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: 28
37
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

There's really no point in continuing down this road. I've already pointed out the fallacy in your line of argument. Yes, socialism is in the name of the party, but that does not make them socialists.

Yes, they were concerned with the environment, but that does not make them socialists. You're projecting modern politics and environmentalism to that of the 1930's and 40's. Environmentalism at it's very roots is a conservative ideology.

Can you say "conservation"?



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


Funny. History and the information available, except that from deluded right-winger blogs that cannot stomach the truth, recognize the Nazis were extreme right-wing. Look up social Darwinism.

Sadly, you cannot understand that just because the Nazis were extreme right wing, that does not de-legitimize a conservative, right wing, point of view.



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


You don't remember the Hitler quote you posted that you said, arrogantly, was proof they were socialists? You never addressed the fact that you posted known Nazi propaganda that were lies trying to prove something that was untrue.




posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 07:37 AM
link   
these name games suck; we are literally all arguing over definitions...

can someone please, REALISTICALLY, describe the implementation of your socialist ideas in america. im sorry, but i can not help but see how it would degrade into some form of authoritarianism in government or a "burn the witch" mentality in the population. mankind, and human behavior is not lovey dovey, we are violent, we are selfish, and no matter how long we deny it, it always returns. building a society around ideas of what we could be, rather than what we are, is a recipe for failure, in my opinion. also, dont think i am a capitalist, i am, admittedly an anarchist (but dear god not that childish scribbled A type of anarchist). i am not anything other than interested in your ideas. i only hope to challenge you socialists, and genuinely hope that you can challenge me.

-what is equality to you?
-how will equality be achieved?
-how would you deal with civil non-violent dissent? even if it threatens your plans?
-how would you deal with people who fundamentally will not accept it, and will fight back? will they become political prisoners? will they be killed in a war? so much for free thinking...
-would you go to war, or advocate war for these ideas?
-if you would not advocate war and force, then how do you hope to make this work? how do you bring EVERYONE under the same umbrella without using some force?
-how will you keep the ENTIRE population calm and accepting during this process?
-what to do about counter-revolutions?
-how will you meet their needs, and more importantly their wants during this transition?
-who will lead
-how will your government be structured? would it be the same as today? if not, how would it be different?
-what laws would you do away with, and what new laws would you create?
-who does the grunt work/hard labor in this socialist economy?
-what does day one look like? week one? month one? year one? etc etc
-what is socialism supposed to do for its people, and will it do it? how long will that take?
-what are YOU willing to give up for ME?


regardless of how you guys want to frame it, you are advocating a passing of huge amounts of power, culture, and influence to the state, and the only way the state has to make people behave how it wants them to behave is force, or the threat of force. please explain to me how government can make someone do what they absolutely will not do, without threatening them or forcing them? how does this not eventually degrade into weeding out the chaff, and who decides what the chaff is?

so, at the same time you want me to give up some of my individuality, my individual freedoms, my individual drive and will, AND give government (probably the single most evil entity mankind has ever created. its lies are monumental, its will to power is unavoidable, its systems of control are pervasive, and the mountains of dead are still being stacked) even more power and authority. you can mock our skepticism all you want, but do not forget that that skepticism of power was something that was fundamentally imbued into this country at its foundation. its the reason why presidents only get 2 terms, its the reason why we have 3 branches of government, and its the reason why we have the constitution, including the second amendment.
edit on 10-8-2015 by primoaurelius because: added words



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

And there is an important difference between conservation as traditionally understood and what environmentalism is now. One may have grown from the other, but the have parted ways.

Traditional conservation is best understood by looking at groups like Ducks Unlimited that do their best to buy and keep healthy wetlands and other habitat for the use and enjoyment of other people, specifically outdoors enthusiasts and hunters. To that end, they work to ensure healthy wildlife populations and habitats.

Environmentalism has gone the route that no one has the right to use or enjoy these environments and seeks to put them completely off limits so that no one can use or enjoy them and benefits they provide.

There is a huge difference.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I agree, but you're missing the point. What this person is trying to say is this:

Today we have environmentalists.

The Nazis had environmentalists.

Modern environmentalists are mostly Leftists.

Therefore the Nazis were socialists.

Do you see the fallacy and leap in logic required to believe that, despite all the evidence available that shows the Nazis were not Socialists?



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 08:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: introvert

And there is an important difference between conservation as traditionally understood and what environmentalism is now. One may have grown from the other, but the have parted ways.

Traditional conservation is best understood by looking at groups like Ducks Unlimited that do their best to buy and keep healthy wetlands and other habitat for the use and enjoyment of other people, specifically outdoors enthusiasts and hunters. To that end, they work to ensure healthy wildlife populations and habitats.

Environmentalism has gone the route that no one has the right to use or enjoy these environments and seeks to put them completely off limits so that no one can use or enjoy them and benefits they provide.

There is a huge difference.



Yes, and it is also the case that individual private property owners are far better stewards of natural resources than the state.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 08:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: ketsuko

I agree, but you're missing the point. What this person is trying to say is this:

Today we have environmentalists.

The Nazis had environmentalists.

Modern environmentalists are mostly Leftists.

Therefore the Nazis were socialists.

Do you see the fallacy and leap in logic required to believe that, despite all the evidence available that shows the Nazis were not Socialists?


I think you are unnecessarily picking an unwinnable battle attempting to disassociate national socialism from socialism.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

The rebuttals are all too familiar.

Focus on the weakest points and emphasize.

It's a good tangent, and it effectively diverts.




posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

I think you are failing to recognize the difference between a social order of people (what National Socialism actually was-Volksgemeinschaft) and an economic theory of actual socialism.

I've already refuted that argument many pages back, but we keep going in circles because some people have a politically-based agenda to attach Nazis to a Left-wing ideology.

Luckily history and facts, no matter how much the internet bloggers try to obfuscate the issue, prove that the Nazis were right-wing extremists.

Also, that fact is not indicative nor does it reflect on modern Right-wing ideologies, except in the extremes.
edit on 10-8-2015 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: greencmp

I think you are failing to recognize the difference between a social order of people (what National Socialism actually was-Volksgemeinschaft) and an economic theory of actual socialism.

I've already refuted that argument many pages back, but we keep going in circles because some people have a politically-based agenda to attach Nazis to a Left-wing ideology.

Luckily history and facts, no matter how much the internet bloggers try to obfuscate the issue, prove that the Nazis were right-wing extremists.

Also, that fact is not indicative nor does it reflect on modern Right-wing ideologies, except in the extremes.


You haven't refuted anything, your position is untenable.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 09:17 AM
link   
"You say potatoe, I say potato". I see conservative actual policies more as fascism. You see progressive actual policies as fascism.

There are successful democratic countries with generous social programs. They are nothing like the Nazi's.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3

There are successful democratic countries with generous social programs. They are nothing like the Nazi's.


But they do have creeping capitalism.




posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Commie! Commie lover!.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp



You haven't refuted anything, your position is untenable.


I have, in fact, done just that.

I've shown that the quoted speech given by Hitler in which he claims to be socialists was a well-known propaganda piece that was meant to gather socialists support, because the Nazis were having serious issues with teh socialists and workers groups. That was the "Red Bait" previously mentioned.

I've shown how Hitler had ties and was directly funded by private, conservative entities and was deeply connected to anti-socialist and anti-communists people such as J. Edgar Hoover.

And I've destroyed the absurd narrative that the Nazis were socialist because they were pro-environmental. That entire line of thinking is based on a logical fallacy, the Association fallacy, and proves absolutely nothing other than some people don't know their fallacies.

So it appears that I have done quite well in defending my position and in doing so, you guys are now sticking you fingers in your ears and saying "nuh, uh. They were to socialists".



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
Commie! Commie lover!.


lol



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Speak of the devil

Obamism and Neo-fascist America



Sheldon Richman in the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics describes Fascism as follows:



As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalistic veneer.

Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices; fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically.

Under fascism, the state, through official agencies, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans”.




Hmmm.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: primoaurelius

I call it democracy. A true democracy fueled by technology, not the current representative democracy where the politicians are bought and paid for by banking and corporate interest.

When we see a problem in society our elected representatives draft solutions. We may even find that our elected representatives don't agree and thus propose several different solutions.

Those solutions then go to a public vote. Whatever the majority believe is the best way to solve a problem is the solution we implement.

There is no such thing as equality, except in spirit.
There is no one answer that will satisfy all.
There is no reason for another civil war.
There is no reason to change how we elect representatives, except I believe we need term limits for all representatives.

The solution is to eliminate our representative government's right to intact laws without a public vote.

The only laws that should not depend on majority vote are those laws deemed civil rights. Civil rights will continue to be protected by the bill of rights protected by the foundation of a successful democracy through the ideology of a constitutional republic.

Civil laws will be determined by a non bias court of laws to prevent a theocracy from taking away civil liberties based on religious philosophy. The separation of church and state protected by a non bias judicial system.

The problem with any government is corruption. Take away the ability for a central government to enact laws without a majority vote of the citizens and you limit the corruption.

Provide full transparency in government to the people. Eliminate the possibility of closed door, secret meetings that lead to nepotism. Use technology to monitor every action of publicly elected officials, even private actions while in office.

Create a fully transparent system of government with 100% monitoring of elected officials and it may be possible to eliminate all corruption in government.

Pure democracy will not make things perfect for anyone. But pure democracy is the only way to satisfy the majority and ensure the most equitable solutions for all voters. No longer will the minority vote of elitist or any other private interest group be allowed to dictate policies. Unless those laws are deemed civil liberties, such as gay marriage. When our non biased judicial system deems something a civil liberty those laws will be added to the bill of rights.


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



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73

Those solutions then go to a public vote. Whatever the majority believe is the best way to solve a problem is the solution we implement.


The solution is to eliminate our representative government's right to intact laws without a public vote.



Kind of like a national referendum system ?

How often would those take place ?

Might not be a bad idea.




posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Who is advocating implementation of 100% socialism?

Most socialist in the USA agree with a capitalist market place.

Most socialist in the USA like the idea of limiting the power of the central government, to prevent the corruption that has become a big part of our representative democracy.

Most socialist in the USA agree that our government is out of control, and solutions need to represent the will of the majority.

Most socialist in the USA want socially funded elections to eliminate special interests dictating who has the money ro run for office. Which in turn leads to nepotism.

Most socialist in the USA agree with the founding fathers. A government of the people, by the people for the people.

A social democracy is not fascism. A social democracy represents the will of the majority without imposing laws not agreed to by the majority.

Facisim is one person or one group imposing laws on the majority without the democratic process.


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



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Isurrender73

Those solutions then go to a public vote. Whatever the majority believe is the best way to solve a problem is the solution we implement.


The solution is to eliminate our representative government's right to intact laws without a public vote.



Kind of like a national referendum system ?

How often would those take place ?

Might not be a bad idea.



I think every 4 or 5 years is fine. We can give limited control to a central government in emergency situations. But during the election cycle the laws implemented such as the Patriot Act would have to go to a public vote.

We have the technology for the first time in history to transition from representative democracy to pure democracy. We simply don't need things like the electoral college anymore.

And it is quite silly that we find ourselves stuck in such a antiquated system, that is so easily manipulated by the minority of wealthy elitist.


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



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: xuenchen

Who is advocating implementation of 100% socialism?

Most socialist in the USA agree with a capitalist market place.

Most socialist in the USA like the idea of limiting the power of the central government, to prevent the corruption that has become a big part of our representative democracy.

Most socialist in the USA agree that our government is out of control, and solutions need to represent the will of the majority.

Most socialist in the USA want socially funded elections to eliminate special interests dictating who has the money ro run for office. Which in turn leads to nepotism.

Most socialist in the USA agree with the founding fathers. A government of the people, by the people for the people.

A social democracy is not fascism. A social democracy represents the will of the majority without imposing laws not agreed to by the majority.

Facisim is one person or one group imposing laws on the majority without the democratic process.



"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."

-Alexis de Tocqueville







 
37
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join