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: 14
30
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 06:27 PM
link   
And furthermore, I care more about the NON-human mammals on this planet than I do about the majority of humans, BECAUSE, humans are capable of caring for their entire population, but refuse.

And yet they denigrate, disrespect, and callously maim and kill other animals. Humankind is too dismissive of the sensitivity and sensibilities of other mammals.


www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Well...I don't think we're that far off from each other in many areas..and there is nothing wrong with having a variety of alternative social systems in place. The primary thing is.... by people working together for the good of the whole we could create a much better life for the whole. I think the GoFundMe thing is a good idea....for both of us. I'm sure there are plenty of people that would like both of our ideas. It would be great if the systems could be interfaced so that members could transfer from one to another....in order to find what suits them best.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Harvin
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.


(cough cough you sure you're not overlooking someone cough like me cough)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: HarryJoy

I agree. And I'm probably focusing too much on technology in the near future as opposed to the current conditions ofr most regions. Currently, we'd probably still need 20 hours or so per week of work for it to work. But I also think that with enough 3D printing, automation, and renewable energy sources, we could get to the point where most people wouldn't even need to be workers. Then they could focus on other things (or no things at all).



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

The problem I see with it is this:

People will still make stuff and make it by hand. You are thinking of the Star Trek economy, but let's be honest - stuff that is hand-made and boutique and artisan will carry a LOT of value in the kind of economy you are describing. And people will spend time making that stuff, but there will be plenty of people who will still sit on the couch and not make anything for themselves or not have the ability to make for themselves.

Then you will have the same problems of inequality. Who gets the artisan, boutique stuff? And when we sort that out, the people who don't get it, will still complain that it's not fair that they don't have any.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I don't think I know anyone that could make a circuit board at home or build a cellphone from scratch.

People in other countries with manufacturing capabilities enabled by a stable social and economic system will have vastly superior technology and run circles around the crumbling, decaying, devolving United States.

The rest of the world isn't going to stop marching forward into the future just because we do.
edit on 10-11-2015 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 07:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: enlightenedservant

The problem I see with it is this:

People will still make stuff and make it by hand. You are thinking of the Star Trek economy, but let's be honest - stuff that is hand-made and boutique and artisan will carry a LOT of value in the kind of economy you are describing. And people will spend time making that stuff, but there will be plenty of people who will still sit on the couch and not make anything for themselves or not have the ability to make for themselves.

Then you will have the same problems of inequality. Who gets the artisan, boutique stuff? And when we sort that out, the people who don't get it, will still complain that it's not fair that they don't have any.


Those aren't the same situations at all. I believe the socialist system should provide for necessities like basic shelters, food supplies, energy supplies and health care. Those are necessities. And once the society has fulfilled the needs of its citizens, it can then allocate resources to its public education systems, public transportation, and other advancements. And once those are completed & made efficient, it could allocate resources towards other advancements.

But no where in my example did I say people couldn't do things on their own. In fact, I was specifically saying that with such a small percentage of people needed for us to fulfill our "needs", people could spend the rest of their time following their dreams or helping the collective. There would literally be nothing stopping people from starting their own businesses for goods & services. And that's especially true for the people who wouldn't want to join our subject-specific collectives. Remember, I'm not the one who jumped to the conclusion that people would just sit on the couch w/all that free time (though I don't see a problem with that, either).

In fact, even in a society like modern America, I believe something similar. I think our federal & State govts should provide a strong social safety net so there is no homelessness, food insecurity or lack of healthcare. Even if the homelessness is addressed with "homeless dorms" located in each county. And even if it's just online programs, the basics of higher education should be available for free to citizens. In other words, tax dollars would make sure our "needs" are taken care of. But people would still work for or barter for their "wants".

So if you need hip surgery, it's taken care of as perk for being in our society. But if you want butt implants, you have to pay for that yourself. Food supplies for 3 basic meals are provided every day because of our ultra productive agricultural technology. But if you want steak and lobster, you have to pay for that yourself. And if you find yourself needing shelter, you can stay in a homeless dorm. If you want a 4 bedroom house, you'll have to work towards it.

Of course, in my super efficient & automated version of a socialist Utopia, we might be able to produce enough excess goods to allow even these things for free. But that will depends on how advanced technology gets.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

He's talking about the Star Trek economy where we have enough technology to more or less produce just about every basic thing we need freeing up people to follow their passions.

That is classic Trek. If you remember, people did things because they chose to. Jean Luc Picard's brother ran a vineyard and made wine for example. In such an economy, the things that could not be produced by technology were the valuable things - those were things that were the artisan, the handmade, etc.

You are looking at those things being the new economy of scale. And not everyone is going to work to produce their own artisan goods, and those who do will have things of value in the eyes of everyone else. For example, everyone can have a blanket, but not everyone will have a blanket that is handmade by someone which is where the new marker of value comes in.

And once it is sorted out how the new valuable goods are distributed, then we have the same old story of haves and have nots. Not everyone can have a personally made blanket, but everyone can have a mass-produced one, and people will say it's not fair that they don't have the former.

*EDIT* Indeed, it occurs to me we already do this without technology freeing us all. Think about it. Which is perceived as being more valuable, the box of mass produced chocolate chip cookies or the batch of homemade chocolate chip cookies someone took the time to prepare for you from scratch? Which is generally perceived as having more value and often tastes better?


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



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate


The War Between the States was NOT a Civil War.

Sorry, but yes, it was a 'civil war' - and I'm sorry that you aren't aware of that.

Perhaps you also don't know that the two "parties" (Dems and Repubs) were the "reverse" of what they are now....the platforms they upheld were OPPOSITE at that time to what they are now....

But. You go ahead.




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



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Semicollegiate


The War Between the States was NOT a Civil War.

Sorry, but yes, it was a 'civil war' - and I'm sorry that you aren't aware of that.

Perhaps you also don't know that the two "parties" (Dems and Repubs) were on opposite sides at that time than they are now....
But. You go ahead.


The South attempted to succeed from the Union. It was a CIVIL WAR.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Secede, yes.

They tried to break away.
It was definitely a 'civil war' (insofar as it was a war between factions that were both made up of people who were very much citizens of the USA)....

but - it was certainly not a 'civil' war - in that so many thousands of people died....for no real reason except exploitation and greed at the expense of others.


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



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: ketsuko

I don't think I know anyone that could make a circuit board at home or build a cellphone from scratch.

People in other countries with manufacturing capabilities enabled by a stable social and economic system will have vastly superior technology and run circles around the crumbling, decaying, devolving United States.

The rest of the world isn't going to stop marching forward into the future just because we do.


I concluded a long time ago that it's best to let people opt out of any system. If people don't want to be a part of the collective, they don't have to be. Though I didn't conclude this for patriotic or kind reasons. I realized that it's counterproductive to have dissidents in the ranks because they would only impede progress. So it's simply much better to let them go their own way. It's better to have a collective of 50,000 that believe in social progress then to have one with 100,000 people, 50,000 of which who are trying their hardest to make us revert to becoming glorified cavemen.

So with your example, I think it would be fine for the people who want to move forward to be allowed to do so and for people who want to be left behind to be left behind. Though I also think it's only fair that they let us opt out of their backwards policies too. I don't want my tax dollars going towards their primitive "society" any more than they want their tax dollars going to my socialist utopia.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:07 PM
link   
LOL!! Just an aside - I was watching the live stream of tonight's GOP debate...and it appears to have crashed.

They're supposed to talk about the 'ecomony', you know.

Or, is it just my browser?

Meh, it's back. Never mind. I encourage everyone to watch it:
www.foxbusiness.com...
edit on 11/10/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The link you provide states that communism is an extreme form of socialism, I guess socialism does equal communism. I am a critic of socialism, but I don't need to make things up to show my contempt. Socialism is bankrupting Europe, and it is well on its way to bankrupting the US. Before you scream foul, I am referring to socialist policies.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Secede, yes.

They tried to break away.
It was definitely a 'civil war' (insofar as it was a war between factions that were both made up of people who were very much citizens of the USA)....

but - it was certainly not a 'civil' war - in that so many thousands of people died....for no real reason except exploitation and greed at the expense of others.


This is the interesting thing; it was never about 'slavery' (side issue) it was pure simple politicking. Power and corruption; changing the seat of government to exist (instead of New England) within the Southern States.
edit on 10-11-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Semicollegiate


The War Between the States was NOT a Civil War.

Sorry, but yes, it was a 'civil war' - and I'm sorry that you aren't aware of that.

Perhaps you also don't know that the two "parties" (Dems and Repubs) were the "reverse" of what they are now....the platforms they upheld were OPPOSITE at that time to what they are now....

But. You go ahead.





Then the American Revolutionary War was a civil war as well.

You should call it the first American civil war.

To whom it may concern, sorry I missed the url of the paper I sited. It is

mason.gmu.edu...



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Semicollegiate


The War Between the States was NOT a Civil War.

Sorry, but yes, it was a 'civil war' - and I'm sorry that you aren't aware of that.

Perhaps you also don't know that the two "parties" (Dems and Repubs) were the "reverse" of what they are now....the platforms they upheld were OPPOSITE at that time to what they are now....

But. You go ahead.





Then the American Revolutionary War was a civil war as well.

You should call it the first American civil war.

To whom it may concern, sorry I missed the url of the paper I sited. It is


Americans Fought against ENGLAND's RULE oppression (REVOLUTIONARY) to gain our INDEPENDANCE from this rule. A Civil war is fought within the same country by its own people as a simple act of rebellion.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Yeah, still doesn't stop the problem of them feeling entitled to the stuff those who have decided not to opt out have produced.

And it doesn't stop the problem of you still having and economy of value based on the goods people who make have produced.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

You bring up a good point that has crossed my mind on a few occasions. How much technology could we retain if we had to hold ourselves to being a totally self contained renewable earth friendly infrastructure. What I mean by that is...anything that is used in the system has to be made from locally sourced materials. Could we even have electronics ? ....Not that I think electronics are necessary ...I'm just not sure how many people would be willing to live without them.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: onthedownlow
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The link you provide states that communism is an extreme form of socialism, I guess socialism does equal communism. I am a critic of socialism, but I don't need to make things up to show my contempt. Socialism is bankrupting Europe, and it is well on its way to bankrupting the US. Before you scream foul, I am referring to socialist policies.


Did you even read the rest of it? Nearly everything about them is different except that they both focus on the collective. And even that varies greatly, depending on which form of communism you're talking about.

As an example, I'm a socialist. But I'm against communism because it simply doesn't work. At best, it could be used as a very short term emergency system in order to pull a region out of a disaster. But it simply doesn't work long term because it strips people of individual possessions & freedoms.

In communism, everything is owned by the state, with things being "loaned/leased" out to specific communes/collectives. Families and neighborhoods are forced to live as "communes", which share everything (like no private kitchens & family possessions are melted down or scrapped into things the commune can use). Plus, the commune leaders decide who does what job. Commune members even have internal passports which prevent freedom of movement within the country (these are direct examples from Mao's version of communism).

Also, communist governments have a habit of both becoming true dictators (like Lenin's permanently empowered "vanguard parties") and of killing off entire social classes, specifically the upper classes & dissidents. Their view is that the classes who benefited from the former economic system reached their status by defrauding the citizens, and thus, they should be purged for their "crimes".

Socialism has none of that. And I'm literally just touching the surface of the differences. And maybe the European countries wouldn't be "going bankrupt" if they didn't have central banking & if they actually could tax the multinationals that do business in their countries.


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

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



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join