It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Socialism is Not a 4 Letter Word

page: 12
37
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Because Libertarians support a financial system that favors elitism. Their is nothing social about the Libertarian view of the economy.

The elitist who own the world would live to sell the world the Libertarian ideas.

Once the elitists eliminate your job with technology, you will see the flaw. It is easy to support a system that sounds good while you are making enough to make ends meet.

Technology should replace many of our current jobs because it makes since. But the Libertarian ideology allows elitist to own all the technological advances and the profits that are made.

It is not substantial to allow technology to replace half the workforce and allow the owners of the technology to keep all the profits.

Technology should benefit all men, not a select group of elitist.




posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   
I must have had a point to make, never had a triple post before.


edit on 9-8-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: primoaurelius
you are basically saying "a good fulfilled life, is a comfortable life" and i fundamentally disagree with this. if a good life was a comfortable life then america would be fu**ing utopia. we have become nothing but our comforts. take away all the items and they have no happiness, which means they never really had it in the first place. electricity, sidewalks, tap water, technology, NONE of it makes us fundamentally better or happier; i would argue that it has made us fundamentally worse. they are symptoms, not solutions.


I have lived all over and been basically everywhere. We have it good. Hell even Europe and Japan do not run central AC much in homes. We have it real good. Live somewhere where you need a private water tank on your roof, no AC, no stove (cooking is done outside in a "dirty kitchen", just a name for it, not that it isn't good), extreme basics when it comes to foods, power comes and goes all the time etc.

We go back 60 years and there wasn't much in social programs, people worked, end of story. Now we allow paths to not work, to not sink or swim mentality and we developed an apathetic society.



my one rule to tell if someone is truly happy is take EVERY MATERIAL THING from them and gage their response. true joy doesn't involve anything other than living.

i didnt write this perfectly, but i think....i think i got out what i wanted to say...


Very good message though. My mentality is that there is no one to take care of my family but me. It is what drives me to do better. I do pay taxes, a good amount, and I want my roads in good working order, and my sewage taken care of and other basics since I pay for it, and gladly. I don't expect the police to show up until after they are needed , and I have insurance on my house since I will not rely on another to not have it burn.

When society gets to the point that they expect the Government to provide for them we are in deep sh*t. People today call it a slave society because they work 40 hours and drop by the store on the way home and pick 20 different items of everything they would ever need. People do not realize not too distance past we all worked 16 hours a day 6 days a week to survive, from the age of 12 to you die...and people were happy...hmmmm, I guess they had other measurements for their happiness.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

to my way of thinking, is that America has grown so complex since the constitution was ratified, that a "shared responsibility" is required for a more "perfect union"....the scale and scope of economics back then, was a much simpler dynamic, than it is today. back then, the wealthy owned thousands of acres of land worked by slaves, both in the north and south, and the economy was mostly an agrarian one. fiefdoms of today are measured in fluid asset accounts worth hundreds of billions across the world, not localized safes and strongboxes filled with gold and silver.
the wealthy of today do not have to answer to a localized shared responsibility, their capital can be effortlessly moved from one part of the globe to another. they have no shared responsibility, and so far, have not had to participate in it.
so my answer to you, beez....I don't have a clue as to the "how" the USSA would argue the constitution, whatever that means to you.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
Because Libertarians support a financial system that favors elitism. Their is nothing social about the Libertarian view of the economy.

The elitist who own the world would live to sell the world the Libertarian ideas.

Once the elitists eliminate your job with technology, you will see the flaw. It is easy to support a system that sounds good while you are making enough to make ends meet.

Technology should replace many of our current jobs because it makes since. But the Libertarian ideology allows elitist to own all the technological advances and the profits that are made.

It is not substantial to allow technology to replace half the workforce and allow the owners of the technology to keep all the profits.

Technology should benefit all men, not a select group of elitist.


Thanks for the response, stars for that dang multi-post problem!



I think you need to define elitist. I get the impression that nearly everybody who produces useful contributions to society would qualify and so, you can be sure that they will cease and desist such activity under your punitive regimen.

Even Marx recognized that capitalism is the driving force in technological development so, the thing you say is your savior was created only because of private property.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 11:54 AM
link   
I actually think we are moving toward a corporate world government, a nice way of saying a fascist world government without using Hitler references.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a poem...i wrote it just now. if it gets moved or deleted i dont mind. i think it is relevant, thus i will post it. its about nietzsche's philosophy, and how he believed that suffering and overcoming are important parts to living a fulfilled life, and that happiness and comfort can very quickly become poisonous to our psyche/self/mind/will. he was not opposed to joy or happiness, but opposed to it becoming the reason for life, rather than life itself.

BEHOLD! we discuss what the last man will look like...
and we all love him dearly

SHOW US THIS LAST MAN!

KEEP THE UBERMENSCH TO YOURSELF!

bring forth the man
with no evolutionary descendants.
becoming the ending
conqueror of suffering
banisher of sadness
of madness
of no use to
he who knows all
and has mastered it.
happiness for the sake
of happiness
commonality
mediocrity
we demand equality!
keep your individuality!
trust the lie
that you can
keep your individuality!
it must be sacrificed
upon our artiface
as we shout to the stars
we demand equality!
away with dissent
away with challenge
away with pain
away with overcoming
be gone human!
everyone
EVERYONE!
hold out their hands...
take from the last man.

edit on 9-8-2015 by primoaurelius because: missing words

edit on 9-8-2015 by primoaurelius because: grammar



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Socialism is good in moderation...Just like capitalism. It is the extremes that destroy people and countries.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

I agree that capitalism is the best driving force for the distribution of technological adcances.

But we have people who are profiting off technology such as energy production, where the technology is old, and those who own it have actually suppressed green, sustainable and environmentally friendly energy technologies.

At some point the technology needs to belong to society. I would say the internet and 4g or wireless would be better suited in a socialist system that everyone has access to. Not the current capitalist model that creates a massive amount of redundancy in infrastructure.

We don't need dynastic families controlling existing infrastructure. The elitist are the dynastic families who wish to own all technological infrastructure to ensure their lineage rules like gods for eternity.

We don't need dynastic family lines. Children should need to work and earn their way, and contribute to society.

Currently the children of the dynastic families have purchased half the world and done very little if anything to improve the world. It could easily be argued they have slowed technological advances in an attempt to destroy competition.
edit on 9-8-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73

Your system creates the subjugation of single women with children. I will never support a system that does not allow a single parent to care for their children without the need of a partner.


That is what childcare payments are for, and if both were making minimum wage why the hell are they having kids anyways if they can't take care of them? But hey this is a big point to you so lets say we add a social program in the mix too. I just do not see how we base across the board living wage on this.



Women have been subjugated to the will of men for long enough. They should have the right to divorce an a$$hole and know they can support their children. Either we provide them an adequate wage or we supplement the wages of single parents, female or male.


72% of black babies are born to unwed mothers, 50% of all single mothers were unwed. Your situation of getting away from an A-hole is a small percentage of the reality.



Children do not need to suffer for the mistakes of their parents. And it has been proven that children of poverty are destructive to society. So it is in societies best interest to eliminate impoverished children.


I would rather see people be more responsible in their actions and not have the kids in the first place if they can not support them. Anyway you look at it the situation sucks. Its not poverty, it is the lack of parental guidance if mom got to work then you have 10 year olds raising 4 year olds...

I don't know how to fix this unless we take draconian measures.



edit on 9-8-2015 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero



People do not realize not too distance past we all worked 16 hours a day 6 days a week to survive, from the age of 12 to you die...and people were happy...hmmmm, I guess they had other measurements for their happiness.

No the people were not happy if they were then the 40 hour work week would have never come along. The only people that were happy back then were the owners of the companies that was working the people like slaves.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

Very well put! F&S for the OP!

It's far too easy for one side to negatively portray the word socialism and it's virtues while ignoring the fact that without it, most of what we value here in America today wouldn't exist at all.

Go Bernie!



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero



I don't know how to fix this unless we take draconian measures.

Why not just start a mass sterilization program of the poor that should solve a lot of the problems shouldn't it?



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flatfish
a reply to: Isurrender73

Very well put! F&S for the OP!

It's far too easy for one side to negatively portray the word socialism and it's virtues while ignoring the fact that without it, most of what we value here in America today wouldn't exist at all.

Go Bernie!


That's because people have been brainwashed to think that Socialism is the same as Communism. Quite a few of them has been posting in this thread.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

Just so you understand welfare. Many of those single women live with the fathers but don't claim that hey do, nor do they have any intent on getting married.

It is more profitable in the welfare system to stay unwed while the father works and the mother collects welfare.

The system is broke, I have personally known people who have done this. I also have known women in their late 30s who got pregnant for the primary goal of staying on welfare.

This is why I would lean towards a higher min wage without welfare, but the problem created by impoverished children must be fixed.

Add - Even if half the women on welfare are required to work at a daycare this would be better than the 10 year old raising their siblings.

If they have to work they also need daycare.

I think requiring welfare recipients to work at the daycare facilities once their children reach the age of two would be good for the mother and the child's social development.


edit on 9-8-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: greencmp

I agree that capitalism is the best driving force for the distribution of technological adcances.

But we have people who are profiting off technology such as energy production, where the technology is old, and those who own it have actually suppressed green, sustainable and environmentally friendly energy technologies.

At some point the technology needs to belong to society. I would say the internet and 4g or wireless would be better suited in a socialist system that everyone has access to. Not the current capitalist model that creates a massive amount of redundancy in infrastructure.

We don't need dynastic families controlling existing infrastructure. The elitist are the dynastic families who wish to own all technological infrastructure to ensure their lineage rules like gods for eternity.

We don't need dynastic family lines. Children should need to work and earn their way, and contribute to society.

Currently the children of the dynastic families have purchased half the world and done very little if anything to improve the world. It could easily be argued they have slowed technological advances in an attempt to destroy competition.


In each and every one of those cases, it is the regulatory state that suppresses competitive energy production at the behest of special interests (cronies), not capitalism.

If you want to decrease meritless 'dynasticism', set the markets free, don't increase the burden to new competition with regulations which require techniques and technologies which are already in place among incumbent business but are preclusive to upstarts.

Also, I assume that you meant to say creation instead of distribution in your first sentence.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

Too late..vaccinefactcheck.org...



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
No the people were not happy if they were then the 40 hour work week would have never come along. The only people that were happy back then were the owners of the companies that was working the people like slaves.


People worked their farm from sunrise to sunset. Women spent all day preparing foods from raw ingredients to a finished product. A trip to town was an all day event. Our lives are so much easier from 100 different directions and we have more choices than ever in the history of mankind...ya life sucks today...

It is funny... If you went to the Boeing plant and told everyone they would have their hours reduced to 40 per week they would riot. I know a lot of people who desire the extra overtime pay. I have two that work for me that would work whatever they can in overtime.

What you are talking about was a bad situation of extremely low pay with nothing more gained for the extra hours worked. We can all agree that was a bad situation that needed fixing, but back then everyone worked all day no matter what they did, so the long hours were not the main issue. Safety, environment, too little income, stress to perform, etc were all bigger issues than the hours worked.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flatfish
a reply to: Isurrender73

Very well put! F&S for the OP!

It's far too easy for one side to negatively portray the word socialism and it's virtues while ignoring the fact that without it, most of what we value here in America today wouldn't exist at all.

Go Bernie!



what makes it so easy? why is it any easier than arguing against capitalism or any other social/economic/government system? possibly because of the many utter failures of its big brother communism? possibly because those communists used terms like socialism/communism/collectivism in their speeches? possibly because those communist countries killed their own citizens, the jewel of their economic system, the focal point of its creation, in their tens of millions? does the great leap forward ring any bells here? does anyone remember the cultural revolution? the gulags? the reeducation camps? the bread lines? the empty markets? the secret police? the checkpoints? the disappearing? the censorship? the arbitrary rules? the single party system? the corruption of party officials? the endless infighting? the suppression and killing of intellectuals and dissenters? the dissolution of the soviet union? do any of us remember this? you think hitler was bad? HA! stalin and mao have him beat by a mile...i avoid socialism because of its associations with communism. no matter how much socialists try to divorce the two, they know they are 2 sides to the same coin. im not going to work off of "what if" or "just because it didnt work in the past doesnt mean it wont work today". to me, it tried, multiple times, and failed. thats should be enough to see that it doesnt work.....OH OH WAIT i forgot TURE communism/socialism has never been tried right?
edit on 9-8-2015 by primoaurelius because: added words


socialism is basically communists coming to the conclusion that what they thought would work, has utterly failed, so they have come up with a new system, based upon the old, that could take its place. people dont just randomly associate socialism and communism, there is a reason why the two are compared so often, and you guys ignore this at your own risk. just saying "nuh uh its not communism" isnt good enough. make your point, show us why...i have yet to see anyone in this thread do this.
edit on 9-8-2015 by primoaurelius because: added words



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: Xtrozero



I don't know how to fix this unless we take draconian measures.

Why not just start a mass sterilization program of the poor that should solve a lot of the problems shouldn't it?


So that's why you guys like planned parenthood so much.



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join