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: 15
30
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
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.


...

Are you even reading what I'm typing? Who gives a crap if people feel "entitled" to something? In a society that produces an overabundance of everything needed for survival, it won't matter if people feel "entitled" to whatever. They'd be given access to all of those needs whether they want them or not. It would be up to them to decide to opt out or not.

And when did I say people couldn't have a value based economy as well? I even directly stated that people could spend their time creating their own businesses, goods & services. Who said that should be done away with? Perhaps you're talking about communism? But socialism & communism aren't the same, which I thought was the point of this thread.

Just to reiterate, socialism doesn't stop people from pursuing their own paths. And my automated & hyper efficient version would actually encourage it because we simply wouldn't need most of their labor to fulfill all of our needs. Or perhaps you're not realizing that needs & wants are 2 different things?




posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Wasn't it Henry Kissinger who spoke about the way to control people is to control the food supply? Ive even heard something similar attributed to one of the Krafts right after WW2. Seems risky to entrust one nation with that much power over the literal well being of other nations.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
What would you say to those who are against socialism if socialism is adopted in the US.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 10:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Wasn't it Henry Kissinger who spoke about the way to control people is to control the food supply? Ive even heard something similar attributed to one of the Krafts right after WW2. Seems risky to entrust one nation with that much power over the literal well being of other nations.


I'm not saying no one else could produce food. I'm saying no one else would have to produce food. It wouldn't be smart to place all food production in a single area anyway, because of natural disasters, crop failures, etc. Plus there are many foods that grow better in specific conditions so... ah, you get the point.

Besides, our technology & techniques are getting so efficient & productive that we simply don't need every person to work in order to meet our species' needs anymore. And this will only increase as our technology & techniques become more advanced. But instead of the ridiculous things I keep hearing like "oh noez, i'll lose my job" or "those people are unnecessary so they should be culled", we can just redirect those people: 1. to pursue their individual dreams, 2. to help the collective, or 3. to do nothing at all.
edit on 10-11-2015 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 10:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Krazysh0t
What would you say to those who are against socialism if socialism is adopted in the US.


I'm guessing the same things you'd say to people who are against capitalism while it's adopted in the US? It's not like Capitalism is a part of the US Constitution. Though "the general welfare" is, both in the Preamble and in Article I, Section 8.




posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 02:17 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Both Vietnam and Cuba both use mixed economic systems, that is the point every country does so there is no control group to state that a pure capitalist economy is better than a pure socialist economy or vice versa( using socialist in a text book definition of control of means of production rather than its more common usage of mixed social democratic economies).

For every example of a failing left wing economy there is a successful one, the Scandinavian you correctly mentioned being a good example.

Both Cuba and Vietnam have both had economic blockades inflicted on them by the US, do you not think that may at least part way contribute to the economic conditions of those countries?

As a final point, it is not that difficult to find people living in dilapidated buildings in the US.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 04:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
No one should be denied the right to life or to succeed just because they were born in the wrong skin.



That's straight up racist. The fact that you can even type those words is baffling to me...baffling.

What's the 'right' skin?

What is the 'wrong' skin?

Who is making these judgements?



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 06:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: slowisfast

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
No one should be denied the right to life or to succeed just because they were born in the wrong skin.



That's straight up racist. The fact that you can even type those words is baffling to me...baffling.

What's the 'right' skin?

What is the 'wrong' skin?

Who is making these judgements?


He's saying "wrong" from the point of view of the given system in place, not as his personal opinion. Nearly every culture still has issues with skin color, no matter how "civilized" they pretend to be. Like India & Pakistan and "fair" complexions; Southeast Asia & the obsession with bright white skin colors (especially with women), Australia & the dark skinned Aboriginals, Canada & the First Nations, Sudan and the darker skinned South Sudanese ethnic groups, Zimbabwe & white people, etc.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 06:23 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

So you would believe that socialism is constitutional?



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 06:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: enlightenedservant

So you would believe that socialism is constitutional?

Of course. Why wouldn't it be?



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 06:36 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

I give a crap about it because the current version of the old style Marxist Revolution that led to the old Soviet Bloc was the same thing - "They took our stuff!"

This is being played out again. The rich have stuff you don't. They exploited you unfairly to get it. You should have it. We need socialism to make sure it's all fair.

In your society, the same argument will play out. Who cares that we all have mass produced crap for free. It's not fair that those guys over there have really nice food/clothing/wine/art/etc. We don't. They are being unfair by not giving us any. We need socialism to make sure it's all fair.

Pretty soon the people who are making the stuff for their passion are either slaving away for the state to make stuff not for their passion but "for the people" or its illegal for them to make it unless they immediately hand it all over to the state or it's just illegal for them to make it.


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



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 06:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: enlightenedservant

So you would believe that socialism is constitutional?

Of course. Why wouldn't it be?


Because we have private property rights and eventually socialism gets around to actually confiscatory policy.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 06:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Compared to what?

Folks were working there voluntarily.


Well when it's the choice between green # or brown #, I think you just accept that you are choosing #.



Which one? A real one?


Yes. Are you aware of that book? It was an expose done by a journalist to expose the horrid working conditions in factories in many cities. He went undercover at that meat packing plant and then wrote the book based on what he saw.


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%.


Well that's because of immigration. When you have a supply shock of labor, naturally businesses can treat their workers like crap. Don't like it? Well, they'll just get someone else. Economics 101 right there.


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


So that makes it ok for there not to be safety measures in place to prevent people hacking limbs off and having them be shipped out with the meat?


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.


I'm confused here. I'm talking about Social conditions being appalling for workers caused by these monopolies and you are trying to justify it by saying, "Well SEE prices were low!" Did it occur to you that price isn't everything? I'm willing to live with higher prices if it means that workers don't have to worry about dying every time they go to work.
edit on 11-11-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 06:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
You seem to state that as a given. Who and Where?

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


Why does the living conditions of history justify terrible living conditions of the present?


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.


You haven't pitched a very convincing argument to drop labor rights though.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 06:45 AM
link   
The same question has arisen in my mind as any examples of socialism without corporate or government interference are few and far between, if there are any examples of socialism being allowed to run it's course at all.

People need to unlearn what they think they know before changes happen that allow the world to become something other than the mixed up, capitalist hell that it is.

I don't know what I speak of as the thing I refer to has never existed in the history of the world except in "forbidden history" which isn't allowed to be taught to people .

I do know that things are pretty much the same as they have always been and people really don't realize this is the case.

It's almost as if things won't be allowed to progress toward a fairer and more agony free existence.

Can't have free, happy and independent people deciding the course of their own lives now, can we?.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 06:48 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant


"The Utopian schemes of levelling, and a community of goods, are as visionary and impracticable, as those which vest all property in the Crown, are arbitrary, despotic, and in our government, unconstitutional. Now, what property can the colonists be conceived to have, if their money may be granted away by others, without their consent?"

-Samuel Adams, In a letter to Dennys De Berdt, January 12, 1768


"Hence as all history informs us, there has been in every State & Kingdom a constant kind of warfare between the governing & governed: the one striving to obtain more for its support, and the other to pay less. And this has alone occasioned great convulsions, actual civil wars, ending either in dethroning of the Princes, or enslaving of the people. Generally indeed the ruling power carries its point, the revenues of princes constantly increasing, and we see that they are never satisfied, but always in want of more. The more the people are discontented with the oppression of taxes; the greater need the prince has of money to distribute among his partizans and pay the troops that are to suppress all resistance, and enable him to plunder at pleasure. There is scarce a king in a hundred who would not, if he could, follow the example of Pharoah, get first all the peoples money, then all their lands, and then make them and their children servants for ever."

-Benjamin Franklin


That's just 2 founding fathers opinions on socialism.


Personally, I believe socialism is anti-constitutional. The Constitution limits government and addresses and recognizes the rights of the individual. Socialism limits individuality and provides for the right of government.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 06:51 AM
link   
a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

Try Jamestown. The colony originally was organized around the premise that all the goods were held in common with all having an equal share of what was available. It worked out great until everyone realized when they nearly starved to death that no one had seen fit to produce any food or similar goods to replace what everyone was eating.

So then they moved a model of if you don't work, you don't eat. This worked, but the colony wasn't thriving. Everyone did just enough to stay alive.

Then they moved a model where everyone could have their own plots of land and farm them and enjoy the benefits of whatever they produced ... What do you know? Jamestown took off and was successful after that.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 06:52 AM
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.


I'm not going to scream anything. Though I'd appreciate some data to back up your ranting.

By that same token, Anarchism is an extreme form of Libertarianism. That's why we have a political spectrum. It's a sliding scale, not a rigid set of stairs.
edit on 11-11-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 06:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Krazysh0t
What would you say to those who are against socialism if socialism is adopted in the US.


I'd ask them why they didn't like their current country. As an aside, why don't you like your current country? America has been a Socialist state since the 30's. Well Democratic Socialist.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 06:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: slowisfast

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
No one should be denied the right to life or to succeed just because they were born in the wrong skin.



That's straight up racist. The fact that you can even type those words is baffling to me...baffling.

What's the 'right' skin?

What is the 'wrong' skin?

Who is making these judgements?



What? Did you not understand the words I wrote or are you being sarcastic here? It's hard to tell on the internet sometimes.
edit on 11-11-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
30
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join