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: 6
37
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: mOjOm

Mao found that communism worked best in populations between 15,000 and 25,000 people.


And perhaps another "4 letter word" comes to mind....

kill





posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   
To me socialism is a nice way of saying I am going to take your money by force, and give to these other people because they don't have any, or because they have begged and nagged until I can't stand it any more.

Socialism assumes that wealth is a finite thing. It is not. New wealth can be created and much more money can go into the pool because it is being created, not simply printed. Socialism makes that much harder and often impossible to ever realize.

Socialism squashes opportunity to work with the promise to many, that they won't need to, by taking from the pool of those who create wealth by working, and giving it to those who don't.

That doesn't mean I think all social programs should be halted, but it is what it is.

Socialism always ends up becoming like communism, and it always uses the threat of FORCE to implement.

That to me is a 12 letter word. a real Mother f.......r to ALL



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

It is much different from big 'S' Socialism where a central planning government thinks it can control supply and demand of marketed services and products, determine the value of anyone's labor, decide what products are good or bad for the citizens, etc.



I don't think anyone in this thread who is supporting the OP is suggesting that we should be 100% socialist. 100% socialism is basically communism.

What I am suggesting is a proper mix of social programs and capitalist markets. In no way would the system that I am advocating attempt to dictate supply or price of goods.

And as long as the people have the power to choose our elected leaders, without only being able to choose from candidates whose campaign contributions come from the wealthiest in the world, then we can elect the leaders who promise the changes that we the people want.

Currently we have a two party system with lying bank and corporate employees on both sides. Which is why we need socially funded elections. Privately funded elections has priven to be a failure.



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: introvert

Mao found that communism worked best in populations between 15,000 and 25,000 people.

After he killed everyone who disagreed with him, of course.



Yes, he had some deaths attributed to his reign, but it's much more complicated than simply saying he killed those who disagreed with him. There is a lot of disinformation out there about Mao and China and one must look deeper than the soundbites and sensationalist headlines.


originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: mOjOm

Mao found that communism worked best in populations between 15,000 and 25,000 people.


And perhaps another "4 letter word" comes to mind....

kill



See above:

There are many more factors involved that killed millions of people, including a civil war, that are unfairly attributed to Mao and communism.



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

Here is the problem we currently have. More. More money, more schools, more programs and limited resources. We have basically three choices at this point. Cut spending in some areas and no one is willing to have what they support cut. Tax more and eventually people close shop, move out of the country, etc. Finally the route we have taken is borrow more. Problem is as the debt grows we have to spend more money paying the interest leaving less money for other things. People who say the debt is not that big of a deal really are lacking an understanding in the basic fact the more interest must be paid and less money is left for other things. In order for any form of socialism to be maintained then everyone must have same priorities, needs, and acceptable solution. When people are not willing to do this it must be forced. That is where the problem is with pretty much any ism. To me socialism is best served as a function of a family unit. Of course this is unacceptable to a lot of people as well. Capitalism in its current form is also not the answer where as the rich buy the influence of government as they see fit and I can promise it's not happening for the greater good. Catch 22 really you eventually run out of money in socialism, you can only squeeze people to a certain point to maximize profits in our form of capitalism. No one will ever agree on how society should function so government tries to satisfy them all. It simply cannot last regardless of the ism. It will not last. My personal opinion is what we have today will not be the same in the near future. What replaces it will be anyone's guess. Whatever replaces it though will not be voluntary for the majority and the few with the power will love it.



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73

What I am suggesting is a proper mix of social programs and capitalist markets. In no way would the system that I am advocating attempt to dictate supply or price of goods.


We already have that, but people don't realize it. Most urban areas represent small-scale socialism. If the government can maintain more pro's than con's it is successful.


And as long as the people have the power to choose our elected leaders, without only being able to choose from candidates whose campaign contributions come from the wealthiest in the world, then we can elect the leaders who promise the changes that we the people want.


That requires an informed electorate.



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, right?



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Welfare is just one social program.

I like having public programs, police, fire, parks, schools, since it would be impossible for me to fund all these programs on my own.

Why do people turn to welfare, which I agree is a failed program, and believe that is the only thing socialism has contributed to society.

Your painting socialism with the brush of welfare. Without giving credit to the good and necessary programs funded by socialism.

Should we stop providing for the elderly and disabled too? Should people who want to work and are willing to work full time need to be on welfare?

Better to create jobs then welfare, which is also a socialist idea that many socialist agree with. I don't agree with supporting the able bodied with welfare, but I do support employing them so they can earn a livable wage.
edit on 8-8-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
We were programmed during the cold war with Russia to associate socialism with communism. The "old guard" still throws around the tired, worn out propaganda.

The cold war is over!

Socialism is not communism!



I hear this a lot and it is very disheartening to know that so many people appear to be no more capable of seeing through the sophistry of socialist philosophy than they did before it caused the largest world war in history killing tens of millions.

"The sincerity of those who advocate protectionism, socialism, and communism is not here questioned. Any writer who would do that must be influenced by a political spirit or a political fear. It is to be pointed out, however, that protectionism, socialism, and communism are basically the same plant in three different stages of its growth. All that can be said is that legal plunder is more visible in communism because it is complete plunder; and in protectionism because the plunder is limited to specific groups and industries. Thus it follows that, of the three systems, socialism is the vaguest, the most indecisive, and, consequently, the most sincere stage of development.

But sincere or insincere, the intentions of persons are not here under question. In fact, I have already said that legal plunder is based partially on philanthropy, even though it is a false philanthropy.

With this explanation, let us examine the value — the origin and the tendency — of this popular aspiration which claims to accomplish the general welfare by general plunder."

-Frédéric Bastiat



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Semicollegiate


The state is made of individuals who want to keep whatever they can for themselves. Natural law.


Natural law? Kinda sorta I guess; but for governing purposes and in terms of natural rights, people have a right to the fruits of their labor to sustain and nurture and enjoy themselves. But no one has the right to take/keep so much of the earth's bounty and resources that others are left in want and misery, much less to hoard. As a protector of property rights, both real and otherwise, government has a responsibility to ensure the fairest and most equitable means of distribution.


"If wishes were horses all beggars would ride" my great grampa

What if that is not possible? You assume that it is, but it is not possible. However, it is also not necessary. Consider the Industrial Revolution. All classes of people live better today that the richest man in the world lived before. Capitalism gave everyone a higher quality of life.

Capitalism is freedom. Mega corporatism is from politics. Competition would have kept companies smaller or at least susceptible to new competitors, but politics has pushed the small businessman out of direct competition.

Less politics = more freedom and prosperity.

Government can't guarantee rights, only a free society can.



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Reallyfolks

I understand your point. But I think the financial crisis is due to the federal reserve and private fractional reserve banking.

I think if we eliminate the fed and private banking most of financial problems, privaely held debt, would be eliminated.



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

Yes it is a four letter word:


FAIL



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

The big difference between socialism and communism is that socialism is national, communism attempts to be global. In either case they fail every time they are tried.


They've all failed. We haven't yet found the correct formula of "ism" that has made it. They've all tried to accomplish the same goal more or less while fighting against the known problems that have come up in the past. They do this with different methods but they all still fail and many ways from the same root problems.


Bonus round: fascism is not an extreme of conservatism. Fascism requires a large government with intimidating military as well as control of social expression over the populace. Conservatism* advocates smaller government and freedom of expression. Progressiveness has the socially fascistic side down pat with political correctness and hate speech accusations. If anything, Anarchy is the extreme outcome of Conservatism.

*American Conservatism does, anyway (also known as Classical Liberalism). European Conservatism is close to the right-wing tyrannies I keep seeing used as examples, where the traditions of those nations would regress back to tyrannical rule by small parties of elites.


Fascism can be attributed to both Right or Left depending upon what you're talking about. It also depends upon the type of Liberal or Conservative version you're talking about as well.

You seem to be Pro-Conservative yourself by what you wrote. I don't know what form of Conservative you are or what ideals you attribute to it but you do seem to apply what you see as good ideals to it and bad ones to Progressives by default. That isn't exactly accurate though.

Anarchy is hardly the extreme form of Conservatism.



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: introvert

Can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, right?


Again, it's much more complicated than that, but I suppose it's easier to say that than actually look it to the history of it.



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Government can't guarantee rights, only a free society can.

Neither can.



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Uncontrolled capitalism will lead to fascism.

Someone like Bill Gates will invent something that everyone wants. He will invest his money by buying other businesses thus giving him the power to control the market on various commodities.

Once he has control of the commodity he will dictate both supply and price. Each time someone tries to complete he will undercut them due to his massive wealth and put them out of business. Once out of business he will raise prices to compensate for his losses.

He will continue to buy whatever commodities that he feels he can control, and eventually control the supply and price of many commodities.

This may take several or even many generations but eventually uncontrolled capitalism will lead to the majority of the world's assets in the hands of a few.

Anyone who cannot see the flaw in uncontrolled capitalism is not using foresight.
edit on 8-8-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Here's a few facts I would like to share with you kids who think socialism is a great idea:

The Nazi's called themselves Socialists
The Fascists called themselves Socialists
The Soviets called themselves Socialists
The Chinese Communists still call themselves Socialists

Be very careful what you wish for, you may get something you didn't want.



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: Isurrender73

Yes it is a four letter word:


FAIL



You must be commenting on your lack of ability to add anything of value to this thread.



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Wires

Reread your own post,

The Nazis called themselves... Wait... We're they nazis or socialist first?



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wires
Here's a few facts I would like to share with you kids who think socialism is a great idea:

The Nazi's called themselves Socialists
The Fascists called themselves Socialists
The Soviets called themselves Socialists
The Chinese Communists still call themselves Socialists

Be very careful what you wish for, you may get something you didn't want.


Liars use all kinds of terms to describe themselves. In the end the only term that fits is liars.




top topics



 
37
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join