response is. It would have worked "if only". But human nature can't be subjugated by "if only..." And will defeat any statist plan.
Samuel Adams
There is a small minority of people who really understand freedom, some more that kind of like it, but I think Romney was right that 47% (and that was THEN) just want free goodies and are out for themselves only.