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: 16
37
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

By making it less government your going to make it more corporate because we simply cannot manufacture today's goods on a small scale.

I know the line is already blurred between government and corporate anyway.

Less government = more corporate




posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: mahatche

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: mahatche

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: mahatche

Your argument is fallaciously inverted.

We despise cronyism which is the product of socialist economic policies.


Are you really implying that socialists are the ones who oppose protective regulations? The corporations who threaten to leave America if they have to pay taxes are socialist? The people defending economic inequality are socialists? The people who created the "greed is good" mantra are socialists? The socialists are speaking against these trade deals, and want to raise minimum wage, and they are accused of cronyism?

You can't rant about income redistribution, while also claiming they favor the crony capitalists, it doesn't work both ways.

Do you know anything about socialism or is it just a bad word you all the worlds problems to?




What you call "protective regulations" is ordinarily called protectionism and it is most definitely socialist, counter-productive, and even destructive.

Corporations and people who "threaten" to leave a country that doesn't respect private property or individual rights are not socialists, I don't understand that comment.

The only group that consistently opposes these so-called "trade deals" or "free trade agreements" is libertarians. Free trade only requires the absence of state interference, it does not benefit from it.

"I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money."

-Thomas Sowell


In your first response to me you said socialists are responsible for crony capitalism. So I list some of the problems that exist with in crony capitalism, and now you say "that's not socialism" so how exactly are the people who favor taxes, regulations, and reduced income inequality, compatible with crony capitalists then?

You're the one who called my post a fallacy then blamed it on socialists.

I'm not a socialist, but I can see that capitalism is not immune to spiraling out of control. There has to be some checks and balances. The idealism of libertarians would be nice if lived in a utopia, but we don't and historically every time we've deregulated to that extent we've seen massive problems.

That's a cute quote, but ff it's greed that causes people to send my jobs over seas then yes I'm against greed. If it's greed that opposes protections like glass stegall because bankers want to gamble with my money at no risk to their own, then yes I'm against greed. I'm against companies who take all of our hard earned money, but refuse to contribute to the society that made their success possible. I know in libertarian utopia everything in the country pays for it's self, but in the real world taxes are necessary and everyone should have to pay. There is no reason for these corporations to pay zero taxes, while also sending jobs over seas.

The greed is good mantra was created by assholes like Gordon Gecko, what have they done to benefit you? Crony capitalism makes it harder to compete by definition. They use their connections to buy favor against their competition.

I like capitalism, i just don't like the corrupted version of it.


Cronyism is the unholy alliance between big government and special interests of all types.

The use of the law to benefit one group at the expense of another.

The free market (albeit unrealized at the moment due to active spoliation) expressly denies anybody the power to maintain monopolies by force.

I am glad that you see the benefits of capitalism and I believe that those benefits can once again be ours if we turn the ship around before it's too late.


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



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Standard oil, free market example

East India company, free market example

You guys have got to be kidding me with this free market bs. I used to believe it too I know.

It's just not 1820 anymore things have to be made on a large scale.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: mahatche



I'm not a socialist, but I can see that capitalism is not immune to spiraling out of control. There has to be some checks and balances.


I'm a socialist and I completely agree with this statement. Capitalism is just as much a risk to people and societies as socialism if it is not well regulated. In either system, the extremes end up with the same results. The power and resources are in the hands of the few and the people suffer.

Many people do not believe that socialism and capitalism can co-exist, but they, in fact, can. The perfect system would be a marriage of the two where one can use the fruit of their labor to enrich themselves, but we also ensure that the very basic necessities of life are taken care of for all.

Certain resources such as water, electricity, mass food production and such would be in the hands of the state, directed by the people, and would be provided free of charge due to the collective wealth of the people. Another member already mentioned technology. Technology will play a huge role in achieving that goal.

I'm quite certain that some day we will institute a communist/capitalist system, but it will take a change of hearts and minds to do that. We are not ready for that yet.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion

Less government = more corporate


But how then would corporations control governments?

Maybe big government = more poverty.

Like in Europe for example.




posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

First off your not making sense.

Secondly they BECOME the government.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion

Standard oil, free market example



And look what happened when they broke up Standard Oil.

It sprung into hundreds more, then consolidated into a few giants today.




posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

A few Giants is better than 1 super giant.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion




East India company, free market example


Just think of all the good they have done in this world!

Ok that was extreme sarcasm; the East Indies company were opium pushers for those that did not know. They the East Indies company indentured India's people to cultivate and refine opium that was sent to China.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: xuenchen

First off your not making sense.

Secondly they BECOME the government.



That's happened somewhere right?




posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Where did everyone get this idea these socialism is about fairness?

Let's take my favorite socialist institution as an example: The United States Marine Corps.

How many rich guys are serving there? How many dollars did corporate welfare recipients pay for it, even though they would be the ones getting robbed first if we were invaded?

Our government monopolized market for military manpower and training and single payer hardware procurement system remain INCREDIBLY lucrative for the rich, does it's job with the best quality available on earth, and is still carried on the backs of the people, not carved out of the hides of the 1%. In point of fact wars that once bankrupted kings now double the net worth of rulers.

We use socialism because it's simple and efficient and it works very well on large but simple projects that everyone needs, not because of some straw man argument about fairness and tulips. Why build two when you can build one for half the price?

Try a capitalist dinner at home some day. Every family member prepares one item and trades for the other items, but nobody is obligated to make any trades. Ideally you would end up holding a bowl of peas bargaining with your children for a burger and go hungry just so somebody who doesn't know any better can get fat, but my point would be made just as well if you got an uncoordinated meal of if somebody burnt an item and collapsed the dinner economy. We don't do it that way because we have a shared motive and an obvious way to proceed, therefore no complicated arrangements and division of ownership is necessary, you can just cooperate and get it done.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

East India Co. was the original cartel.

Now look at the concept today !!!




posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: xuenchen

A few Giants is better than 1 super giant.


Good reply.




posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

They are the company the stock market was modeled after as well.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: The Vagabond

Let's take my favorite socialist institution as an example: The United States Marine Corps.

How many rich guys are serving there? How many dollars did corporate welfare recipients pay for it, even though they would be the ones getting robbed first if we were invaded?



People need to be careful what they wish for. Looking at the Marines, they have a roof over their heads and never go hungry or lack of clothes, BUT 100 to a room on cots, 50 shower heads in one big bath room, set menu for every meal, uniforms etc. I guess we can put 50 million Americans into this living standard and proclaim no one is hungry and without shelter or clothes...hehe

We can be quick to redefine "too much" and tax the crap anything past that upper limit, but we would be just as quick to redefine minimum quality of life too, and I would bet that it would not be what the vast majority of Americans think it is.


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



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

What, you don't know what your talking about.

You totally made that one up.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: greencmp

Standard oil, free market example

East India company, free market example

You guys have got to be kidding me with this free market bs. I used to believe it too I know.

It's just not 1820 anymore things have to be made on a large scale.


Mercantilism is hardly capitalism.

The industrial revolution was only made possible by laissez-faire.

Most big monopolies throughout our history have been state sponsored. In many case with such vigor as to make overt attempts to literally destroy the competition not by outdoing them but with the force of arms.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: The Vagabond

And yet everyone looks first at the military as the source to cut waste from ...



Although your point is well taken in that there are some things you do not want to privatize. It may very well be that a private military force would end being more efficiently run than a government-run, bureaucratized one. However, it would also be mercenary and beholden only to the highest bidder.

I would also point out that the military is one thing the Federal government is specifically empowered to provide for according to the Constitution as well.

Not all forms of socialism are bad. I've been arguing that the involuntary systems are the ones that pose a problem. A family style of socialism operates on a far different scale than your average public school system or the VA.

And just for the sake of argument, let's take the voluntary nature out of family dinner. Suppose you have a dozen freeloaders, strangers move into your house and you were beholden to provide a meal no matter what. Whatever is brought must be shared. Some bring what would be their fair share and others throw out a couple pieces of candy. Soon, since everyone can get buy bringing crap and expect to eat a full meal, no one brings anything worth eating and everyone starves.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Since England went to war for the East Indies company, I see the East Indies company more as the oil cartels of today. Our government openly fights for big oil, while the drug cartels have their political influence upon our government, it is far more secretive and complex to compare to than the position of the East Indies co and England.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: The Vagabond

And yet everyone looks first at the military as the source to cut waste from ...





It would not be so wasteful if it was not playing world police.....

But that's a different topic.



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join