Why Socialism is evil.

[suds]

4 hours ago, Barquentine said:

Yeah, pure communism is a great Utopian idea. But like all Utopias it doesn't work. Capitalism only works for the majority with the right guardrails. Otherwise you get oligarchies and gross inequlities.

 

“Under capitalism, man exploits man, while under socialism just the reverse is true.”

― John Kenneth Galbraith

You don't see the humour in Galbraith's quote do you? Try reading it again slowly and let it sink in. 😏  Did you know that oligarchies are just as common in socialist/communist countries as they are with capitalism?  Do you think it's right that taxi drivers in cuba make multiple times the amount of money that doctors do? You don't believe that communist/socialist governments ever exploit their workers. Or have no hierarchies? Hah!

[suds]

13 hours ago, eyeball said:

I'm quite certain there are plenty of well intentioned capitalists as well, just as I'm certain the same fate is befalling capitalism and for much the same reason.

 

Capitalism is at least regulated in most cases, and as such has a certain amount of government oversight. It's not quite the same as the communist system which controls every aspect of the economy, every aspect of people's lives, and has a fair degree of unlimited power. So how can it suffer the same fate? And if the state was to control everything where would the oversight lie? Why would anyone want to give up on an economic system that has worked adequately well for centuries and replace it with a system which is far more intrusive in our lives and has a far worse track record? Please explain.

[Barquentine]

21 hours ago, suds said:

You don't see the humour in Galbraith's quote do you? Try reading it again slowly and let it sink in. 😏  Did you know that oligarchies are just as common in socialist/communist countries as they are with capitalism?  Do you think it's right that taxi drivers in cuba make multiple times the amount of money that doctors do? You don't believe that communist/socialist governments ever exploit their workers. Or have no hierarchies? Hah!

FFS! I quoted Galbraith because of the humour, nitwit! And the rest of your post just parrots what I said about the 2 systems.

[suds]

1 hour ago, Barquentine said:

FFS! I quoted Galbraith because of the humour, nitwit! And the rest of your post just parrots what I said about the 2 systems.

I can see that now. My apologies. Carry on then.  🙂

[blackbird]

On 5/17/2026 at 5:34 PM, eyeball said:

An ideology? People have been socializing and trying to get along and cooperate for their collective well being since before we climbed down from the trees.

Pure capitalism? You make it sound like socialism ruined capitalism. 

Capitalism probably works because socialists have had a big hand in making it serve society not the other way around. If pure capitalism had remaind the norm I suspect most of the world would resemble a Dickensian wasteland. With bleak, squalid, and impoverished social conditions. Where child labor was ubiquitous, disease was prevalent and where society would be overseen by a harsh bureaucracy.  Extreme social and economic inequality would be the typical human experience.

Violent resistance and revolution would be inevitable.

Socialist do not respect the right , not men., own private property which is a God-given right in the Bible.  Exodus 20:13 says "thou shalt not steal".  Some people think if a body of society gives a government the mandate, then government can do whatever it wants.  That is a fatal error.  The Bible nowhere says that.  The Bible assumes certain commands and rights will be respected even by government.  Everyone is subject to God, even government.  You are free to believe whatever but in the final judgement, we will all be held accountable.  That's why God's word, the Bible is the final authority, not what men think.

[Michael Hardner]

23 hours ago, suds said:

 Why would anyone want to give up on an economic system that has worked adequately well for centuries and replace it with a system which is far more intrusive in our lives and has a far worse track record?  

Maybe we could think about both capitalism and its opposite in a wider view, ie. how they have *changed* over the centuries.

Capitalism became more socialistic and socialism became most capitalistic.

Democracy is thought to be a system that checks the powers of the elites, but it depends on a healthy public sphere.

Rather than arguing 'capitalism' vs 'socialism', neither one of which has remained intact since they were framed and documented by Marx, Adam Smith and so on, we could understand that neither of these systems are part of nature and are frameworks to maximize the well-being of the jurisdictions that own them.
 

That might give us a healthy discussion for improving the political economic sphere.

[eyeball]

On 5/18/2026 at 11:05 AM, suds said:

So how can it suffer the same fate?

If the people in charge of regulating don't regulate it in good faith - they manage it more for the benefit of people and interests with more influence than ordinary folks.

On 5/18/2026 at 11:05 AM, suds said:

And if the state was to control everything where would the oversight lie? Why would anyone want to give up on an economic system that has worked adequately well for centuries and replace it with a system which is far more intrusive in our lives and has a far worse track record? Please explain.

Oversight should be in the public's domain but it's all to often in the hands of regulators.

We need better more intrusive control over our government. Not the other way around.

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

1. Oversight should be in the public's domain but it's all to often in the hands of regulators.

2. We need better more intrusive control over our government. Not the other way around.

1. No ... WE should do it ... people from this board - the ones I don't have on Ignore
2. That's why we should do it... political thought police.  And I'm the chief ...