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: 16
30
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 06:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And it's failing, so maybe we need to go back to what it was intended to be. You could argue that we declined from our peak beginning with the social revolution of the '30s.

Btw, according to your site ... if communism and socialism are so very different, why are they both so heavily reliant on Marx with Leninist-Trotskist influences?

If they are so unrelated ... well, you would think they would have very different backbones, but they both more or less stem from Marx.
edit on 11-11-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 06:58 AM
link   
Regarding private property. How is it that one person can own property that they don't need and don't use which another person needs, such as space to grow a garden or a place to stop for the winter, and depriving the person who needs the space is somehow right?.

I think property rights in some cases are exactly the opposite of what would allow people to be more happy, healthy and free.

Property rights in many cases are there for the rich and governing powers, neither of which are required any more, contrary to what people have been led to believe.

As far as wealth goes it is pretty much the same. This person needs food and this other guy has a warehouse full of food which is deprived from the starving person. Is that somehow right?.

Somehow people get smarter and smarter ( they think they do anyway), yet things just don't improve.

Never Mind, fridge is running and beer is cold, TV is big and in front of the window so we can show off the size of the screen to people who don't give a # as they drive by in the car they can't afford, which they don't and never will truly own.

Curl up on your filthy freedom blanket and lay by your bowl of #, everything is the way it always has been.

Predictable.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Is it? Last I checked our economy was doing better than ever. Wasn't there a jobs report posted on ATS that showed that jobs are at a high?

Here it is:
Barack Obama: The jobs president that Republicans were looking for?


Btw, according to your site ... if communism and socialism are so very different, why are they both so heavily reliant on Marx with Leninist-Trotskist influences?

If they are so unrelated ... well, you would think they would have very different backbones, but they both more or less stem from Marx.


Can not two species evolve from one ancestor? I'm pretty sure that evolution looks like a tree with solitary branches branching out with many more branches. So why wouldn't political ideology not follow similar evolutionary laws?
edit on 11-11-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 06:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ketsuko

Is it? Last I checked our economy was doing better than ever. Wasn't there a jobs report posted on ATS that showed that jobs are at a high?

Here it is:
Barack Obama: The jobs president that Republicans were looking for?


Last you checked? Last you checked you were libertarian, and I'm not supposed to question that. But here you are arguing in favor of socialism.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 07:04 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

It's fine now. I've mentioned in this thread that I'm a Democratic Socialist now. I think LIbertarianism is too outdated to work in modern times. It's too pure of a system. We need to mix the best of all worlds. I don't want a pure Socialist state nor do I want a pure Libertarian state. A mix of both works GREAT!

We've been one since the 1930's. The time that conservatives often look back on as the time we were at the height of awesome (the 1940's, 1950's, and early 1960's) were all WILDLY more Socialist than we are now. The fact is that Socialist policies DON'T destroy the country.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 07:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
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.


So basically you think that because people will complain if we make changes, we should keep the system where people are complaining anyway?

Also, you keep confusing socialism & communism, which aren't the same things. In socialism, people won't be "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." Communism is the system where everything is owned by the State & people have to work for the State.

In fact, you keep deliberately ignoring the same things I've mentioned 3 or 4 times now; that most people's labor won't even be needed. How will they all be "slaves to the State" if they don't even have to work, much less work for the collective? Or did you already forget your earlier post where you said this:


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.
You know, this post. Not only are you arguing the opposite of what I keep typing, but you can't even get your own argument straight. First you say they'll basically be slobs in my socialist society, and now you claim they'll be slaves in this same system! If you're going to fearmonger about something you apparently don't understand, at least get your story straight first.


originally posted by: ketsuko

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.

So you can't even have an honest conversation? Socialism has property rights too; communism doesn't. If you can't understand even that, then what's the point in continuing this conversation?

If you think socialism is unconstitutional, then prove it by showing the part in the US Constitution that socialism defies. Because something isn't unconstitutional just because you, your chosen political leaders, or some business leaders don't like it. Something is only unconstitutional if it defies the US Constitution. So what specific part of the US Constitution does socialism defy? Which article, clause, or amendment?



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 07:47 AM
link   
Prosperity Index 2015: The world's best and worst places to live are...
Going to start with the MOST PROSPEROUS 10:

Norway has been ranked once again as the world's most prosperous country.
1. Norway
2. Switzerland
3. Denmark
4. New Zealand
4. Sweden
6. Canada
7. Australia
8. Netherlands
9. Finland
10. Ireland


Just want to leave this here for everyone.

The Prosperity Index Report for 2015 shows that the 5 countries with the highest rankings for PERSONAL FREEDOM are
1 Canada
2 New Zealand
3 Norway
4 Luxembourg
5 Iceland

For ENTREPRENEURSHIP & OPPORTUNTY
1 Sweden
2 Denmark
3 Switzerland
4 Iceland
5 Norway

Hmmmm.....

Yet, so many of you are convinced that Democratic Socialism is horrible tyranny where you'd be stripped of all your "freedoms" and "opportunities" and be enslaved.

What part of FREEDOM and OPPORTUNITY and PROSPERITY being the best in those countries do you not get?

What would it take to make you see? How are we failing at getting this lesson through to you??

le sigh

anyway - just wanted to leave this here.
edit on 11/11/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)


Here is about the Prosperity Index:

About Prosperity Index
The Prosperity Index offers a unique insight into how prosperity is forming and changing across the world. Traditionally, a nation's prosperity has been based solely on macroeconomic indicators such as a country's income, represented either by GDP or by average income per person (GDP per capita). However,

most people would agree that prosperity is more than just the accumulation of material wealth. It is also the joy of everyday life and the prospect of being able to build an even better life in the future.

The Index is distinctive in that it is the only global measurement of prosperity based on both income and wellbeing. In recent years, governments, academics, international organisations, and businesses have increasingly moved their attention towards indicators that measure wellbeing as a complement to GDP.


Get it?

NOW do you get it?

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



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Also, ladies and gents, notice that those countries listed above are NOT WARRING all over the world.

Does anyone else realize how "war" is barbaric and horrible, expensive and destructive?
Let's have a look at the military/defense budgets of those 'best places' as compared to the rest of the world (which is less prosperous):



Pale pink is the least amount of GDP spent on war.
Now, if you know your geography, you can SEE that those listed as the most prosperous countries DON'T SPEND on war the way the USA does.
(I screengrabbed and cropped to show the 2011-2015 data)

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



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 08:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ketsuko

It's fine now. I've mentioned in this thread that I'm a Democratic Socialist now. I think LIbertarianism is too outdated to work in modern times. It's too pure of a system. We need to mix the best of all worlds. I don't want a pure Socialist state nor do I want a pure Libertarian state. A mix of both works GREAT!

We've been one since the 1930's. The time that conservatives often look back on as the time we were at the height of awesome (the 1940's, 1950's, and early 1960's) were all WILDLY more Socialist than we are now. The fact is that Socialist policies DON'T destroy the country.


O.O Krazy!!!! Are my eyes deceiving me? I thought for sure that you... but the... but libertarian...


(-calm down Enlightened, stay calm, cool, & collected-)

Sorry about that. I'm just surprised that you're accepting socialism. I won't dissuade you from this path because I walk it myself. I even have nearly completed my manifestos for socialist utopias and ending world hunger (heh hehe hehehe). I also accept that a mix of socialism & capitalism is probably for the best in most social settings, especially when it comes to goods & services that aren't necessary for life (aka social "wants").

But I feel like I'd be dishonest if I didn't warn you that many people may look at you differently because of this. You're good at defending your positions though, so perhaps it won't bother you. But ironically, in real life I get into more heated conversations over being a socialist & being a vegetarian than over anything racial or religious. I'm just letting you know that because some normally rational people can start frothing at the mouth over socialism.

Just giving you a heads up. But welcome aboard. (oh & I was just in another thread where 2 other people took political placement quizzes & realized they were left wing. lol I'm convinced that people hate left wing labels but like left wing policies.)



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Thanks,

This one is interesting as well. The 2015 index of economic freedom.

www.heritage.org...

www.heritage.org...



Economic freedom is the fundamental right of every human to control his or her own labor and property. In an economically free society, individuals are free to work, produce, consume, and invest in any way they please. In economically free societies, governments allow labor, capital, and goods to move freely, and refrain from coercion or constraint of liberty beyond the extent necessary to protect and maintain liberty itself.



1 Hong Kong 89.6
2 Singapore 89.4
3 New Zealand 82.1
4 Australia 81.4
5 Switzerland 80.5
6 Canada 79.1
7 Chile 78.5
8 Estonia 76.8
9 Ireland 76.6
10 Mauritius 76.4




www.cato.org...


The Human Freedom Index presents the state of human freedom in the world based on a broad measure that encompasses personal, civil, and economic freedom. Human freedom is a social concept that recognizes the dignity of individuals and is defined here as negative liberty or the absence of coercive constraint. Because freedom is inherently valuable and plays a role in human progress, it is worth measuring carefully. The Human Freedom Index is a resource that can help to more objectively observe relationships between freedom and other social and economic phenomena, as well as the ways in which the various dimensions of freedom interact with one another.


The table is on page 20 (or 14) of this pdf:

object.cato.org...


Top 10 Freest Countries
1. Hong Kong
2. Switzerland
3. Finland
4. Denmark
5. New Zealand
6. Canada
7. Australia
8. Ireland
9. United Kingdom
10. Sweden


The Scandinavian countries score very high on personal freedom.
edit on 11-11-2015 by TheBandit795 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 08:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Also, ladies and gents, notice that those countries listed above are NOT WARRING all over the world.

Does anyone else realize how "war" is barbaric and horrible, expensive and destructive?
Let's have a look at the military/defense budgets of those 'best places' as compared to the rest of the world (which is less prosperous):



Pale pink is the least amount of GDP spent on war.
Now, if you know your geography, you can SEE that those listed as the most prosperous countries DON'T SPEND on war the way the USA does.
(I screengrabbed and cropped to show the 2011-2015 data)

Makes sense. I know I'd rather have my family & my tax dollars go towards helping poor Americans & improving America than go towards yet another war. Desalination plants, high speed rail, and a smart power grid are much better uses for our money than "inadvertently" arming ISIS & the other "rebel" groups.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't believe in Socialism or communism. Either way you are stealing from the poor and the middle class.

The bottom line is that the government is corrupt and the bigger the government, the more corruption. The idea of socialism and communism is repulsive. But even if you love the idea you have to be honest and admit that a government with that much power will steal from us.

The Republicans and Democrats are the same thing. They run the country as a corporatocracy in my opinion. Republicans steal from the poor and the middle class to give to the rich. By providing large contracts to big businesses they secure power and money for themselves.

Democrat steal from the poor and middle-class and give some of the leftovers back in the form of housing allowance or food stamps and other social programs.

But at the end of the day they both steal from the poor and the middle class. Socialism or communism would only make this problem worse.

With everything happening and going wrong in the United States everyone seems to be asking for more communism or more socialism to solve the problem. In other words they're asking for more of the problem to fix the problem. It's crazy. SMH.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

It's fine. One of my life's lessons is to not speak about two subjects in face-to-face conversations. Religion and Politics. I've found that you tend to lose friends if you ignore that rule.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheSorrow
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't believe in Socialism or communism. Either way you are stealing from the poor and the middle class.

The bottom line is that the government is corrupt and the bigger the government, the more corruption. The idea of socialism and communism is repulsive. But even if you love the idea you have to be honest and admit that a government with that much power will steal from us.

The Republicans and Democrats are the same thing. They run the country as a corporatocracy in my opinion. Republicans steal from the poor and the middle class to give to the rich. By providing large contracts to big businesses they secure power and money for themselves.

Democrat steal from the poor and middle-class and give some of the leftovers back in the form of housing allowance or food stamps and other social programs.


Well that's how taxes work. The only way to get away from taxes is to live in an anarchic state.


But at the end of the day they both steal from the poor and the middle class. Socialism or communism would only make this problem worse.

With everything happening and going wrong in the United States everyone seems to be asking for more communism or more socialism to solve the problem. In other words they're asking for more of the problem to fix the problem. It's crazy. SMH.


But our country was MORE Socialist during the decades that are widely considered America's golden years.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

So in other words countries that are predominantly white(homogeneous)? Your interpretation could differ from mine. Also those countries rely very heavily on the labors of countries who do not buy into their political system. Without those other countries the bulk of those would not be able to support their citizens but there is nothing new there. Same leftist rhetoric while spending the money of others and bemoaning capitalism while importing all of their needs /eyeroll.


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



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Those countries are not "warring" because they are incapable of it without assistance from non-socialist countries. This is apples and oranges. What does war have to do with socialism? If those countries interest were threatened you better believe they would mobilize in some fashion.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

You theory of socialism's coming dominance is reliant on technologies that are non-existant, rely on capitalist investments, and a general idealism that people would somehow no longer have irrational desires if their basic needs were met. If the last were true then how do you explain the elite? Sounds like a bunch of pie in the sky. By the way I think what you are proposing is closer to a technocracy.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
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.


In other words, you couldn't find anything in the constitution that is against socialism? And you couldn't name a single thing in the constitution that socialism defies? Socialism doesn't limit individuality, communism does. If socialism was unconstitutional, we wouldn't have Social Security.

"Unconstitutional" doesn't mean "something I disagree with", it literally means something that is against the constitution. If you can't find a clause, article, or amendment in the constitution what socialism defies, then it's not "unconstitutional".

Also, the "founding fathers" permitted slavery & treated women, black people, and Native Americans as literal second class citizens. So excuse me if I don't treat their words as Gospel. (Though to their credit, Franklin & the Adams' were mostly against slavery.)



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Lets just shrug off all of those words uttered by the founders against things like the taxation involved in a socialist system or central banking.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Lets just shrug off all of those words uttered by the founders against things like the taxation involved in a socialist system or central banking.


Words like what?



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join