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: 12
30
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The history available and soaked up by the normal person is slanted towards a pro govenment perspective.

I know what you mean about finding it difficult to communicate.




The history available and soaked up by myself is MUCH more extensive than the history soaked up by the average layperson. My study in history didn't start and end with high school history classes.

I wonder why, if the government is so untrustworthy (since it is subject to corruption), what makes business interests MORE trustworthy than the government?




posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Why should we have to? The country as it was founded was the place we are arguing for, not the socialist place you seem to think it ought to be. Why don't you move?

Also, it's a logical fallacy to tell me that if things have not personally happened to me, they don't happen and therefore don't exist.



Your position is similar to a person who shows up to an annual music festival that has evolved over many years, complaining it isn't what they want and demanding that it change.

The majority of the festival goers don't have a problem with the music festival, but this person insists that it ins't the same as it was 20 years ago and that it should return to how it was.

Many at this music festival like many of the changes that have come about due to modern advances in sanitation, crowd control, organized ticketing, ect.

If you don't like the festival, no one is forcing you to attend. If you think you can throw a better one, find others like yourself and go ahead -- maybe by example you can convince others that your style of festival is actually better -- it's not impossible!



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Nice analogy.
Especially since I'm a pseudo-hippy at heart and have gone to many a music festival.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You don't have to convince me of these ideals. I agree with them, I'm just laying the facts down as they stand. Rights are only special if the government is designed to allow for them. In the absences of government or in examples of tyrannical governments, rights are a fairy tale.

Just because our Constitution is setup to prevent our government from infringing on these rights doesn't mean that these rights always exist even outside of the government. Heck, I could easily go visit Somalia tomorrow and get shot and the country would likely say there is nothing that can be done. It was my fault for going there. In such an instance, my right to life didn't exist while in Somalia. Nothing exists to make sure that the perpetrator who stole my life comes to justice.


You can't approach a government and expect them to protect your rights when they don't uphold inalienable rights. You have to protect them yourself to the extent you want them protected, or, not visit countries that leave it to you to protect your right to life.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Naturally, my deciding to visit Somalia is a choice I make on my own. I have to understand the risks and decide if my goals in the country are worth it to be there.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Well Krazy....let me just say that I'm totally on board with the core principles of socialism. And as I have contemplated about how to fix the problems in society...I actually take a more radical view in some respects. I feel that a socialist system in it's purest form would be a money-less ( ALL forms of currency ) system...it is absolutely the best way to go. Now I know that I won't have very many people agree with me on this..but at least I hope they will hear me out.

I have mentioned this in various threads over the last few years...but I will say it again and it really can't be argued against. Here it goes...money/currency has NEVER actually accomplished anything. What I mean by that is this...when we see dollar bills, pesos or euros or any other form of currency doing physical or mental labor of any type...then you can say that money accomplishes things. But the reality is ...it is the mental and physical labor of men and women ( and yes children too ) that have built or created EVERYTHING that exists on this earth outside of the natural world.

Now...having said that ....I realize that within the current system money is a tremendous motivator to help people want to work.. And many people would argue that without money most of the stuff that exists would never have existed. Because people would have no incentive to do the amount of work that is being done in the world. Well I won't say that's not true...but I will say to everybody. Step back for a minute and think about how much unnecessary stuff is made everyday only because the potential to make money from it exists. The vast majority of commodities are made simply because we live in a consumption driven economy...leading to tremendous amounts of waste both of labor and materials.

Let me give a few examples of a potential currency-less society verses the current consumption driven system ( remembering a consumption driven system will only exist if currency exists ). Ok here is example 1...Let's say we have a community of 5,000 people ( just for easy figures ). In a consumption driven system let's say we have 3 people start up car manufacturing businesses....each of the companies looks at the demographics and says. Hey...we find that there are 3,000 potential car buyers within this community of 5,000 . So we are going to be optimistic ( because we know we make the best car ) and we are going to manufacture 1,500 cars. So each car manufacturer makes 1,500 cars. So we have 3 x 1,500 = 4,500. As you can see we have 1,500 cars that we don't need= wasted labor and materials. Example 2 ...let's say 5 people in the community start up bakeries...they look at the demographics and say...Hey there is the potential to sell 4,000 loaves of bread every day. So each of the 5 says Hey I think the people will like my bread the most and I'm going to make 2,000 loaves a day. 5 x 2,000 = 10,000. So again we have 6,000 loaves of bread wasted because of a consumption driven system. I'm not saying that those figures are realistic but certainly the principle of what I'm saying is irrefutable. And you can multiply that times thousands of businesses and commodities

Now what would a currency-less socialist type system look like... Ok let's take the same community of 5,000 people. we look at the demographics and we say hey we need 3,000 cars ( The system I have in mind would be very different and would probably not even have cars ) so we make 3,000 cars ( and we make everything to last because we don't have the need to sell them another one in 3 yrs )..same with the bakery we only make the food that we need and it would eliminate the huge wastage that takes place under the current system..And the ONLY reason the waste occurs is because of the existence of currency


The bottom line is..we really don't need money. Most of the money in the world really just sits in banks anyways...sitting there as "potential" only. It is quality of life that really matters and we could build a system that took care of ALL of our needs and provided us with a much better quality of life then ANYONE is currently living. The real reason I believe people want money is for one of two reasons security and/or power. A socialist system can provide the security and people that have to feel powerful or superior will have to find a new way.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: HarryJoy

Your idea sounds good on paper, but the problem is that as soon as someone starts to produce something, eventually he will produce more than he needs and start hoarding it. This creates an economy as he trades his excess with someone else's excess. Eventually trade is normalized with a third party medium (money) and we are right back where we started.

I agree that money is the root of many of our society's problems, but I'm not sure humans have the ability to live without it in a society. That is unless you could perfect the Star Trek Replicators and Holodecks.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom


Do you want to live in 1776 without electricity, cars, reliable heating, available food, safe drinking water, the internet...?


None of that was made by socialism. All of that would have been delayed, of lower quality, or not made at all under socialism.

Socialism promises a life of welfare at the cost of the next technological revolution. The Socialist 20th century cost us immortality, designer bodies, energy as cheap as water, and who knows what.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Semicollegiate
If Carnegie was a GOOD employer by comparison to other employers, then I'd argue in favor of adequate labor laws even more so than before.


Then your opinion about labor laws is based on what the people who write labors laws say.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Semicollegiate
If Carnegie was a GOOD employer by comparison to other employers, then I'd argue in favor of adequate labor laws even more so than before.


Then your opinion about labor laws is based on what the people who write labors laws say.


No my opinion on labor laws is based on the common knowledge of history of labor conditions at the turn of the 20th century. They were awful. To argue otherwise is history revisionism. The Jungle is about a meat packing plant in Chicago and has nothing to do with Carnegie.

If you think the businessmen of the early 1900's got a bad rap, then you SERIOUSLY need to prove that statement. That is contrary to mainstream history and the accounts of literally all people who lived during that time. So start posting some evidence.
edit on 10-11-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The history available and soaked up by the normal person is slanted towards a pro govenment perspective.

I know what you mean about finding it difficult to communicate.




The history available and soaked up by myself is MUCH more extensive than the history soaked up by the average layperson. My study in history didn't start and end with high school history classes.

I wonder why, if the government is so untrustworthy (since it is subject to corruption), what makes business interests MORE trustworthy than the government?


Business can offer products, but business can't force you to do anything, that is without the support of the government.

The government can force you to do anything.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The history available and soaked up by the normal person is slanted towards a pro govenment perspective.

I know what you mean about finding it difficult to communicate.




The history available and soaked up by myself is MUCH more extensive than the history soaked up by the average layperson. My study in history didn't start and end with high school history classes.

I wonder why, if the government is so untrustworthy (since it is subject to corruption), what makes business interests MORE trustworthy than the government?


Business can offer products, but business can't force you to do anything, that is without the support of the government.

The government can force you to do anything.


Businesses sure found quite a few ways to keep the average person living in squalor and without adequate support though. Though I'm beginning to think, with the way you are arguing here, that you think workers not having labor rights is a good thing.
edit on 10-11-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: HarryJoy


Ok here is example 1...Let's say we have a community of 5,000 people ( just for easy figures ). In a consumption driven system let's say we have 3 people start up car manufacturing businesses....each of the companies looks at the demographics and says. Hey...we find that there are 3,000 potential car buyers within this community of 5,000 . So we are going to be optimistic ( because we know we make the best car ) and we are going to manufacture 1,500 cars. So each car manufacturer makes 1,500 cars. So we have 3 x 1,500 = 4,500. As you can see we have 1,500 cars that we don't need= wasted labor and materials.

Ein minuten, bitte!!

Your math doesn't add up here. I think I get what you're trying to say.....
but - in a market of 5000, if 4500 cars are produced, there are 500 people who won't get cars. Don't know how you arrived at 1,500 'unneeded cars' in that math problem....



EDIT: Ooohhh, I see. You're saying that if the community only has 3,000 people who would buy cars this would be the surplus. I get it.

So ------- applying your same reasoning to 5,000 potential BUYERS of cars.... only 4,500 being produced....the price will obviously go up.




edit on 11/10/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Without currency...I really don't see any set of circumstances that would provide the incentive for a person to make more of anything then what is needed. But...i do realize that we are a long way from being able to convert the present system to money-less. But we could create a sub-system that would be money-less and would only have industries related to " necessities". As you can see I have a hard time letting go of ideals....
edit on 10-11-2015 by HarryJoy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: HarryJoy

Creating surplus is something that happens through natural means. It really isn't done on purpose. The more efficient the means of production, the more likely that surplus will be generated. That was how money was created originally. As agricultural techniques improved, it allowed for surpluses of crops to be created, which in turn spurred trade. As trade evolved over time, it became easier to use a substitute for the trade (money) and then eventually we got to where we are today.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn




In many cases in EU nations this is perfectly fine. But a nation that is actually a Federation of 50 economies



But the EU is a federation of economies too..




posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Semicollegiate
If Carnegie was a GOOD employer by comparison to other employers, then I'd argue in favor of adequate labor laws even more so than before.


Then your opinion about labor laws is based on what the people who write labors laws say.


No my opinion on labor laws is based on the common knowledge of history of labor conditions at the turn of the 20th century. They were awful.


Compared to what?

Folks were working there voluntarily.




To argue otherwise is history revisionism. The Jungle is about a meat packing plant in Chicago and has nothing to do with Carnegie.


Which one? A real one?




If you think the businessmen of the early 1900's got a bad rap, then you SERIOUSLY need to prove that statement. That is contrary to mainstream history and the accounts of literally all people who lived during that time. So start posting some evidence.


I have heard lectures, I'll have to find the specific statements.

In general, when did any businesses charge high prices because there was no competition? Never happened, and that is the go to accusation in favor of trust busting.

The population doubled from 1800 to 1900, and the population in cities increased 500%.


In 1800, only 3 percent of the world's population lived in urban areas. By 1900, almost 14 percent were urbanites, although only 12 cities had 1 million or more inhabitants.
www.prb.org...


Those meat packers were moving a lot of product to keep up with that.

ETA Here is some of the lecture about the origins of the Sherman Anti Trust Act of 1890

The monopoly crime can be either to raise prices outright or to cut production. Cutting production raises prices by reducing demand.

In the industries that were accused of cutting production, production increased by more than 100%







The other monopoly crime is to raise prices directly. In the "monopolized" industries, prices fell faster than the consumer price index -- which itself fell by 7% as the economy grew by 3% per year.






We got anti trust price hikes because of the democratic process.

Democracy should be a veto rather than a policy creator. No one knows what the side effects of policies will be.

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



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Hey, have you ever seen the movie "Far and Away"?

Or read any Bill Bryson books? Especially "At Home", which talks all about how the turn of the 20th century (+/- a couple of decades) was run by ruthless entrepreneurs, and the labor was done by peons (like Irish immigrants while the railroads were built, etc).....

just curious if you have any knowledge of that version of 'exploitative capitalist history'.


edit on 11/10/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I agree that more efficient processes can lead to excess production...But I wouldn't call it natural. Nevertheless it is only a simple matter of governmental regulation to cure that problem. I suppose I am stepping closer to what would be termed communism to say that. But the bottom line is...if people are not smart enough to stop the waste on there own or too greedy to want to. Then they need to be regulated. And if Government doesn't stop them the Earth will.

Having said that...the correct type of socialist system would employ whatever type of production means that were fitting for production quotas ( I am approaching this from a clean slate perspective ). For example I think it would be highly advantageous to go back to more labor intensive production means in many areas. Since there are so many unemployed people...it only makes since to go back to manual processes. We have to realize that as a nation we have slid past homeplate...so to speak and we need to get up and get back to it...before we get tagged out. A little off topic here but I'm convinced that God/Universal wisdom uses mysterious and unexpected ways to communicate truth...And I feel lyrics of contemporary music is one of those ways. And the lyrics that come to mind right now are from the song ..Year of the Cat....by Al Stewart.. Remember the first line of that song. On a morning from a Bogart movie "IN A COUNTRY WHERE THEY TURN BACK TIME " It has great significance....



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 03:58 PM
link   
"The government which governs best governs least"

Smart guy said that and he was just as right today as he was when he said it.
This is all about modes of thinking or perceptions.

In a society dominated by a method of thinking some paths are more acceptable than others. Meaning in a Socialist society the ground work has been laid for an evolution to communism. The concepts that society is the source of rights and that because of that society has a claim on a portion of your life and property are fundamental to socialist. Expounding on that concept the only difference between a socialist and a communist is the percentage of that claim.

In a society dominated by libertarian thought the groundwork may in fact be laid for a minimalist society because the frame of reference is completely out of phase with authoritarian philosophies. In libertarian thought society has no claim on my life, liberty or property.

One other misconception. The expansion spoken of in a capitalist society is an expansion of the the economy, it is not by definition an expansion of territory in a predatory fashion.

One thing to keep in mind in all of these systems that rely on control the individual is forced to give up some measure of liberty.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join