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: 13
30
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

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

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
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'.



Sounds possible, a lot depending on the circumstances.

Is that as bad as all of the wars and holocausts since 1860. All of them only possible by centralization.




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

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.


You seem to state that as a given. Who and Where?

Again, compared to what? How did those people live 200 years ago?



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.


The only way workers can have rights is with sound money that does not inflate.

Socialists always rape the money, which is the reason for 100% of the poverty in the US, and in Europe too.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer
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..



Indeed.

One who is busy bailing out the failures of socialist run governments like the PIIGS.

One that relies so heavily on outsourcing its military might to the US, that to ask NATO members to shoulder the requisite 2% of GDP per year toward military spending is unthinkable.

Imagine, soon, when the US is economically forced to pull back from the rest of the world, what will happen to the member nations of the EU when they have to start spending money on their own national defense. Much of Europe's socialism is possible because they aren't spending money on their militaries, even in contravention of NATO treaty agreements.

How long do you think it will last when they finally have to use their own money to defend themselves?



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: HarryJoy
EDIT to clarify: I'm responding to this post www.abovetopsecret.com...

Actually, I'd argue for a socialist society that's the opposite of a labor intensive one. Automation and "over production" would be incredible because it would allow that society to use a menial amount of its population to serve its needs. The rest of the population could then live freely by following their dreams (while using that society's excess goods as a safety net), or focus on helping the collective advance itself.

I wrote more extensively on that vision in another thread so I won't repeat myself (here). But I actually think the increases in technology & productivity make wide-scale socialism more viable than ever. Because it finally means we can get past the primitive mindset of "work or die", when we could instead have entire states focused on one form of advancement. Like an entire State called "Exploria" which focuses on exploring our oceans, lands, and solar system. And each county or city within can be focused on a single aspect of exploration.
edit on 10-11-2015 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Epirus

That's because these men were real capitalists.

Monopolies, be they government monopolies, or corporate ones, are dangerous to liberty.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

I think you over-estimate what "following their dreams" will look like for the majority. There are quite a few people who will simply vegetate on their couches playing the latest video game.

What a worthy endeavor.




posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

If you're talking about American wars, yes.
The American Civil War was followed by the 'industrial revolution.'

The turn-of-the-century moguls (JP Morgan, Rockefeller, Rothschild, et al) exploited workers like slaves (but paid them). Child laborers working 16 hours a day, having no access to school; adults being paid pennies a day, turned out of housing, etc because they were "Irish" or "Chinese" or whatever......



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: enlightenedservant

I think you over-estimate what "following their dreams" will look like for the majority. There are quite a few people who will simply vegetate on their couches playing the latest video game.

What a worthy endeavor.


Why's that a bad thing though? In other words, who determines what "good" and "bad" dreams are, as long as people aren't harming others? Or to put it another way, why should people have to work their lives away just to survive? Especially if we have the technology to create an overabundance of supplies so their work wouldn't be needed in the first place?

Let me make an extreme hypothetical to make my point clear. I'm the leader of a small country that's so advanced we can produce enough food for 20 billion people. I make deals with other countries to store excess amounts of that food so they will always have enough food for their populations, and withing 6 months, every city in the world has safely stored foods supplies. Why would this be a bad thing?

EDIT to add: And under my hypothetical, that would allow every other nation to free up their land and resources for other uses.
edit on 10-11-2015 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I found a paper online that was from a lecture I heard.

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.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 05:06 PM
link   
I've noticed lately that when I post a reply I seem to kill the thread after a couple of post, so let me put this one to bed.
Free market economy, Boll****, Mrs Thatcher introdoced that in the Uk in the late 1970s. Ok for a start but money and therefore power generates to the more wealthy till you have underground monopolies ie. loads of companies but underneath owned by the same people. Then you get, not national concerns for the original country, but multi-national interests which can make or break ANY country. We have that now in the UK with multi-national companies, not giving a damn about the country or the people or the economy, pulling out of the UK devastating parts of the country and leaving the government to pick up the tab.
Oh, I'm digressing. It is quite academical really so no-one will change anything.
Please all of you read Animal Farm (supposed to be about communism) but it's really about real life and the one true statement made in the book you must all recite 100 times a day.
ALL MEN ARE BORN EQUAL BUT SOME ARE BORN MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.
If I have to explain that to you then????????????



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Semicollegiate

If you're talking about American wars, yes.
The American Civil War was followed by the 'industrial revolution.'


The War Between the States was NOT a Civil War. The South never tried to rule over the North. In a real civil war both sides are trying to conquer the whole nation. The real mind control is in the legion of false ideas folks get from the official histories.


“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”

― George Orwell, 1984
www.goodreads.com...





The turn-of-the-century moguls (JP Morgan, Rockefeller, Rothschild, et al) exploited workers like slaves (but paid them). Child laborers working 16 hours a day, having no access to school; adults being paid pennies a day, turned out of housing, etc because they were "Irish" or "Chinese" or whatever......


I have thought that, the Chinese got a lot of harassment in addition to the hard work. In general, new immigrants are viewed as competition for low wage jobs, which can make the wages even lower. I have heard that some men today have to pay a majority of their income to divorcees.

Common sense implies that folks take the best deal they can get. Life choices might have something to do with that.

However bad it was, not working would have been worse, or they wouldn't have done it.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

I understand your concern...that more labor intensive methods would lead to less free time. But in a properly designed system...I feel that there would be plenty of free time to pursue one's interests. I think it is reasonable to say that work time to produce only those things that were necessary and prudent would be a small fraction of the time spent laboring for all of the things that are created now. I can envision 20 hr work weeks as being more then sufficient to supply our needs as well as some luxuries. In addition I think it is reasonable to say that month long sabbaticals/vacations ( All transportation and lodging and meals provided by the system ) would be the norm. I know this sounds like a pipe dream but I feel very confident that i could outline in detail how it could be done.

One of the reasons I stressed manual labor is because I feel that our bodies were meant for physical activity. And by employing manual labor practices we could keep ourselves in prime physical condition and health. As well I feel that the further we venture from nature and our natural environment the more out of touch with these things we would become. And I see a great need for humanity to enter into an earth nurturing lifestyle that would bring us more in touch with animal and plant life. We are in my opinion stewards of these things and we need to show more compassion and concern for these other life forms.

On a side note I think it will be found that the high frequency/unnatural sounds created by modern machinery ..generates stress within the human mind just by being exposed to them. In addition to this much animal life is destroyed by modern "efficient' machines. For example I feel that 100 healthy men in a field with hand scythes could reap enough grain in a few hours to feed a thousand men for a year..and not kill animals in the process. And the men would feel good afterwards...labor is one of life's greatest blessings IMO.

I could go on and give more detail...but I have ventured far from the topic at hand.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

What happens when the technology comes crashing down?



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: HarryJoy

I guess our misunderstanding is coming over the manual labor part. With enough automation, I don't see the need for coal miners, diamond miners, sustenance farming, most forms of logging, the virtual slaves in brick making camps in India, etc. Industrialization & automation are getting to the point where human labor in those fields will be unnecessary. and just imagine how advanced technology will be 50 years from now. We may not need human labor for anything, repairs & upgraded designs included.

As for the human body needing physical movement, I agree. But that doesn't mean it has to be through physical labor. What would be wrong with having voluntary clubs for rock climbing, swimming, hiking, etc? Or martial arts societies, weight lifting or yoga societies, etc? In other words, why force people to exercise through labor when there are other options they may enjoy? Especially if we literally didn't need their labor because of automation & hyper efficient production? People could use that time for other ventures, from researching, writing, hiking, or loafing around.

And last but not least, your idea does not sound like a pipe dream! People limit themselves too much by downplaying new possibilities, which is why we keep getting stuck with the same lame insiders & the status quo. If I had the power, I'd already be starting my dream colony & putting my vision into place. Maybe I should start a GoFundMe campaign for it? lol



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: enlightenedservant

I think you over-estimate what "following their dreams" will look like for the majority. There are quite a few people who will simply vegetate on their couches playing the latest video game.

What a worthy endeavor.


Why's that a bad thing though? In other words, who determines what "good" and "bad" dreams are, as long as people aren't harming others? Or to put it another way, why should people have to work their lives away just to survive? Especially if we have the technology to create an overabundance of supplies so their work wouldn't be needed in the first place?

Let me make an extreme hypothetical to make my point clear. I'm the leader of a small country that's so advanced we can produce enough food for 20 billion people. I make deals with other countries to store excess amounts of that food so they will always have enough food for their populations, and withing 6 months, every city in the world has safely stored foods supplies. Why would this be a bad thing?

EDIT to add: And under my hypothetical, that would allow every other nation to free up their land and resources for other uses.


*shakes head* what?!?!?!



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: enlightenedservant

What happens when the technology comes crashing down?


What happens when the technology comes crashing down now? The only difference is we wouldn't have vulture capitalists & price-gouging going on to fix the problems. There would still be the need for people to work together to fix any issues, just as we do now. However, if the technology gets advanced enough, we may not even need other people to do the repairs or clean up. And the more advanced problems could have "technicians" remote in from a central location & "pilot" the repair bots through the intricate work. Then let the robots handle the basic stuff.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: BuzzyWigs


The citizens of Venezuela might disagree with you.
Like I said above, you need balance for any ism to work.
And no matter what ism you choose, the one percent still runs everything.


I completely agree that we have to have a balance, but Venezuela is a poor example to use.

Chavez was a decent president that shared oil profits with the people and provided many services the people needed. The problem they had in that country is that there were many outside forces trying to manipulate the government because they refused to go to a central banking system and would not toe the line with the oil industry. It was outside forces that tried to force a coup, only for Chavez to remain in power. It was not until Maduro took over after Chavez's death did the country start to have some real economic and political turmoil.


Isn't it interesting that the failures of left wingers are ALWAYS someone else's fault and never, ever their own policies?



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 06:18 PM
link   
I am being 100% serious when i say that I dont think there is even 1 (one) "socialist" in this thread and on a personal level there are only 100% capitalists.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Harvin

Well, you'd be wrong.
I truly am a socialist.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: BuzzyWigs


The citizens of Venezuela might disagree with you.
Like I said above, you need balance for any ism to work.
And no matter what ism you choose, the one percent still runs everything.


I completely agree that we have to have a balance, but Venezuela is a poor example to use.

Chavez was a decent president that shared oil profits with the people and provided many services the people needed. The problem they had in that country is that there were many outside forces trying to manipulate the government because they refused to go to a central banking system and would not toe the line with the oil industry. It was outside forces that tried to force a coup, only for Chavez to remain in power. It was not until Maduro took over after Chavez's death did the country start to have some real economic and political turmoil.


Isn't it interesting that the failures of left wingers are ALWAYS someone else's fault and never, ever their own policies?


That's absurd. There is plenty of blame that can be placed on the Left and their policies. I was speaking specifically about what happened in Venezuela.

What I find interesting is how people can come in to these threads and post meaningless, snide comments that do not add anything intelligent to the debate whatsoever and expect to be taken seriously.

So do you have something intelligent to add or are you just sniping?



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join