[Iron Lady]

What are your thoughts?

[james22]

Only if it's done wrong.

[Sternumator]

What bad behaviour are you talking about?

[Iron Lady]

(Original post by Sternumator)
What bad behaviour are you talking about?

The fact that it's a race to the bottom, instead of trying to bring standards up.

[Sternumator]

(Original post by Iron Lady)
The fact that it's a race to the bottom, instead of trying to bring standards up.

It doesn't encourage hard work or isn't effcient but it probably doesn't cause extra crime.

[Iron Lady]

(Original post by Sternumator)
but it probably doesn't cause extra crime.

In your opinion, what does?

[chrisawhitmore]

It encourages poor behaviour in schools, as those coming from backgrounds where their families have never worked tend to value education less, seeing no need for it (as they see no need to get a job) and thus do not bother to learn and tend to misbehave in classes. The parents, also not seeing the value of education (why never using something you were taught at school is something people are proud of I'll never know) refuse to discipline their children, causing them to be more disruptive.

In general socialism encourages tax avoidance through high tax rates and misspending of taxpayer's money, both of which make people who avoid tax feel justified in doing so.

Finally, socialism in the form of nationalised industry or business subsidies encourage businesses to misbehave, both by fraud and by deliberately adjusting practices to meet subsidy targets rather than trying to become more efficient or profitable.

[ukip72]

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Winston Churchill

[Lukfisto]

If everyone works for common good, why you need to steal, kill somebody? People steal money because they lack money. As you see, societies which are more equal and living standards are higher, crime rate is very low.

Note: No, Soviet Union was not a socialist country, where crime rate were low mainly because of state repression.

[Suetonius]

Socialism invariably promotes a collectivist mindset, and necessarily entails government organizing and directing economics along utopian lines by means of central planning. It destroys competition and forces monopolization of the market (through regulation and protectionist State interference). It entails loss of free choice for the many while a few "experts" organize society according to their conception of justice. Basically, the sacrifice of individual liberty for hope of 'security' and 'equality' from government - usually for such abstract concepts as "the good of the community" (at the expense of the citizen) - has entailed totalitarianism and "bad behaviour" in so many countries it's impossible to keep count.

"The socialists believe in two things which are absolutely different and perhaps even contradictory: freedom and organisation"
-Élie Halévy

"...when economic power is centralized as an instrument of political power it creates a degree of dependence scarcely distinguishable from slavery"
-Friedrich August von Hayek

"...while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude"
-Alexis de Tocqueville

[KasanDude]

In socialism, you could say that all people all held in equal value and that none are permitted to work/earn/be worth more than anyone else. This means that no one can "think outside the box" or "rise above his/her co-workers." Given that we, humans, are basically animals (or atleast spent thousands of years among them), we are a competitive species and the desire to out-perform those around us is a key part of why the human race is so advanced. What I'm trying to say is that socialists try to take something that is a big part of who we are and bury it below some crap about the state being more important than its components.

The only plausible outcome for this scenario is that the people who are held back because they are more capable feel unchallenged and useless, or they find some way to actively rebel against the system that undervalues them. Either outcome could be considered "bad", I suppose.

My $0.02

[Martyn*]

(Original post by Iron Lady)
The fact that it's a race to the bottom, instead of trying to bring standards up.

That's Marxist socialism (Crypto-Communism) not Socialism.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by Suetonius)
Socialism invariably promotes a collectivist mindset, and necessarily entails government organizing and directing economics along utopian lines by means of central planning. It destroys competition and forces monopolization of the market (through regulation and protectionist State interference). It entails loss of free choice for the many while a few "experts" organize society according to their conception of justice. Basically, the sacrifice of individual liberty for hope of 'security' and 'equality' from government - usually for such abstract concepts as "the good of the community" (at the expense of the citizen) - has entailed totalitarianism and "bad behaviour" in so many countries it's impossible to keep count.

"The socialists believe in two things which are absolutely different and perhaps even contradictory: freedom and organisation"
-Élie Halévy

"...when economic power is centralized as an instrument of political power it creates a degree of dependence scarcely distinguishable from slavery"
-Friedrich August von Hayek

"...while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude"
-Alexis de Tocqueville

I'm quite sure you're confusing Marxist socialism with Socialism.

[TheHansa]

What does government ownership have to do with behaviour, do you even know what socialism is?

[brunettegirl92]

(Original post by ukip72)
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Winston Churchill

of course he said that! he was right wing! if everyone voted for socialism he'd be out of a job!

[Ben Butler]

Socialism promoted working class values. It encourages a fair society, where everyone works hard for what they earn. This means that people are far less likely to be involved in crime in my view than say facists on the right, who might beat someone up for their hatred of Muslims.

[wilson_smith]

(Original post by Suetonius)
Socialism invariably promotes a collectivist mindset, and necessarily entails government organizing and directing economics along utopian lines by means of central planning. It destroys competition and forces monopolization of the market (through regulation and protectionist State interference). It entails loss of free choice for the many while a few "experts" organize society according to their conception of justice. Basically, the sacrifice of individual liberty for hope of 'security' and 'equality' from government - usually for such abstract concepts as "the good of the community" (at the expense of the citizen) - has entailed totalitarianism and "bad behaviour" in so many countries it's impossible to keep count.

"The socialists believe in two things which are absolutely different and perhaps even contradictory: freedom and organisation"
-Élie Halévy

"...when economic power is centralized as an instrument of political power it creates a degree of dependence scarcely distinguishable from slavery"
-Friedrich August von Hayek

"...while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude"
-Alexis de Tocqueville

As boring and monotonous as it is to inform you, you but identify one strand of socialism; and one most socialists, myself included, would likely deny the title of socialist in any substantive sense.

These threads invariably result in everyone forwarding a strawman or misunderstanding of socialism - socialism certainly isn't just, or even at all, central-planning or state intervention.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by wilson_smith)
socialism certainly isn't just, or even at all, central-planning or state intervention.

Certainly so, but its just that central planning is almost inevitable if you want to avoid having a society of grubs.

[Suetonius]

(Original post by wilson_smith)
As boring and monotonous as it is to inform you, you but identify one strand of socialism; and one most socialists, myself included, would likely deny the title of socialist in any substantive sense.

These threads invariably result in everyone forwarding a strawman or misunderstanding of socialism - socialism certainly isn't just, or even at all, central-planning or state intervention.

You're right. It is boring and monotonous, considering I'm always informed by self-proclaimed socialists that any left-wing current that doesn't conform to their own conception of socialism is "denied" as being so.

Socialism isn't socialism without a degree of support for "state intervention". I never said anywhere that it was "just" that, but your claim that it doesn't favour it "at all" flies in the face of everything in the socialist canon. I don't know what your conception of 'socialist' is, but you won't get anywhere by simply saying that you're "socialist on social issues" (while supporting a free market), as that would be almost identical to a libertarian social policy. The only real place where socialists and libertarians differ is in the economic field, where the socialist generally favours a degree of state interference, which in turn stultifies competition.

[wilson_smith]

(Original post by Suetonius)
You're right. It is boring and monotonous, considering I'm always informed by self-proclaimed socialists that any left-wing current that doesn't conform to their own conception of socialism is "denied" as being so.

Socialism isn't socialism without a degree of support for "state intervention". I never said anywhere that it was "just" that, but your claim that it doesn't favour it "at all" flies in the face of everything in the socialist canon. I don't know what your conception of 'socialist' is, but you won't get anywhere by simply saying that you're "socialist on social issues" (while supporting a free market), as that would be almost identical to a libertarian social policy. The only real place where socialists and libertarians differ is in the economic field, where the socialist generally favours a degree of state interference, which in turn stultifies competition.

Your derision of socialism didn't clarify itself as pointed at any particular currents; it simply began as 'socialism invariably', and then proceeded in critique. You can hardly bemoan an accusation claiming you indiscrimminately attacked socialism on the basis of a very narrow conception of it when you failed to specify otherwise - especially when that particular strand you extrapolated your criticism from holds little weight in socialist thought.

The statement that "Socialism isn't socialism without a degree of support for 'state intervention'" is beyond absurb and disregards significant elements of socialist thought; left-communism, anarchism and libertarian socialism at the very minimum. Socialism certainly doesn't necessarily equate to state interference, on any interpretation, and in my view - and this is not an isolated view - is inconsistent with such; most contemporary socialist thought derides statism as pseudo-socialist state capitalist, or as managerialist authoritarianism.

(Original post by prog2djent)
Certainly so, but its just that central planning is almost inevitable if you want to avoid having a society of grubs.

What does this even mean?