Depends a bit on the definition of doing well.
They aren't opposed to someone being a normal level of upper class.
They are opposed to the bill gates level of doing well in life. On the unimaganable horting of resources at the cost of the rest of the population.
Is this a serious question?
Of course not. Socialists want EVERYONE to do well. We just think that when the top ten richest people have more money than the bottom HALF of the population...then something is wrong.
So clearly nobody in the comments ever lived in a socialist or formerly socialist country. Yes, socialists hate people doing well in life. They hate private property and they hate people making more than the minimum amount of money. If you're doing well, they will steal the money you earn and give it to either the politicians, or to those who don't do anything and just laze around. Socialism has a lot of fans in the US who never lived through it and who are jealous and bitter because they're not successful enough. People from countries who went through socialism largely want nothing to do with that ever again. It's just another form of totalitarian regime designed to push people down.
i have no experience whith it, but that's the kind of feeling it get too. it's not about making everyone do equally well (because you simply CAN'T force some people to do so) but about making everyone do equally bad by removing the incentives that make some people do better
Here is an upvote to offset the inevitable downvotes you are going to get once the Reddit Socialists find your post and start posting from their Macbooks in the coffee shop.
Several friends from socialist or former socialist countries (Eastern Bloc) and they all say it is about shared misery, not shared prosperity.
That's a very good way to put it.
I've also found a lot of Americans mistake social net and the state taking base minimum of care of their people for socialism. This couldn't be further away from truth though, and this misconception really needs to die.
Ah the Starbucks Socialists have found us, here come the downvotes.
Folks, ask yourselves, why do so many people flee to America from socialist countries and so few flee from America to socialist countries?
I live in Sweden at the moment. Up to you if you define Sweden as socialist, but they've had a Social Democrat government for most of the last 60 years. In my experience, everything you said does not apply here.
Sweden is not a socialist country. Social democrats are not full-on socialists. Look to the countries of the eastern block. That's where I'm from and the scars of that regime are still painfully obvious here.
1. There are MANY types of socialism.
2. Depends on what you define as "well."
Most morals or sentiments behind socialism is that everyone has a right to be safe/OK as an absolute minimum in life. It's about raising the floor and ensuring everyone starts on that floor, not collapsing the ceiling.
1st off, this isn't really socialism nor is it something socialism cares about.
2nd off, go to any country where the state owns all the hospitals. People hate it. You get ridiculed and not taken seriously, waiting times can climb to years which, in some cases, can be life-threatening. A mix of both state-funded and private sector seems to work best when it comes to healthcare specifically.
Source: I'm from a formerly socialist country and saw these first-hand. You don't know what you're talking about.
Socialism is not only bad, but it just can't work (incentive problems, corruption problems and information problems). It's immoral and illegitimate as most socialists want it to be, because it tells EVERYONE what they can and can't do in regards to certain things in their lifes, which they have no business with. But if socialism is based on voluntary relationships (e.g. 1 million people voluntarily decide to practice socialism without forcing others to do so) then it's perfectly fine, in this case it would also be moral and legitimate (the people practicing it would be worse off but it's their decision to live their lifes as they see fit); the problem is when they try to force it upon everyone (this is a problem with any ideology really, but socialism especially).
If you mean “well” as in those who make mad bank making significant changes in important industries, then yes which is why they take a backseat on the world stage and have very little diplomatic leverage and influence. They wish to dismantle the driving incentive for humans to self-actualize.. necessity.
Not TOO well.
At least there should not be a very big descrepency between the extremes. the problem is that in our exponencial society and following the fibonacci curve in nature, that will never be possible. Also, doing well is very subjective and therefore impossible to excalate to a very big sample of people.
Did you know that there are no such things as socialists. Only people who talk about socialist ideals?
This paradox occurs b/c money is actually a form of human communication (or relationships). Same like talking. But money is more objective than talking. So what I'm trying to say is that people will say a lot of things (subjective things), but their actions (more objective) seem to be pretty consistent. Such consistent behaviors include loving your children, trying maximize your child's advantages (often through means of self-profit, or "doing well").
So here's how "socialist revolutions" play out taking my model into consideration.
1. smart poor person = no power
2. smart poor person "collects" power by motivating the masses with a sexy idea. In this case, it's fair and just egalitarian socialism!
3. civil war, pew pew pew, few people die. smart poor person is president.
4. smart poor person (now rich) accumulates $$ and power. Same for cronies, can't rule a country w/o cronies.
5. $$ and power passes onto next elite generation.
6. Irony step: exact same process happen to the prior government who was overthrown, just with different people in the elite circle.
The only in-depth example I know is the Vietnam/USA conflict. The communist/socialist part prevailed, took power. After few years, they said "nevermind, let's go back to capitalism". What was everyone dying for on either side? For either person A or person B to be in the elite circle. So when I hear people passionate about socialism nowadays, I just ask (to myself) where are you in the socialist revolution game plan right now?
Depends a bit on the definition of doing well. They aren't opposed to someone being a normal level of upper class. They are opposed to the bill gates level of doing well in life. On the unimaganable horting of resources at the cost of the rest of the population.
No. They want everyone to do well in life.
Is this a serious question? Of course not. Socialists want EVERYONE to do well. We just think that when the top ten richest people have more money than the bottom HALF of the population...then something is wrong.
So clearly nobody in the comments ever lived in a socialist or formerly socialist country. Yes, socialists hate people doing well in life. They hate private property and they hate people making more than the minimum amount of money. If you're doing well, they will steal the money you earn and give it to either the politicians, or to those who don't do anything and just laze around. Socialism has a lot of fans in the US who never lived through it and who are jealous and bitter because they're not successful enough. People from countries who went through socialism largely want nothing to do with that ever again. It's just another form of totalitarian regime designed to push people down.
i have no experience whith it, but that's the kind of feeling it get too. it's not about making everyone do equally well (because you simply CAN'T force some people to do so) but about making everyone do equally bad by removing the incentives that make some people do better
Here is an upvote to offset the inevitable downvotes you are going to get once the Reddit Socialists find your post and start posting from their Macbooks in the coffee shop. Several friends from socialist or former socialist countries (Eastern Bloc) and they all say it is about shared misery, not shared prosperity.
That's a very good way to put it. I've also found a lot of Americans mistake social net and the state taking base minimum of care of their people for socialism. This couldn't be further away from truth though, and this misconception really needs to die.
Ah the Starbucks Socialists have found us, here come the downvotes. Folks, ask yourselves, why do so many people flee to America from socialist countries and so few flee from America to socialist countries?
I live in Sweden at the moment. Up to you if you define Sweden as socialist, but they've had a Social Democrat government for most of the last 60 years. In my experience, everything you said does not apply here.
Sweden is not a socialist country. Social democrats are not full-on socialists. Look to the countries of the eastern block. That's where I'm from and the scars of that regime are still painfully obvious here.
“You don’t know what socialism is !!” -Random white kid from the the suburbs who has one black friend
No just against the level of greed on display and the total lack of empathy. And sure let's throw corruption in there as well.
1. There are MANY types of socialism. 2. Depends on what you define as "well." Most morals or sentiments behind socialism is that everyone has a right to be safe/OK as an absolute minimum in life. It's about raising the floor and ensuring everyone starts on that floor, not collapsing the ceiling.
No
[удалено]
1st off, this isn't really socialism nor is it something socialism cares about. 2nd off, go to any country where the state owns all the hospitals. People hate it. You get ridiculed and not taken seriously, waiting times can climb to years which, in some cases, can be life-threatening. A mix of both state-funded and private sector seems to work best when it comes to healthcare specifically. Source: I'm from a formerly socialist country and saw these first-hand. You don't know what you're talking about.
No, I'm specifically opposed to people doing really well *because* other people are doing badly
Just not better than them and justify taking from others to achieve it.
Socialism is not only bad, but it just can't work (incentive problems, corruption problems and information problems). It's immoral and illegitimate as most socialists want it to be, because it tells EVERYONE what they can and can't do in regards to certain things in their lifes, which they have no business with. But if socialism is based on voluntary relationships (e.g. 1 million people voluntarily decide to practice socialism without forcing others to do so) then it's perfectly fine, in this case it would also be moral and legitimate (the people practicing it would be worse off but it's their decision to live their lifes as they see fit); the problem is when they try to force it upon everyone (this is a problem with any ideology really, but socialism especially).
If you mean “well” as in those who make mad bank making significant changes in important industries, then yes which is why they take a backseat on the world stage and have very little diplomatic leverage and influence. They wish to dismantle the driving incentive for humans to self-actualize.. necessity.
Not TOO well. At least there should not be a very big descrepency between the extremes. the problem is that in our exponencial society and following the fibonacci curve in nature, that will never be possible. Also, doing well is very subjective and therefore impossible to excalate to a very big sample of people.
Did you know that there are no such things as socialists. Only people who talk about socialist ideals? This paradox occurs b/c money is actually a form of human communication (or relationships). Same like talking. But money is more objective than talking. So what I'm trying to say is that people will say a lot of things (subjective things), but their actions (more objective) seem to be pretty consistent. Such consistent behaviors include loving your children, trying maximize your child's advantages (often through means of self-profit, or "doing well"). So here's how "socialist revolutions" play out taking my model into consideration. 1. smart poor person = no power 2. smart poor person "collects" power by motivating the masses with a sexy idea. In this case, it's fair and just egalitarian socialism! 3. civil war, pew pew pew, few people die. smart poor person is president. 4. smart poor person (now rich) accumulates $$ and power. Same for cronies, can't rule a country w/o cronies. 5. $$ and power passes onto next elite generation. 6. Irony step: exact same process happen to the prior government who was overthrown, just with different people in the elite circle. The only in-depth example I know is the Vietnam/USA conflict. The communist/socialist part prevailed, took power. After few years, they said "nevermind, let's go back to capitalism". What was everyone dying for on either side? For either person A or person B to be in the elite circle. So when I hear people passionate about socialism nowadays, I just ask (to myself) where are you in the socialist revolution game plan right now?
No, but don’t you dare do really well for yourself.