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: 27
37
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp



The internet was created by a DoD project. How the hell can you try to say that "capitalists" developed it? Also, it's not free. People have to pay. No socialism yet for you to even attempt to reference to them trying to "institutionalize" it.




posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: StalkerSolent

So it wasn't a revolution until it became a revolution. OK.

My point was that once it became a revolution, whatever point that was, there were still citizens loyal to the crown. At that point, their wishes were not taken into account, just like beezer's won't be either.
edit on 9-8-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 11:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: greencmp



The internet was created by a DoD project. How the hell can you try to say that "capitalists" developed it? Also, it's not free. People have to pay. No socialism yet for you to even attempt to reference to them trying to "institutionalize" it.


Arpanet created TCP/IP as a fault tolerant network for systems that might be subjected to a catastrophic nuclear attack. DARPA works with capitalist industry.

Tim Berners-Lee created hypertext.

Years passed.

Then, commercial enterprises began to use the technology for commercial purposes, there was nobody who "needed" the internet until that time.
edit on 9-8-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 11:04 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Ok, but when did the socialists "institutionalize" it?



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 11:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: greencmp

Ok, but when did the socialists "institutionalize" it?


Well, the recent net neutrality (almost used xuenchen's delightful "nyet neutrality") development could be considered a first stage to the nationalization of the infrastructure but, I was mostly saying that socialists in this thread suggested it as a panacea for all of the nations political ills.

As tricky an example as the internet is, medicine or, more specifically, medical insurance is now perceived as a human right.

Medical insurance (and indeed, all employment "benefits") was a capitalist concept created specifically to circumvent the wage caps after the second world war to attract talent.
edit on 9-8-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

So you have nothing to back you assertions whatsoever except pure conjecture and partisan buffoonery?

Got ya.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 11:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
...
You are flopping around so bad that you have to bring up Volkswagen and propaganda films.


LOL, you are trying to deny what is obvious. Nothing that I wrote is "propagandism from the right"... It's actual history.

The Volkswagen was an idea pushed by Hitler to show to Germans that he was doing things for "the common good of the people". Propaganda films made by NAZIS was about unification of all Germans, it wasn't about individuality, but about being part of the collective, which is a socialist/communist dogma...


originally posted by: introvert
Also, you are projecting modern issues, such as environmentalism as a Leftist ideology, to that of Nazi Germany.


The NAZIS weren't just environmentalists, they were extremist environmentalists, giving more value to animals than to human life, and yes that is another dogma of the extreme left.

One thing is to have respect for nature, and try to protect the environment, another thing altogether is the extremist views of making animal life more important than some humans.


originally posted by: introvert
Can you dispute the previous quote or not? Now this just seems ridiculous and you're pulling crap of off Right wing sites that wish Hitler to be a socialist because it fits their political agenda.


Naa, it's no crap, Hitler was a national socialist... The word national doesn't make a dogma as rightwing, just as national communism wasn't and isn't rightwing either...

Again, didn't you know that Stalin was implementing national communism in the Soviet Union? "Socialism in one country" was a concept central in Stalin's rule... The word national didn't make communism any less leftwing.

The claim that HItler and the NAZIS were rightwing was invented by leftwingers, who can't admit the fact that the NAZIS were leftwing.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 11:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: greencmp

So you have nothing to back you assertions whatsoever except pure conjecture and partisan buffoonery?

Got ya.


No, I am picking examples that appear in the thread we are in.

If there is any partisan buffoonery, it isn't coming from me.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 11:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
...
Can you dispute the previous quote or not? Now this just seems ridiculous and you're pulling crap of off Right wing sites that wish Hitler to be a socialist because it fits their political agenda.


Care to explain what quote you are talking about?...

If you want to claim that because there are socialists and even communists that made money off capitalism and because of that they are not leftwing, then according to your claim there has never been a famous rich socialist or communist in the history of the world...

Oh and btw, did you know that there are capitalists and rightwingers who are not rich?...
I guess the fact that there are such people makes them leftwing in your point of view...


edit on 9-8-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 11:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

You keep using this word 'socialism'... I do not think it means what you think it means.

Seriously. Please read a book. There is a reason '-ism' and '-izing' are not synonymous suffixes. Do you think a socialite and socialist are the same?


There is a reason why there is a word called "capitalism." All homes are privately owned. If not then it would be called fascism or communism. US is a mix of Democratic Fascist Capitalism. You can't have Capitalism without socializing. Privately own doesn't mean #, if a company takes complete control of the state/country, it would be called either corporatism(like we see today) or Imperialism depending how the owner works.

www.webpages.uidaho.edu...

This website confuses socialism with Capitalism and who is in control of the country. Your just better of calling a state another country, if it doesn't work with the country / other states. There is a reason why Warring states are not called socialists and new empires rises out of them after war. This word is used completely wrong.

If its the people socializing like what it says then it is Communism. This would be called Communist state. "state ownership of common property" if its means ownership or property(area). Then it is a mix of Communism and Capitalism.

en.wikipedia.org...

Which is what this website kind of meant. Lets not have this word confuse the heck out everyone. If it is a mix, it is a mix. 5 main controls.

Fascism = Government controls everything including privately owned territories.

Communism = people working for a common cause(what the definition socialism really says) with no private own territories(this is our past and what most villages were).

Capitalism = people have privately own territories(now don't get confused between corporatism) that can also be use for production

Imperialism = rule by a single person family, meaning kings or queens. I can include Monarchy in this, but that is basically Imperialism depending who is in control. There have been histories of Governments reign against the King or Queen ending their Imperial rule. Monarchy is a type of class system description of Imperialism(pyramid system). Imperialism doesn't have to have governments(which was Monarchy). A leader, king or queen applies all the rules. As for monarchy, the governments follow and regulate the rules.

I've seen some Americans call socialist people, communists. That is because socialists actually do communist stuff. They are mainly a mixture of capitalist and communism. This is why I say none of the other system works without socializing. You can't have a leader/the people not doing any social work. It doesn't working like that.

Corporatism = Privately own production firm takes control of the country/state(like today).



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

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



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 11:36 PM
link   
The problem with America isn't that our economy isn't regulated enough, it's that our Government and politicians aren't regulated enough.

I deeply sympathize with the ideas of Socialism and even Communism. People need to look after each other especially the poorest and sickest among them. There is no point to belonging to a community if it cannot provide the basics for you and your family if you serve the community by working for it.

However the biggest threat to democracy and the republic is corporate interests and greed. The primary reason why someone should run for a government position is so they can serve their community and country. Not to gain power or to prosper financially. I don't think the problem here in the USA is that people aren't taxed enough or that the economy isn't regulated enough... it's the allocation of such resources that is screwed up. Right now America is the most socialist it has EVER been and things are not any better.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 11:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: asmall89
The problem with America isn't that our economy isn't regulated enough, it's that our Government and politicians aren't regulated enough.

I deeply sympathize with the ideas of Socialism and even Communism. People need to look after each other especially the poorest and sickest among them. There is no point to belonging to a community if it cannot provide the basics for you and your family if you serve the community by working for it.

However the biggest threat to democracy and the republic is corporate interests and greed. The primary reason why someone should run for a government position is so they can serve their community and country. Not to gain power or to prosper financially. I don't think the problem here in the USA is that people aren't taxed enough or that the economy isn't regulated enough... it's the allocation of such resources that is screwed up. Right now America is the most socialist it has EVER been and things are not any better.


The amount of disasters America has is obviously the reason why it is turning communist(what you call socialist). Communism will have to come every then and now. You just can't stay Capitalist for ever as evil/greedy people hide things from their privately own territories. As long as no evil leader rises out of the country(dictatorship), everything will be fine. Resources on Earth isn't forever. You can't stay capitalist with technology without the ability to recover the resource or preserve your home planet. Capitalism doesn't work with mass consumption.
edit on 9-8-2015 by makemap because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 12:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: FyreByrd

None of your self-contradictory rant changes the fact that Hitler was elected.



And so was George Bush II. At least his daddy had a few smarts. George Jr - not a bit.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 12:15 AM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

I intended the last line to read "Hitler was not educated...." not "Hitler was educated". My mistake. I get a bit upset when exposed to stupidity.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 12:27 AM
link   
a reply to: makemap

We've been turning to socialism because we require less and less of a workforce to create more and more goods.

That's how simple it is.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 12:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: beezzer
And yet you ignore my premise that the only way to solve the problem is finding a way to pay for the high costs instead of finding a way to lower the costs.

Doesn't the arguement about minimum wage not working apply in that case as well?


Minimum wage is all about what the market will bear.

Artificially increase it? It'll have a negative impact on the market.



One of the problems with min wage is globalization. As long as we trade with nations that have no minimum wage we will continue to loose production jobs to cheap oversees labor.

I think we should require all of our trade partners to adopt the same min wage as the US. This will bring skilled production jobs back to the US. As it will no longer be cheaper to produce them overseas and ship them here.

No tariffs just a universal min wage. True supply and demand, with a living wage for the lowest skilled laborer.


Well that makes too much sense!
(I really do like that idea though)



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 01:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

I left the thread for the day and my thread about fixing the balance between socialism and capitalism, which is the form of government we have, turned into a debate about the worst examples of fascism in history.

Our government has turned into a facisist corpocracy. My idea of democratic social capitalism is founded on everyone having the right to vote on all law creation. A true democracy not a representative democracy.

Hitler, Stalin, Lenon were fascist who imposed laws on the people without the democratic process.

I am strongly opposed to the current power our central government has given themselves to make laws that were neither voted on by the people, nor represent the will of the people.

Which is why we need to use technology to give the power to intact new laws to the people.

We don't need government forced programs, we need socialist programs that the majority of the people agree with.

And I believe ALL social programs should have an expiration date. An expiration date does not mean that the program ends, it means that we progressively analyze social programs and adapt as we see fit.

Welfare is a good example of a program that would have been better suited to have been implemented with an expiration date. Every 20 years or so we need to reevaluate all social programs and let the people vote on how the social programs will continue, since we the people are paying for them.

Technology has given us the ability to create a true democracy. Currently we have a representative democracy that no longer represents the will of the people, and hasn't for a very long time.

Our representative democracy has been bought and paid for by corporate elitists who have turned our government into a fascist corpocracy, were all laws benefit only the elitists.

We no longer need a representative democracy. Our representatives should only be in place to make recommendations to the people they represent, with the power to intact laws being given directly to all voters.

100 years ago a representative democracy was the best form of democracy we could sustain, anything else would have sounded utopian. But with todays technology we can get red of the representative, and turn to a pure democracy.

Where the people are actually expected to take an active interest in government. Currently we have a government of secret deals that do not represent anything but greed.

And eliminate the fed and private banking.


edit on 10-8-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 01:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

A question for all of you who wish to return to the 18th century form of free market capitalism.

What will you do when your job is eliminated by technology and you are forced to complete with younger more educated individuals who obtained specialized degrees in the jobs of the future?

Will you be ready for a little socialism when your job is replaced by technology and you no longer posses a skill set useful to the corporate owners?

Or will you be ok with having nothing and no chance to compete in a fast evolving workplace environment?

Unless you are in the top 1%

All of us should understand we are only one technological advancement from unemployment.


edit on 10-8-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 04:35 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

The problem is what it always is MONEY. No matter what type of government, it needs revenue, yes?



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 04:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Azureblue

You do understand that pure democracy is mob rule? And the mob would only be a as wise and as just as it's ability to be manipulated.

You yourself admit we are being manipulated now. Running a society completely by referendum would not change that. It would only make it worse and much more erratic.



So what do you suggest to make a referendum run society work?




top topics



 
37
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join