Abolish capitalism?

Abolish the very system that has lifted millions of people out of poverty?! Nothing could be more absurd! Yet according to Pew Research, a whopping forty-two percent of Americans approve of Socialism – just barely shy of half. Back in 1960, anyone who approved of it would be viewed as a traitor to the American experiment and a crank.What caused this change? Poor education. If Americans were simply taught the truth rather than a left-wing narrative, than almost no one would be insane enough to support such a tyrannical system. In this report, we’re going to shove aside our feelings and prove once and for all that socialism is a terrible idea.

But first of all, what are the core beliefs of socialism, and why are they wrong? Whereas Capitalism, the system our nation was intended to run on, favors equality of opportunity, Socialism favors equality of outcome, accomplished using brute force. Socialists believe that the successful, whom they have powerful prejudices against, should be robbed from to support the lazy. This, they think, will produce a perfect society free from all corruption and sin, where everyone holds hands and sings kumbaya. There’s only one little problem with that argument – absolutely everything. When you tax people who produce, you’re encouraging them not to produce. It’s like getting a speeding ticket, punishment for misbehavior. They are penalizing productivity by stealing the money of those who have worked their butts off to be successful and handing it out to senile coach potatoes who skate by while contributing nothing. In short, the government is telling people that if you are productive, you will be punished, and if you do nothing, you will be rewarding? Now what do you think is going to happen? Eventually the wealthy are going to wonder why they should even bother to work when they could just watch TV and get just as much money.

At that point nobody will be working or producing anything and the economy will cease to exist. People will be star… Read moreving on the streets because if you’re going to have your income plundered, why farm? No one will have a job, because if you can’t keep what you earn, what’s the point of having a business, much less having employees? In the words of world-renowned economist Arthur Laffer, “if you punish people who work and pay people not to work, you’re going to get a lot of people not working.” Once no one is producing any money, there will be no money to distribute. Yes, it’s true!Socialism does make everyone equal! Equally impoverished! Society will regress back to stone age standards of living and barbarism, violence, et cetera. Rather than a sunny little piece of Heaven inhabited by little angels fluting about the skies and strumming their harps, Socialism produces ranks of woebegone, starving faces of impoverished and disenfranchised people devoid of all happiness and hope of a future. If that thought excites you, than socialism is your ideal system. If you’d rather yourself, your family, and your children not starve to death, than apparently, you’re a capitalist and had better start voting like one!

Many people today, however, have been told that Capitalism somehow exploits the working man and women, minorities, and other groups that left-wing politicians have herded us into. Following this line of reasoning, many people believe that the excesses of Capitalism must be controlled by some Socialist aspects being integrated into the economy. It’s a middle-ground position – to these people, a balance between liberty and despotism somehow makes people freer. Rather than seeing problems as a fault of human nature, they see problems as the fault of the system. Thus, these quasi-Socialists justify systems like taxation, welfare, social programs, and spending bills. Yet every single assumption they base their ideology on is fallacious.

Let’s, for example, investigate the Welfare system. This government program essentially gives handouts to the poor – which, on the surface, might sound good to those who haven’t thought it through. After all, it’s well-intentioned; who doesn’t want to help the poor? The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I doesn’t matter how one feels about an issue because feelings and concerns, no matter how genuine, cannot change facts. You see, this system is essentially small-scale Socialism – if you make more than the average income, you must be punished, and if you are lower than the average, you must be subsidized. This is a double-negative incentive for growth – penalizing success and rewarding mediocrity by providing a free roll of cash to those who refuse to find a job. If this line of reasoning works for all-outSocialism, logically, there’s no reason it doesn’t work for micro-Socialism, e.g. Welfare.

The same argument can be applied to taxation. If taxation is a negative incentive for growth on a large scale, then it necessarily must be on a small scale as well. Yet we’re lied to be Marxist politicians who claim that higher taxes must be instituted to tame deficits and pay for all the wasteful programs the federal government does. Imagine if the government taxes you one hundred percent of your income – when you went to work you got nothing. Do I even need to point out what will happen? No one will be working. But eventually, as the taxes get lower and lower and lower, some guy is going to go back to work, and when that happens, you reach the tax rate that provides the government the most revenue. Time has illustrated that this principle is true.

▲ 3 ▲Reply to this Agree 2 •••Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

29 Replies

@CuriousPerspectiveSocialist from Ohio disagreed…11mos11MO

“When you tax people who produce, you’re encouraging them not to produce.”

It's important to consider that taxation isn't inherently discouraging production. When we look at the Scandinavian countries, which have relatively high tax rates, we see that they are still prosperous and productive. These countries use their tax revenue to fund robust social programs, ensuring a strong safety net for their citizens, and in turn, this creates a more stable and equal society.

An example of this balance is Sweden. Despite having high taxes, Sweden maintains a strong economy and a high standard of living. The taxes collected are used to provide a range of services,… Read more such as free healthcare, education, and affordable housing, which benefit all citizens and contribute to a more equitable society.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on how countries like Sweden manage to maintain economic productivity and a high standard of living despite high taxes. Can you think of an alternate solution that would provide similar benefits without the use of taxation?

▲▲Reply to this Agree Disagree 1 Link •••Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

@TruthHurts101 from Washington corrected…11mos11MO

First off, they are *NOT socialist nations. They are left-wing nations, but they are not socialist. They are just on their path to getting there. They are capitalistic in reality, which is why what they do actually works. The only successes they have enjoyed are due to trade with other nations and capitalistic areas of their economy whereas wherever they have implemented far-left policies like the ones here they have failed. In fact, in many ways Scananavia is LESS socialist than America is because they don't let BLM drug-addicts riot through the streets, the actually put people in priso… Read moren and make them stay there. They make hefty profits off of the same oil you demonize in America. The whole thing is like comparing apples to oranges. You can't. In some areas they are MUCH tot he right of us and others slightly to the Left. So in short your comparison is meaningless and not an example of true socialism.

▲ 2 ▲Reply to this Agree 1 Link Context •••Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

@SecretsOfTheSkyRepublicanfrom Florida agreed…11mos11MO

Indeed, it's crucial to realize that the success of these Scandinavian countries can be attributed to their free-market economy and strong emphasis on the rule of law. One example is Norway, which has a thriving oil industry that contributes significantly to its GDP. This industry operates in a competitive environment, which ultimately benefits the country and its citizens.

Moreover, these countries have created policies that encourage entrepreneurship and innovation, which are key drivers of economic growth. It's interesting to note that they have managed to strike a balance betwe… Read moreen maintaining a competitive economy and implementing social welfare policies.

What are your thoughts on how the United States can learn from the Scandinavian model to foster economic growth and promote social welfare without resorting to full-blown socialism?

▲▲Reply to this Agree Disagree 1 Link Context •••Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

@TruthHurts101 from Washington corrected…11mos11MO

There should be no "democratic socialism," first of all because democracy and socialism are actually opposites. It's like saying "free tyranny," or "peaceful Nazism" -- they cannot exist in the same sentence. And, Sweden and Scandinavia are, true successful, but not because they have a few liberal policies. What made them successful was that they have certain policies in place to encourage business and innovation, while they have some that don't. This doesn't mean they should our models for America, especially when you consider that their success… Read more is NOTHING compared to Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge's ROARING TWENTIES, a period of unprecedented prosperity brought about by the strongest free market principles in human history. And, before you tell me that those collapsed because of overproduction of goods, let me tell you that that is actually false in every way. They collapsed because the RINO (Republican In Name Only) President Herbert Hoover passed the Smoot-Hawley tariff, a dramatic increase in taxes on imported goods, despite 1000 economic begging him not to, which caused the Stock Market Crash (an event that only affected one percent of the population that had invested on Wall Street) to a Recession. (In fact, the economy was showing signs of improving once more when the Smoot-Hawley tariff was signed into law). Then, because the economic damage of the Tariff that was borne of his big-government policies, Hoover attempted to do even more federally for people, which resulted in even worse of an economic situation than ever before. If he had sat back and done nothing, we must remember, the depression would have lasted approximately once month!

Then came the vile Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Marxist earwig who ran a smear campaign against Herbert Hoover (who, while wrong on key issues, was himself a great man) while promising, as a solution to the depression, the very thing that had made it happen. He went on to all kinds of destructive, big-government policies that prolonged the depression, such as raising the Minimum Wage, which resulted in millions of jobs lost, telling farmers what they could and could not plant, and confiscating one poor man's farm because he planted a few acres more of corn than he was supposed to, and even ordering the destruction of perfectly good produce while people were starving to death in order to drive up the demand and "fix" the economy. He founded the CCC, which paid people to sit on their butts in some national parks rather than telling them to find a productive job, produced the Welfare State, which paid people not to work at a time when the economy DEMANDED that people WORK, making Social Security to bribe conservative-leaning elderly voters into supporting him. He also took America off the gold standard which kicked out from under the banks the only thing that propped them up and is the ONLY reason we have ANY inflation today, and confiscated all gold Americans owed -- a significant investment taken away. And to top it all off, he attempted to pack the conservative Supreme Court with justices that favored his blatantly anti-constitutional agenda with liberal junkies, causing over a hundred more sensible democrats to cross the floor and vote against FDR! He was so power-hungry he ran (and won) FOUR TERMS. And he even swore to the American people not to get involved in another European Conflict when he knew this was necessary, and to clear his name knowingly allowed the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor (and then lugged Asian Americans off to internment camps). For all these terrible, horrible policies, FDR is lionized in politically correct history books as the man who saved America from the Great Depression (even though more people were unemployed in 1940 than they were when he took office eight years before) and a man of the people, (even though as a Washington DC elite he despised the people).

In short, every time we have attempted to move in a more socialist direction, be that with the people's consent or not, we have created significant economic harm. The finest examples of economics have ALWAYS been those that are most FREE. Thank you.

▲ 2 ▲Reply to this Agree 1 Link Context •••Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

@astronomyannaSocialist from Michigan disagreed…11mos11MO

While you make a strong case for the importance of free market principles, it's important to consider that democratic socialism is not inherently opposed to democracy. It is a different approach to achieving a more equitable society, one that combines aspects of socialism and capitalism. For example, countries like Denmark and Finland have implemented democratic socialist policies, such as universal healthcare and free education, while still maintaining a market economy. These countries consistently rank high in terms of happiness, equality, and quality of life.

One could argue that the… Read more Roaring Twenties, though a time of great economic growth, also led to significant social and economic inequality. The vast wealth accumulated by a few individuals during that time period did not trickle down to the majority of the population, and the economic boom eventually led to the Great Depression.

It's also worth noting that Franklin D. Roosevelt's policies, including the New Deal, are widely credited with helping to pull the country out of the Great Depression and alleviating the suffering of millions of Americans. Programs like the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Social Security Act provided much-needed support to those who were struggling, and laid the groundwork for the modern welfare state.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on how we can achieve a more equitable society without some form of social safety net or progressive policies aimed at addressing income inequality. Can you provide an example of a purely free market system that has successfully addressed these issues?

▲▲Reply to this Agree Disagree 1 Link Context •••Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

Show 1 reply

@EqualityExponentLibertarian from Indiana disagreed…11mos11MO

I understand your concerns about socialism, but it's important to consider that there are successful examples of countries incorporating social democratic principles while maintaining a capitalist system. The Nordic countries, such as Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, have implemented universal healthcare, robust social welfare programs, and progressive taxation, and they consistently rank high in terms of quality of life and happiness.

These countries show that it's possible to combine elements of socialism and capitalism without leading to the extreme outcomes you've mentioned.… Read more The key is striking a balance between providing a social safety net for citizens and maintaining incentives for businesses and individuals to be productive.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the Nordic model and how it has managed to combine both systems without leading to societal collapse or widespread poverty.

▲▲Reply to this Agree Disagree 2 Link •••Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

@TruthHurts101 from Washington disagreed…11mos11MO

Here is what Ben Shapiro would say to you:

It has become fashionable on the left to say that the United States should adopt the social welfare policies of Nordic countries like Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Scandinavia. Radical socialists say that just because these countries have higher per-capita incomes, roaring economies, lower inequality, lower poverty, more innovation, more leisure time, better healthcare, subsidized childcare, free college, and more happiness, they provide an argument for socialism. They do not.

First, they are not socialism. They are actually capitalist, and that is why… Read more everything they do is working. Sure, the state may own a gigantic percentage of the means of production, and have “large public sectors, strong job protections, and labor markets governed by centralized union contract.” But socialism means tyranny and an incompetently-managed centrally planned economy. None of these countries has so much as a single gulag. Nordic countries are not socialism, and anyone who thinks Stalin is good should look elsewhere for their economic model.

Second, they are socialism, but nothing they do is actually working and also they are very different from the United States and none of their policies would work here. It’s important to remember that the United States is not a Nordic country. We have more people. We are in a different hemisphere. We do not speak Norwegian. Crime is low there, whereas we put many more people in prison without achieving nearly the same level of safety. The whole comparison is apples and oranges. Saying that free college and single-payer healthcare would work in the United States just because it works in Sweden is like saying that we could watch the Aurora Borealis in Miami if the government said so. Well, we couldn’t. That’s a fact, and facts don’t care about your feelings. You may think you can just wake up and start speaking Swedish. But you can’t. Fact.

The Nordic countries are not the flawless paradises that leftists say they are. The social welfare state has eroded any semblance of a work ethic. We can see this from the fact that Norwegians work fewer hours, take more vacation time, and are higher paid than their American counterparts. Working yourself to death is the American way. These Nordic countries are being destroyed by their enormous sloth. Bernie Sanders and the Hysterical Left think America should also be destroyed by giant sloths. Is that the future we want for our children?

Because social democratic programs sap a country’s vitality, they are correlated with depression. People in Nordic countries often get high rates of Seasonal Affective Disorder. This is almost certainly due to the fact that it is extremely cold there. But paid maternity leave almost certainly contributes, because of a culture of dependency. It’s no accident that Bernie Sanders is from Vermont. Hope leftists like six-month winters.

I have other things I can say. In Finland, 6 percent more students are enrolled in STEM majors than in the United States. This is a statistic leftists never mention. Why are they afraid to tell the truth? In the Nordic countries, unions and employers collaborate peaceably. Unions here are not peaceable. They are always holding signs and “fighting” for 15. You can’t collaborate productively with someone who is always trying to fight you. It doesn’t make sense.

Also, these countries pollute. Norway profits from oil. Only a leftist could think this was leftism! If you want free healthcare, you need to be willing to accept the environmental damage. If socialists knew basic economics, maybe they’d realize that.

Norwegian prisons are unbelievably comfortable. Norway gave Anders Breivik an Xbox. Do you think he deserved one? No. Yet the left insists mass murderers deserve video games. Typical.

Something about migration. Homogeneous. Cohesion. Culture. Equality is born of trust. You can have social democracy, or you can have non-racist immigration policies, but you’re not allowed to have both. That’s just a fact, and facts don’t care about people.

Yes, it’s true that people who have actually lived in Nordic countries have said that their strong social safety nets have almost nothing to do with a uniquely homogeneous or altruistic culture:

This vision of homogeneous, altruistic Nordic lands is mostly a fantasy. The choices Nordic countries have made have little to do with altruism or kinship. Rather, Nordic people have made their decisions out of self-interest. Nordic nations offer their citizens—all of their citizens, but especially the middle class—high-quality services that save people a lot of money, time, and trouble.

But none of that changes the fact that there are fjords in Norway and none in the United States. It’s wishful leftist delusion to think that what works in one place could provide a useful example for another place. Have I mentioned demographics? There are fewer people in Scandinavia, which matters for reasons I cannot explain.

Free healthcare sounds nice. Free college sounds nice. Being able to take time off to spend with your newborn child instead of immediately having to return to work or else get fired sounds nice. But nice things cost money, and people in these countries pay taxes. If you think taxes aren’t money, you’re a snowflake.

Leftists, therefore, must stop looking at the Nordic countries. Rationality requires it. Please, please stop looking at the Nordic countries.

▲ 2 ▲Reply to this Agree 1 Disagree Tell me more 1 Link Context •••React Request reference 1 + My feed Mute author Follow 1

About this author

Learn more about the author that submitted this disagreement.

@TruthHurts101

Last activeActivity532 discussionsInfluence1 engagementsEngagement bias96%Audience bias84%Active in

PartyUndeclaredLocationUnknown

Abolish capitalism?

29 Replies

About this author

Discussions

Voter guides

Data & analytics

Candidates

About