Replies

Um no. Communism and Socialism are different ideologies. Saying they are the same is like saying that modern "conservatism" and libertarianism are the same. There are distinct differences such as the willingness of many Socialists to impose a strict bill of rights on the democratic process to protect dissenting voices. One Socialist I know is an ardent supporter of federalism. He said that "every single federal mandate is tyranny." He said that he believes that Socialism should be implemented primarily at the local level and not even the state level. The DSA is a very diverse political organization. That is its greatest weakness. It has no true political cohesion. YDS is its college campus wing. I've listened to Socialists argue and they have a VERY hard time about agreeing about most things. Some are militarists, some are pacifists. Some are agnostics, some are atheists, some are born again Christians. They don't have an underlying principle other than there are 2 classes, one oppressor and other oppressed. That is why historically they get their asses kicked by liberals and libertarians. But you already knew that....

You don't tear their arguments apart by screaming "COMMUNIST!!!!" at them. That is like yelling Jesus Freak at a proud born again. You tear their arguments apart by systematically showing how they cannot practically manage the means of production for a large economy. You show the logical falacy of relying on the will of the people for what is right. You point out how capitalism is hated by the elite and you make them ask how only 2 capitalist nations, the US and Japan with a population of less than 400,000,000 can out produce all of Europe combined which has a total population IIRC of almost 600,000,000 and is almost entirely Socialist. How is it that capitalism is able to exploit socialist nations if Socialism is really for the people? Shouldn't Socialism systematically defeat capitalism?

1/5 of all Americans own stock; Top 20% of income earners starts at only $80,000. $80,000 in silicon valley is a lower class salary (poverty line is $55,000).
Uneducated workers are bad for production, they increase the odds that products will be defective. Such workers may cause accidents that can destroy the entire means of production. Even worse for business
Most businesses lose money as a result of war, not make it. Tax increases for war time production go to a minority of companies. Consumers spend less, bottom lines drop for the majority of corporations. Most corporations have a business interest in preventing war because a war time economy can cripple or destroy them, not build them up. Most military suppliers are specialized corporations or part of aerospace industry and thus most manufacturers cannot even take part in the production of war materials. Again, no money to be made, only lost.
Finally, the most damning of all arguments from a scientific perspective: there is no consistantly accurate and workable algorithm for managing even an industrial economy. All hell breaks loose when trying to create a consistant algorithm for managing a post-industrial economy such as the US or Japanese economies. Without said algorithm, it is impossible to write simulation software for determining what the production levels need to be for optimal economic performance. Thus government will always have to act in a rationing mode in a Socialist state. The economy cannot be dynamically changed in such a model. It is doomed to failure as a result.

You make some very good points about the lack of agreement with the Democratic Socialist movement.

I participated in some online debates with some who called themselves democratic socialists. Once pressed they can admit to some bizarre theories.

The folks I debated argued that socialism did not succeed because it had never been tried. They claimed that every country that called itself socialistic wasn't really since they were dominated by an elite that governed for their own interests rather than the interests of the people. Their utopia would, of course, be different.

They sidestepped one of your objections, the lack of a useful algorthm, by postulating a government that would place the questions of allocating resources to a vote. If for example, a town had unemployed workers, then that town would vote on the type of capital investments to put these unemployed to work, ie, build a shoe factory or a communal farm. At this point they began to get bizarre admitting that most people really wouldn't want to be concerned with subjects such as this so they probably would prefer letting an elite make these types of decisions.

The most bizarre of their theories was that by a correct allocation of resources to real needs, no one would need to work more than 20 or so hours per week. They accomplished this by riding the world of capitalism and marketing since they felt that these only made the workers think they needed some things. That once this artificially created desires were purged from the world, most folks would be quite happy living in a high rise apartment building where the typical family lived in only a few hundred square feet. No need for cars either since we would all ride mass transit to our government appointed jobs.

The bottom line is that the government would tell what you wanted, when you wanted it, and how much of it you wanted. The education system would be geared to convincing you that living on less was best. While they maintained that all of this would be achieved democratically, they also maintained that there would be, at least temporarily, the need for force just in case your education wasn't truely effective in convincing you that the plans of the elites were notthe best.