
Socialism versus the Family - danielam
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7qrKi6hlPo
======
mimixco
Thank you for posting this. Few people realize how much of this comes straight
from Marx's playbook.

Socialism is incompatible with the family because it requires that everyone
and everything be subjugate to the state. If people are allowed to care more
about their families than they do about the state, they might take actions to
protect their families over protecting the state, and that was anathema to
Marx.

Socialism and communism (two words for the same thing) are a scourge upon the
earth. They've been responsible for more death and destruction than any other
ideas in history. It's alarming to see that, despite these facts, how many
people today cling to them as a "solution" to what ails the world.

~~~
luckylion
I don't really think a lot of people think of socialism as a "solution", but
rather as a alternative to try again vs hyper capitalism that evolves into
"gig economy" aka "freelancers shoulder all the entrepreneurial risk, get paid
below minimum wage, have to provide the capital to buy cars + gas themselves,
are then stiffed on tips, get no health insurance and will be thrown out if
they ever so much as look at the CEO wrong". People appear not to like the
US/Silicon Valley style (including "too big to fail" socialized losses for
corrupt companies), and since they don't get offered a "capitalism with rules"
as an alternative, they're willing to consider other things.

In the end: communism might suck, but being one hospital visit away from
bankruptcy, being spied on 24/7 by a corporate-state-hybrid, and working for
$10 an hour while a small apartment costs $3k sucks too. And who knows, maybe
"this time" it'll work. You know, now that we have block chain or whatever
some lunatic thinks will change human biology.

Offer them a chance and they won't grasp at socialist straws. But offering
them a chance would cut into profits, so that's not an option, obviously.

~~~
sparkie
The "gig economy" you speak of is only part of the economy and centred in
certain industries. It's a high risk, high reward which leads people to put in
the effort for low pay now, because if they are successful, they'll be
afforded greater financial freedom in future. It is not necessary for anyone
to actually take up these roles, as there are businesses which will hire and
pay employees well, for stable jobs, but with little options for making a
fortune unless they accumulate shares over many years, and the company does
well long-term. The fact that people take up the high risk jobs is part of the
human condition - everyone wants to get rich as quick as possible.

> People appear not to like the US/Silicon Valley style (including "too big to
> fail" socialized losses for corrupt companies), and since they don't get
> offered a "capitalism with rules" as an alternative, they're willing to
> consider other things.

This is blaming socialist intervention for the perceived problems of
capitalism. Under capitalism, companies don't get bailed out but they go
bankrupt and get replaced by better competition. The reality is we live in
"capitalism with _too many_ rules" and too much state meddling. The abundance
of rules is beneficial to the big players who can afford big legal teams, and
harms the individual who cannot open a simple family business without battling
with so much red tape, meaning the big players don't have to worry about small
competitors. The big players also make use of IP laws to gain advantage over
smaller players. IP laws are a socialst idea too.

Working $10/hr and having reduced purchasing power is also a result of
socialist policies. The idea of a "minimum wage" is perhaps the most
horrendous of policies. All it does is create a ceiling for what was intended
to be a floor for unskilled workers. Meanwhile, it forces the cost of all
goods and services upwards to compensate for the additional wages employers
must pay, and it means that people who are not productive enough to make
"minimum wage" can't earn _anything at all_ , and must rely on welfare
(another socialist programme).

Socialists have played the devil's greatest trick, in pretending that many of
the problems we have are a result of capitalism, but they are in fact, a
result of hidden socialism. And the solution to those problems: more
socialism. This has been the "progression" since post WW1.

It is also a mistake to look at profit making as a sin, and here lies the root
of socialism: jealousy. Although capitalism benefits society as a whole by
increasing the standard of living for everybody through innovation, some
people make far more money than others and it breeds resentment among the ones
whose lives only improve by a little in comparison. Instead of being grateful
that their standard of living is improving as a result of capitalism, they are
become ungrateful and bitter. A welfare state adds to this by making them
_dependant_ , instead of _responsible_.

~~~
luckylion
> It's a high risk, high reward

No, it's really not. There's no high reward when you've worked delivering food
work a month. It's lost time.

> It is also a mistake to look at profit making as a sin

Which nobody does. They view the hardcore exploitation as a sin. The "entrap
them in debt". The "buy the lawmakers and write the rules". The price fixing,
data hoarding & selling, the "let's just do illegal stuff and pay a
ridiculously small fine"-shit. It's really not about "nobody is allowed to
make a profit".

Sorry, I'll never understand the hardcore libertarians - it's
indistinguishable from sociopathy to me.

~~~
sparkie
> I'll never understand the hardcore libertarians - it's indistinguishable
> from sociopathy to me.

Yet every example we know of where trade has had the fewest obstacles (Britain
during Victorian reign, Hong Kong under UK rule, Japan during the Meiji,
Singapore post independence, Taiwan since split with China), we see a rapid
improvement of the quality of life in just a couple of generations.

Every socialist system we know of (USSR, China, North Korea, Vietnam,
Cambodia, Cuba, Venzeula, etc) has turned to shit in just a couple of
generations.

I wonder which one _is_ more sociopathic and not just _seems_ to be the case.

> They view the hardcore exploitation as a sin. The "entrap them in debt". The
> "buy the lawmakers and write the rules". The price fixing, data hoarding &
> selling, the "let's just do illegal stuff and pay a ridiculously small
> fine"-shit. It's really not about "nobody is allowed to make a profit".

The bigger the government, the more corruption in it. These are arguments for
small government, because the smaller it is, the less corrupt it can be.

Entrapping into debt is the consequence of a high time preference economy
where people are encouraged to spend rather than save. Money is not worth
keeping because it is deliberately inflated. Austrian economists promote low
time preference, because it's the accumulation of capital which enables things
to get done without taking from the pocket of taxpayers.

Data hoarding can be avoided by simply boycotting the companies involved. If
enough people cared about it, the companies would have to change their stance.
I'm not sure government interference is really going to help here if people
aren't willing to help themselves. I also see it as a consequence of people
being like overgrown children and not bearing any personal responsibility.

There are countless examples from as far back as the 1800s of wealthy people
putting their money towards public good, and doing a far better job of it than
modern governments do now.

Part of today's problem is also down to _culture_. It is seen as hip to be
rich and blow your money on cars, houses and prostitutes. Communities are no
longer a thing because big government has taken over nearly every role where
people would've previously come together to solve problems. Real altruism is
still practised by some of the super wealthy, but there's a significant amount
of virtue signalling because it's a lot easier than performing.

~~~
luckylion
> Yet every example we know of where trade has had the fewest obstacles
> (Britain during Victorian reign, Hong Kong under UK rule, Japan during the
> Meiji, Singapore post independence, Taiwan since split with China), we see a
> rapid improvement of the quality of life in just a couple of generations.

If there was a causal connection, you'd expect the US to have a much better
quality of life than, say, Sweden. I leave it to you to judge that.

And don't mistake me for somebody who's arguing for socialism. I'm just not a
fan of "let them starve, as long as I got mine" libertarianism, and apparently
a lot of people aren't either. I'd wager that most libertarians wouldn't be
either, if they weren't among those that do well in the current system, but
that's beside the point.

> There are countless examples from as far back as the 1800s of wealthy people
> putting their money towards public good, and doing a far better job of it
> than modern governments do now.

Totally. And it seems to me that there are fewer and fewer today doing it in a
similar fashion. I'm not a fan of government, but I'm certain that without it,
Uber would use whips to motivate its delivery staff, and those on the
receiving end of that motivation would have no way to quit working for Uber.

~~~
sparkie
> If there was a causal connection, you'd expect the US to have a much better
> quality of life than, say, Sweden. I leave it to you to judge that.

I don't think you've been to Sweden to make that claim, and perhaps you've
been listening to socialist propaganda suggesting that Sweden is socialist. It
isn't! Sweden is capitalist, and was in fact, one of the pioneers of free
market capitalism. I strongly suggest taking an hour out of your time and
watch this documentary for an image of Sweden which is a bit more grounded in
reality:
[http://www.freetochoose.tv/program.php?id=sweden](http://www.freetochoose.tv/program.php?id=sweden)

There are certainly some benefits from living in Sweden, but there are many
other benefits from living in the US which you would not have in Sweden.

> I'm just not a fan of "let them starve, as long as I got mine"
> libertarianism, and apparently a lot of people aren't either. I'd wager that
> most libertarians wouldn't be either

You would be correct, libertarians do not hold this view. They hold the view
that people are better at spending their own money than the government is, and
this includes charitable donations. Government is an inefficient machine of
waste, where a big slice of taxpayer money gets pocketed by every individual
who has the opportunity. Direct charity from wealthy people is direct, and
comes from understanding of the real problems, because it is usually local and
focused. What do some bureaucrats in Washington know of the troubles of people
on the street of downtown SF? Why would people on downtown SF want to give
away more of their liberties to those people

~~~
luckylion
> I don't think you've been to Sweden to make that claim, and perhaps you've
> been listening to socialist propaganda suggesting that Sweden is socialist.

I have, multiple times actually, and live quite close. They are a high tax,
strong central state country with a strong safety net, and more regulations
than the US. The same goes for Denmark, btw. You'd expect them dropping far
below the US as well with all the ways the government injects itself into the
market. Yet, they don't. Granted, they might have fewer TV channels, a lower
incarceration and not have a significant part on antidepressants and opiods,
so it's open to debate who actually has a higher quality of life ;)

> You would be correct, libertarians do not hold this view.

I suppose that's similar to half of the feminists saying they are actually
egalitarians. Virtually all libertarians I've encountered very much do hold
that view. "But we might be charitable". Sure. Might. Everything might happen.

> What do some bureaucrats in Washington know of the troubles of people on the
> street of downtown SF?

What do the super rich in SF do when faced with mass homelessness and people
living in open slums otherwise seen in the third world? "Look somewhere else"
appears to be the answer. Granted, there are probably a few who don't, but by
and large, they don't care.

------
bkmeneguello
Don't confuse capitalism with corporativism. Capitalism is only free market
and private property respect. The today corporations are much more state than
market. Socialism is the denial of human being, it's decivilisatory. The
collectivism does not works because there is always individuals in charge of
the decisions.

