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: 7
37
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

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


I do like that quote. Sounds like a Grandpa thing to say. They don't make Grandpas like that anymore.


All classes of people live better today that the richest man in the world lived before. Capitalism gave everyone a higher quality of life.


That is a very subjective and debatable statement. Technology and Scientific Advancement have improved many areas of our lives however an overall quality of life is questionable. Looking at it from a limited time frame or only from certain perspectives maybe but there have been many bad results along with the good ones. It has also created potential problems that we now must protect against in the future which we never had to worry about before as well. Some of which there is no coming back from at all.

Not all that advancement can be placed solely on the shoulders of Capitalism either.


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.


Capitalism is "Freedom for the Individual" perhaps. But Individual Freedom for one sometimes costs the freedom of others in the process.

I do agree that mixing regulation with free markets doesn't always work out well. It often does kill the competition and allows for monopolies to happen. However, regulation also stops the out of control actions and dangerous actions captains of industry often choose to do in their pursuit of more capital gains.




posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Yes, i think science has more do to with quality of life than capitalism can ever take credit for.

But many capitalist think the only way technology is spread is through capitalism. It's as if the communist USSR didnt have electricity or the AtomicBomb. Or Germany didn't almost outpace everyone and control the world.

Capitalism has been the best avenue for distribution of technology, but it is far from the reason that technology advances.

Technology advances because of men like Tesla. Tinkerers love to tinker.

And defining quality of life through technological advances is very subjective.


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



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Wires

Reread your own post,

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


Nazi is an abbreviation for national socialists.



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73

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.


This post was about as short and simple as it could be and states undeniable fact.

Your response is to utterly dismiss it and say that every socialist government ever was run by liars. How could you still have faith in an ideology with that kind of record?

Are there any socialisms that you think weren't run by liars?

Please stop and think for a moment, this affects us all.



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

"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.


What if what is not possible? Free markets? The right to the fruits of our labor? Stopping congress critters from making laws and regulations that benefit the few at the expense of the many? Stopping monopolies that depress competition under color of law and the force of a gun? Taking back our natural rights to the fruits of nature, such as natural plants with amazing healing properties?


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.


Exactly. That's not a free market. That's not a limited government protecting the rights of the people. That's not freedom. That's exactly what must change.


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


Rights come from nature's God and natural law... codified into our Organic Law and Constitution. Government protects and defends our rights so we can practice our rights in a free society according to the Social Contract, i.e., the consent of the governed. The founding fathers obviously thought we could do better.

edit on 8-8-2015 by Boadicea because: Formatting



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion

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


Both




posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Isurrender73

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.


This post was about as short and simple as it could be and states undeniable fact.

Your response is to utterly dismiss it and say that every socialist government ever was run by liars. How could you still have faith in an ideology with that kind of record?

Are there any socialisms that you think weren't run by liars?

Please stop and think for a moment, this affects us all.


I think every form of government, regardless of ism or democracy or republic ends in fascism.

The principals that start a government are never the principles that are in place at the end. Elitist always rise to the top and implement some form of Fascism.

My hope is that with modern technology we the people can have more control over our government. And with more transparency through technology we can prevent Elitist from taking control.

Whatever the form democracy takes, the only way to prevent facisim is socially funded elections and highly monitored and transparent government operations.

The age of secrets in government must end if we are to end facisim.

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



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Reallyfolks


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.


That's an excellent distinction to be made and kept in mind.

ALL economic systems are capitalist to the extent it is the system by which the capital -- the resources -- the goods, the products, the money, even the labor -- are owned and distributed.

The answer is to level the playing field and allow a free market to do its thing. No more corporate welfare, no more excessive regulation to eliminate the competition, whether by nickel and diming them to death or oppressive licensure laws, etc. Allow cottage industries to thrive once again. Encourage small business startups. Let people be innovative and resourceful and independent and watch us prosper and thrive!!!

I guess I can stop there. You get the point I'm sure!



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Isurrender73

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.


This post was about as short and simple as it could be and states undeniable fact.

Your response is to utterly dismiss it and say that every socialist government ever was run by liars. How could you still have faith in an ideology with that kind of record?

Are there any socialisms that you think weren't run by liars?

Please stop and think for a moment, this affects us all.


I think every form of government, regardless of ism or democracy or republic ends in fascism.

The principals that start a government are never the principles that are in place at the end. Elitist always rise to the top and implement some form of Fascism.

My hope is that with modern technology we the people can have more control over our government. And with more transparency through technology we can prevent Elitist from taking control.

Whatever the form democracy takes, the only way to prevent facisim is socially funded elections and highly monitored and transparent government operations.

The age of secrets in government must end if we are to end facisim.


I don't disagree, government can never be trusted, why do you believe that awarding government more or exclusive power will help?

Fascism really is socialism or, more accurately, syndicalism. It is not the inevitable final state of all governments.

Why aren't you a libertarian?

"If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action."

-Ludwig von Mises



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 08:25 PM
link   
The problem with socialism is when it loses its voluntary qualities.

C.S. Lewis does a good section in Mere Christianity where he addresses this. In world that operated perfectly as Christ would want it to, it would look very socialist, but it wouldn't actually be. See socialism relies on, for lack a better phrase, the point of a gun to compel all its participants now. If I don't want to take part in a societal socialist system like the public education system or Obamacare because I had my own plans in place, it's too bad. I am still compelled by law to participate, even if all I do is pay property taxes (my property being confiscated).

For a parent in the public school system (one example of a nearly 100% socialized system in the US), it gets much worse. Based solely on where you live, your school is assigned with almost no recourse if that school is a failing one. Only a few blocks may separate your child from a good or failing school. And if you fudge to get that child into a better school, you can be put in jail for it.

See what I mean about point of a gun? And there is little incentive to improve the system because the schools know they will get the children regardless of what they do. So why bother worrying about it? All the have to do is get warm bodies in the seats every morning to get the money. Hence why it's illegal to fudge your address to get your kid into that better neighborhood school.

A Christian society would not employ force. It wouldn't have to. Everyone in it would do it by choice. Their own choice, not the choice of others.

That is the big fundamental difference.

And in a society that employs force to compel what it calls "sharing" there is resentment. Not everyone is working for the common good. They are being compelled to work to service others which is a huge difference. I don't feel that I am working for the common good. I don't feel good about having my earnings confiscated to pay into a failing school system that has lost its accreditation. How is that working for anyone's good? In the more than decade I've lived here, nothing has changed, but I keep getting taxed for that failed system, so I'm forced to portion a lot of money to take my child's education into my own hands rather than leave it to that failed system.

So how is socialism working? It bleeds me dry and forces me to seek other answers anyhow.



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Isurrender73

I want to start out by saying many of the social programs in this country started out with the right mind but not enough forethought.


And many of the programs seemed to have ended up paying the administrators more than most of the donors make, and certainly more than all of the recipients get.

Ironic.



You do realize that this is a completely non-sensical statement. Meaning that it makes no coherent (or incoherent for that matter) what so ever - as a stand-alone statment or a response to the OP.

What I find appaling about this however is that so many 'members' starred a post without any meaning or sense. Is this some sort of bizarre admiration society activity - idealogs and well - you fill in the next word for the club. It's very disturbing.



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Oh yeah its a MARVELOUS idea..panampost.com...



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 09:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
Socialism doesn't account for WHERE the money comes from for all the Big Programs....the source.


If all people....all....were willing to work and contribute, it may have some validation. But, we all know that is not real life.


Yes is does - we collectivly (and I know this is what you actually don't like) pay for them through our taxes. Equatable taxes mind you (not just the middle class people paying all the taxes - but any income - to the weathly to businessnes.

And of course, the righteous conservatives and anarchist libertarinas don't want to pay their 'fair' share. In fact they want all the services (roads, water, defense, justtice - or what stands for justice, war - don't forget the almighty national security etc) without paying their share of any of it.

We had, before the constitution, a confederacy of union that provided for a very limited Federal government - that the states would support. None of the states paid what they owes and many didn't pay anything - the country could have collapsed without the Constitution ensuring the ability to tax all citizens (inidividual and corporate).

That's what you want - everything paid for by somebody else.



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: mOjOm

Hitler was "elected", wasn't he?

There's your democratic fascism.



Read a ******* history book, for ***** sake.

Hilter was a two bit house painter that became a figure head. The despair of the day in Germany due to harsh reparations from WWI (read austerity measures) lead to a climate (as we see in the US today) where any lunatic backed by the right people and propoganda could get elected and take over the republic of the time.

Hitler was educated. He wasn't stupid, but educated - no.



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Oh sure.

Come out swinging when everything else fails.

Brilliant tactic.




posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 09:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd

Hitler was educated. He wasn't stupid, but educated - no.

Huh?




posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

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



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 09:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd
That's what you want - everything paid for by somebody else.




The oppressor no longer acts directly and with his own powers upon his victim. No, our conscience has become too sensitive for that. The tyrant and his victim are still present, but there is an intermediate person between them, which is the Government - that is, the Law itself. What can be better calculated to silence our scruples, and, which is perhaps better appreciated, to overcome all resistance? We all therefore, put in our claim, under some pretext or other, and apply to Government. We say to it, " I am dissatisfied at the proportion between my labor and my enjoyments. I should like, for the sake of restoring the desired equilibrium, to take a part of the possessions of others. But this would be dangerous. Could not you facilitate the thing for me? Could you not find me a good place? or check the industry of my competitors? or, perhaps, lend me gratuitously some capital which, you may take from its possessor? Could you not bring up my children at the public expense? or grant me some prizes? or secure me a competence when I have attained my fiftieth year? By this mean I shall gain my end with an easy conscience, for the law will have acted for me, and I shall have all the advantages of plunder, without its risk or its disgrace!"

As it is certain, on the one hand, that we are all making some similar request to the Government; and as, on the other, it is proved that Government cannot satisfy one party without adding to the labor of the others, until I can obtain another definition of the word Government I feel authorized to give it my own. Who knows but it may obtain the prize?

Here it is:

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

-Frederic Bastiat


There must be some common ground for us since we seem to both agree that living off of others is bad.
edit on 8-8-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 10:01 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.


Yes, the Nazis called their party the National Socialist Workers Party, but it was not because they wanted to expound the virtues of socialism. The name was designed to attract German workers and portray themselves as a party of the people and for the people.

It was their first act in propaganda. Kind of like the "Patriot Act".

The Nazis were anti-communist. It was with the assistance of Right-wing money and influence that Hitler came to hold as much power as he did, as they had a vested interest in his plans because it stood to make them a lot of money.



n 1933, with the support of more conservative elites, Hitler became Chancellor of Germany and the Nazis gradually established a one-party state, under which Jews, political opponents and other "undesirables" elements were marginalised, with several millions eventually imprisoned and killed. Hitler purged the party’s more socially and economically radical factions in the mid-1934 Night of the Long Knives and, after the death of President Hindenburg, political power was concentrated in his hands, as Führer or "leader".


Can anyone say Auschwitz?

The Nazis used socialism as propaganda to justify their actions with a nation that was feeling the stress of uncontrolled capitalism at the hand of the Jews, or so they said. When people or groups within their party, such as Ernst Röhm, tried to push a socialist agenda, Hitler was quick to stop their actions as they were deemed a threat to the party and it's ideals.
edit on 8-8-2015 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

They were anti-communist only because communism is anti-nationalistic.

The national socialists were absolutely socialists.



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join