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.

 

A question for critics of Socialism

page: 10
30
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Substracto
Socialism is a step before Communism, if there's a desire to reach Communism in the first place!


So how many Socialist countries have become Communist after starting Socialist?


Socialism is a revolutionary ideology, you can creep up to to its edges with interventionist policy but, you must traverse the threshold and step wholly into the abode of totalitarianism, if not international Marxism at some point.

What people seem to be calling democratic socialism is still interventionism so, until the means of production are commandeered, you would not have socialism and could not then step either into international Marxism, national socialism or syndicalism.


This post doesn't answer the question in the post that you are quoting. Name one Socialist country that went from being Socialist to Communist. There have been plenty of Communist and Socialist countries alike. Surely there must be one if you want to maintain that Socialism leads to Communism.


The point I cut at the end addressed how asking for past examples of a trend in progress is difficult to do.

When the first socialist revolution occurred, what example did they have to point to? It's a distraction from the conversation but, I think my answer describes why I think so few free societies have flourished unmolested throughout human history.




posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Subaeruginosa




If you want my honest opinion, if your a hardcore republican and also fly the American flag in your front yard, then your in need of some serious mental health treatment. Because in reality, the American flag has always stood for progressive and socialist values.


This is simply not true.

The founders were stark individualists and this is reflected in the construction of the Constitution. Socialism is a political and economic philosophy of collectivism.


The idea of giving rights to everyone is kind of a Socialist idea.


Here is the first deviation.

True rights are not "given." They can't be because you already have them. At most, governments either protect or oppress them.


Whether the government gives the rights or acknowledges that they exist, that concept is still Socialist in nature.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Social cooperation ... great ... right up until the government comes out and compels you to cooperate with a gun. It's one thing to voluntarily collectivize, but when that collectivization is compelled it stops being "second, that the just powers of the government are derived from the consent of the people."

After all, if you are forced into the compact, how much consent have you really given?



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Substracto
Socialism is a step before Communism, if there's a desire to reach Communism in the first place!


So how many Socialist countries have become Communist after starting Socialist?


Socialism is a revolutionary ideology, you can creep up to to its edges with interventionist policy but, you must traverse the threshold and step wholly into the abode of totalitarianism, if not international Marxism at some point.

What people seem to be calling democratic socialism is still interventionism so, until the means of production are commandeered, you would not have socialism and could not then step either into international Marxism, national socialism or syndicalism.


This post doesn't answer the question in the post that you are quoting. Name one Socialist country that went from being Socialist to Communist. There have been plenty of Communist and Socialist countries alike. Surely there must be one if you want to maintain that Socialism leads to Communism.


I am saying that interventionism leads to communism or fascism and both are forms of socialism.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: stolencar18
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I could respond to your whole message but it's not needed.

The majority of people in the US will never be pro-socialism, ever. Whatever ideas you have about it won't happen. For you to say that it will, and that I'll just have to get used to it, is silly. You need to get used to how things are now and learn how to live within a system that is full of opportunity instead of wishing we had a system full of bailouts.


WHOA! I didn't say that everyone would eventually support Socialism. I just said that the many people recognize the usefulness of them so expect Socialist ideas to increase in the future. Naturally there will ALWAYS be resistance to these ideas. You can't make everyone happy.


I might remind you that being part of a majority (maybe?) on ATS doesn't mean you're part of a majority in the rest of the world. ATS, as great as this group of people is, is a very narrow bunch of people, broadly speaking. We're all "outside the box" thinkers. We wonder about what secrets the world has, and how things could be different if X, Y, or Z happened. Sadly, the majority of people aren't so much this way. The majority are content with how the system works.


I gather my opinions about the country as a whole from more places than just ATS.


I cannot disagree with this more. The people that share the workload are rewarded - a paycheck. Payment for work provided. If I invent something one day and hire 100 people to build it and market it for me and I pay them fairly I still own my business - not them. I don't care how much they do - if they do while employed by me and paid by me they do not magically become owners of my idea. That single thing right there is perhaps the biggest problem with socialism - it will drive innovation and business away, leading to huge societal problems that nobody can fix.


I disagree completely. Socialism hasn't driven innovation away from the states (our economy is higher than ever right now) and Europe is doing just fine as well. Where exactly can innovation flee to if all the richest consumers live in Socialist countries?



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Substracto
Socialism is a step before Communism, if there's a desire to reach Communism in the first place!


So how many Socialist countries have become Communist after starting Socialist?


Socialism is a revolutionary ideology, you can creep up to to its edges with interventionist policy but, you must traverse the threshold and step wholly into the abode of totalitarianism, if not international Marxism at some point.

What people seem to be calling democratic socialism is still interventionism so, until the means of production are commandeered, you would not have socialism and could not then step either into international Marxism, national socialism or syndicalism.


This post doesn't answer the question in the post that you are quoting. Name one Socialist country that went from being Socialist to Communist. There have been plenty of Communist and Socialist countries alike. Surely there must be one if you want to maintain that Socialism leads to Communism.


I am saying that interventionism leads to communism or fascism and both are forms of socialism.


And I'm telling you to prove that statement. I said in the op that Socialism is NOT communism, so if you disagree prove it. In fact that is the very reason I wrote the thread. I have a lot of respect for your opinion so it makes me irritated that you'd stoop to such a lazy arguing tactic here.

The best way to start with proving that statement is to show me when a Socialist country has become a Communist one.
edit on 10-11-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Social cooperation ... great ... right up until the government comes out and compels you to cooperate with a gun. It's one thing to voluntarily collectivize, but when that collectivization is compelled it stops being "second, that the just powers of the government are derived from the consent of the people."

After all, if you are forced into the compact, how much consent have you really given?



When has the government come up to you with a gun to cooperate? If you feel forced, renounce your citizenship and leave -- its really that simple. You and your like-minded friends can chip in and buy a large barge and "seastead" in international waters, outside the authority of any government on Earth.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Subaeruginosa




If you want my honest opinion, if your a hardcore republican and also fly the American flag in your front yard, then your in need of some serious mental health treatment. Because in reality, the American flag has always stood for progressive and socialist values.


This is simply not true.

The founders were stark individualists and this is reflected in the construction of the Constitution. Socialism is a political and economic philosophy of collectivism.


The idea of giving rights to everyone is kind of a Socialist idea.


Here is the first deviation.

True rights are not "given." They can't be because you already have them. At most, governments either protect or oppress them.


Whether the government gives the rights or acknowledges that they exist, that concept is still Socialist in nature.


Not really. Our rights are not collective. They are individual.

My right to life does not depend on you. If you and everyone else died tomorrow, I would still have my life and right to it.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Substracto
Socialism is a step before Communism, if there's a desire to reach Communism in the first place!


So how many Socialist countries have become Communist after starting Socialist?


Socialism is a revolutionary ideology, you can creep up to to its edges with interventionist policy but, you must traverse the threshold and step wholly into the abode of totalitarianism, if not international Marxism at some point.

What people seem to be calling democratic socialism is still interventionism so, until the means of production are commandeered, you would not have socialism and could not then step either into international Marxism, national socialism or syndicalism.


This post doesn't answer the question in the post that you are quoting. Name one Socialist country that went from being Socialist to Communist. There have been plenty of Communist and Socialist countries alike. Surely there must be one if you want to maintain that Socialism leads to Communism.


I am saying that interventionism leads to communism or fascism and both are forms of socialism.


And I'm telling you to prove that statement. I said in the op that Socialism is NOT communism, so if you disagree prove it. In fact that is the very reason I wrote the thread. I have a lot of respect for your opinion so it makes me irritated that you'd stoop to such a lazy arguing tactic here.


Communism is socialism, fascism is socialism. The word socialism alone, without qualification, is not enough information to isolate what flavor but, each is certainly a socialism.

What you are calling "democratic socialism" is actually socio-economic interventionism until the seizing of the means of production by the state.
edit on 10-11-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Social cooperation ... great ... right up until the government comes out and compels you to cooperate with a gun. It's one thing to voluntarily collectivize, but when that collectivization is compelled it stops being "second, that the just powers of the government are derived from the consent of the people."

After all, if you are forced into the compact, how much consent have you really given?



When has the government come up to you with a gun to cooperate? If you feel forced, renounce your citizenship and leave -- its really that simple. You and your like-minded friends can chip in and buy a large barge and "seastead" in international waters, outside the authority of any government on Earth.


Obamacare, annual taxes of many different kinds including property taxes for schools that are failing, I am told which public school I MUST use (if I don't I will be jailed for fraud; the only alternatives are private or home, not another public school), etc.

I cannot buy and drink raw milk. I cannot sell certain toys at garage sales. I might get in trouble for letting my son have a lemonade stand without license.

Should I go on?



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Communism is not Socialism. There may be Socialist elements in Communism, but it isn't Socialist. Socialism and Communism are separated by distinct ideologies no matter how you want to define Socialism. Sociologists aren't looking to enforce their will through force, but through compassion and voter will. Communism seeks to impress itself and stifle all resistance to it. Socialism doesn't permit such activities.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Subaeruginosa




If you want my honest opinion, if your a hardcore republican and also fly the American flag in your front yard, then your in need of some serious mental health treatment. Because in reality, the American flag has always stood for progressive and socialist values.


This is simply not true.

The founders were stark individualists and this is reflected in the construction of the Constitution. Socialism is a political and economic philosophy of collectivism.


The idea of giving rights to everyone is kind of a Socialist idea.


Here is the first deviation.

True rights are not "given." They can't be because you already have them. At most, governments either protect or oppress them.


Whether the government gives the rights or acknowledges that they exist, that concept is still Socialist in nature.


Not really. Our rights are not collective. They are individual.

My right to life does not depend on you. If you and everyone else died tomorrow, I would still have my life and right to it.


Your right to life only exists within a given government that you are living within or visiting. In the absence of a government, you have no right to life. After all, I can come and kill you and its not like I would be arrested for it. Heck, even within certain governments you don't have a right to life and the government can execute you are will with no questions asked.
edit on 10-11-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Wait are you saying that the big monopolies from the turn of the century were all good things and the state was actually PICKING on those poor millionaires when it broke those trusts up? Thus the history books are all lying and we shouldn't have broken those trusts up because it was anti-capitalist?


By the turn of the century the money men were already using the government, and had made the govenrment bigger and stronger to their ends.

Before the anti trusts the millionaires reduced the price of everything by at least 50% and increased the quantity available over the course of the 1800's. Rockefeller reduced the price of kerosene from $0.50 to .05 from 1865 to 1890. Vanderbilt sold steamship service so cheap that he put a government subsidized monopoly out of business and carried the mail for free. Carnegie increased steel production 10 fold and halved the price, and almost everything has steel in its production process.

The anti trust industry of the government expanded the power of the government which the cronies bought.

The result of anti trust is that a business man can be prosecuted for

charging the same price as the competition (cartelism)

charging less than the competition (under cutting)

or charging more than the competition (gouging)




Have you read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair? Do you believe that corporate owned towns are a good thing? Do you believe that workers working below even Wal-Mart wages was a good thing with no safety regulations or medical compensation when they got injured in their HIGHLY injury prone occupations? Do you think that the sweat shops in China should come stateside and be sweatshops here?


People work in the best job they can get. However bad it is, it is better than the worker's next best choice.



I ask all these questions, because each of those things are outcomes of a Libertarian society. And please don't say that the last one isn't true because China is communist. We damn well did have sweatshops in our country back before we had labor laws on the books.


Wages go up or down depending on the economy. Hours worked decreased before there were any unions. Unions took credit for a trend that had already started due to increased production and less need for labor hours to make the same amount of stuff.




posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: MotherMayEye

JFK? I was asking about actual countries or systems of working libertarian ideals/beliefs. Are there a place on Earth that has a libertarian form of government we can study?


I couldn't think of any so I thought about why. In the U.S., it's because the military industrial complex wouldn't allow it -- or that's my take anyway.





edit on 10-11-2015 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

Communism is not Socialism. There may be Socialist elements in Communism, but it isn't Socialist. Socialism and Communism are separated by distinct ideologies no matter how you want to define Socialism. Sociologists aren't looking to enforce their will through force, but through compassion and voter will. Communism seeks to impress itself and stifle all resistance to it. Socialism doesn't permit such activities.


Sociologists?

Wow, that is a dissembling I hadn't anticipated.

In my opinion, what you have just said is false.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

I'm sorry, but you aren't going to get me to side with the businessmen from the turn of the century. Their economic decisions before they created those monopolies may have been nice for the economy as a whole, but their business practices and the ways they treated their workers was just awful. There is literally no way to argue around this. Now we have regulations to prevent such abuse.
edit on 10-11-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: Krazysh0t

But then again all discussions of Libertarianism ignore that people tend to be greedy assholes and are more than willing to take advantage of the looseness of the rule of law to collect more and more power.


Without government there is no power to collect.

Money buys only influence and promises without the government to offer legal deadly force power to the money men.

Without government there is no legal deadly force anywhere at any time except in self defense.


Deadly force isn't the only way to demonstrate power you know? In fact, I'd say that wealth and money is a MUCH more powerful demonstration of power than violence is.


Demonstration isn't lethal.

Any demonstration of power from a person that causes actual damage is subject to legal action.



And that is why wealth is FAR more powerful of a tool of power than violence.


In what context?



Violence comes with restrictions,


Then so does wealth. Please state your assumptions.



plus it makes people unhappy when they are on the wrong side of it. Wealth allows the powerful to appeal to anyone's inner greed to get them to do what you want them to do. As the saying goes, "Everyone has a price."


So does fear of death. Actually fear of death is a bit more powerful. If you refuse to be socialist, you will be killed.
If you refuse influence, then you miss out on a payday.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Social cooperation ... great ... right up until the government comes out and compels you to cooperate with a gun. It's one thing to voluntarily collectivize, but when that collectivization is compelled it stops being "second, that the just powers of the government are derived from the consent of the people."

After all, if you are forced into the compact, how much consent have you really given?





When has the government come up to you with a gun to cooperate? If you feel forced, renounce your citizenship and leave -- its really that simple. You and your like-minded friends can chip in and buy a large barge and "seastead" in international waters, outside the authority of any government on Earth.


Obamacare, annual taxes of many different kinds including property taxes for schools that are failing, I am told which public school I MUST use (if I don't I will be jailed for fraud; the only alternatives are private or home, not another public school), etc.

I cannot buy and drink raw milk. I cannot sell certain toys at garage sales. I might get in trouble for letting my son have a lemonade stand without license.

Should I go on?


You still didn't address my question, have men with guns come up to you to force you do something? Have you been held at gun point by an individual when signing up for the ACA?

Have you considered getting involved in the school district or local politics to see about effecting change? Is it the schools that are failing the students or vice versa?

What happens when the man selling raw milk gets a bunch of people sick and causes a strain on the local medical services? I doubt you are prohibited from owning your own cow and drinking that milk. It would be paranoid to assume the government cares enough to spy on every cow and how its being used.

Have you considered that the toys you want to sell could be dangerous and carry with them risks that the majority of society has decided warrant a ban? Have you thought about the larger community?

You still haven't answered my question about renouncing your citizenship willingly, to show that you do NOT consent to giving the government its authority. It would seem there is a sizable minority of like-minded individuals. I would think folks like yourself could organize and form some kind of libertarian/anarchist utopia as an example of how life should be.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

Communism is not Socialism. There may be Socialist elements in Communism, but it isn't Socialist. Socialism and Communism are separated by distinct ideologies no matter how you want to define Socialism. Sociologists aren't looking to enforce their will through force, but through compassion and voter will. Communism seeks to impress itself and stifle all resistance to it. Socialism doesn't permit such activities.


Sociologists?

Wow, that is a dissembling I hadn't anticipated.

In my opinion, what you have just said is false.


Then show me an example where a Socialist country enforced its will akin to Communism.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Subaeruginosa




If you want my honest opinion, if your a hardcore republican and also fly the American flag in your front yard, then your in need of some serious mental health treatment. Because in reality, the American flag has always stood for progressive and socialist values.


This is simply not true.

The founders were stark individualists and this is reflected in the construction of the Constitution. Socialism is a political and economic philosophy of collectivism.


The idea of giving rights to everyone is kind of a Socialist idea.


Here is the first deviation.

True rights are not "given." They can't be because you already have them. At most, governments either protect or oppress them.


Whether the government gives the rights or acknowledges that they exist, that concept is still Socialist in nature.


Not really. Our rights are not collective. They are individual.

My right to life does not depend on you. If you and everyone else died tomorrow, I would still have my life and right to it.


Your right to life only exists within a given government that you are living within or visiting. In the absence of a government, you have no right to life. After all, I can come and kill you and its not like I would be arrested for it. Heck, even within certain governments you don't have a right to life and the government can execute you are will with no questions asked.


That's where the right to defense comes in. If you came to take my right to life, I have every right to defend myself. But in our scenario, you are dead, remember?

Also, re-read the part about governments oppressing rights again. That bit I believe is relevant to the second about government executions.




top topics



 
30
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join