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: 2
30
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn



But that is not an argument for abrogating personal property rights


That is not what is being said whatsoever. Personal property rights are not in danger from socialist policies. Look again at what Paine said.


and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came.


The wealth and well-being of the individual is reliant on the social collective. Without one, you cannot have the other. All socialism does is take the collective wealth of the people, in the form of minimal taxation, and provides services that benefit the common good. The Founders knew this and allowed for that taxation to take place. Our current problem is what we spend that tax money on.




posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Socialism is just like every other ism. To much of it is a bad thing.
There needs to be a balance of capitalism and socialism. Some social programs are required to keep the people healthy.


Yeah, everything you say is so true.

A truly perfect country would be democratic, yet with a perfect even dose of socialism and capitalism.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn



It isn't that socialism is necessarily a bad thing. It is that socialists are typically elitist politicians who expect everyone to conform to their notions of economic and social equality without care for the individual.


But isn't this what we already have? Isn't this what most of the world has already as well? Most politicians are elitist regardless of what country or political ideology that claim to hold.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Taxes are neither a socialist idea or a new idea.

We all know that in order to provide for the common defense of the people, to build public infrastructure, and to ensure the laws of the land are executed, money is required.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

But you are missing the core of what I am saying here. The idea that all people should have the same benefits and rights is Socialist in nature. It is providing a benefit to the entire population instead of just a select few. Now the way the US Constitution does it certainly IS great. Limiting the role of government as a end around to confer rights on the population is a rather smart way of doing it, but the end result is still the same. Socialism. Everyone starts off on the same level and works from there.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1




But isn't this what we already have? Isn't this what most of the world has already as well? Most politicians are elitist regardless of what country or political ideology that claim to hold.


It is. It isn't working so well is it?

I suppose the "stick to the devil you know" mentality applies here.



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

But not everyone starts on the same level.

The role of the federal government was never to try and equalize economic conditions at ANY stage of life.
Nor should it be.

The only thing they have in common is equal protection under the law. That's it.



Socialism tries to do that at all stages of life, and runs out of money, more often than not.
edit on -06:00Tue, 10 Nov 2015 08:19:59 -0600201510America/Chicago2015-11-10T08:19:59-06:0030vx11 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

edit on -06:00Tue, 10 Nov 2015 08:20:10 -0600201510America/Chicago2015-11-10T08:20:10-06:0030vx11 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:22 AM
link   

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.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: introvert

We all know that in order to provide for the common defense of the people, to build public infrastructure, and to ensure the laws of the land are executed, money is required.



That is rooted in the most basic principles of socialism.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Krazysh0t

But not everyone starts on the same level.


Yes they do. I know that economic inheritance can give you an edge, but no one is limited from anything based on birth. We don't have official classes. We are trying to eliminate racial barriers. Gender barriers are being minimized. Even sexuality barriers are coming down now. All of these movements confer the underlying idea of Socialism. No one should be denied the right to life or to succeed just because they were born in the wrong skin.


The role of the federal government was never to try and equalize economic conditions at ANY stage of life.

Nor should it be.


It's not JUST about economics here. Economics is a large part, but you can't work on equalizing economics if the group of people can't even ACCESS the same things as other groups of people.


Socialism tries to do that at all stages of life, and runs out of money, more often than not.


How so? Socialist countries in Europe aren't going bankrupt right now. Clearly they've figured out something that works.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Why do you think it is ok to make up things about Socialism to show your contempt for it?

For reasons that you hint at, many don't understand Socialism. Additionally the MSM has done one heck of a job in negatively stereotyping Socialism.

My biggest issue with Socialism is that you must have a closed system that does not allow for external influences to have a voice, eitherwise it will just be like the system we have today.

However, I have had a thought that creeps in the old noggin every once in a while that a quasi-virtual socialist system could be started via a co-op corporation to set an example of what a socialist society could look like. For example , there is nothing preventing a group of socialist to start a co-op company where all the profits , control, and assets are shared among its people.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Yes they do. I know that economic inheritance can give you an edge, but no one is limited from anything based on birth. We don't have official classes. We are trying to eliminate racial barriers. Gender barriers are being minimized. Even sexuality barriers are coming down now. All of these movements confer the underlying idea of Socialism. No one should be denied the right to life or to succeed just because they were born in the wrong skin.


Socialism


a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.


I think many "socialists" also have a hard time understanding what they are talking about with regard to socialism.




It's not JUST about economics here.



Yes it is.



How so? Socialist countries in Europe aren't going bankrupt right now. Clearly they've figured out something that works.


PIIGS



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: interupt42

My biggest issue with Socialism is that you must have a closed system that does not allow for external influences to have a voice, eitherwise it will just be like the system we have today.


This is a fair point. I can understand having reservations about this. Creating a closed system requires government control (you border on actually becoming Communist) and isn't something that Socialism wants to aspire to. It's like a catch-22. But then again, nothing is perfect. This is why I like Democractic Socialism though. The conservative voices keep us from going to far in the wrong direction, plus it allows everyone to succeed.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:34 AM
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.



Oh come now!
His economy was faltering within five years of his changes and over spending. He just died before the bottom completely fell out.
He also jailed political opponents, unlike a good president.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:35 AM
link   
originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Krazysh0t

From your quote:


a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.



I think many "socialists" also have a hard time understanding what they are talking about with regard to socialism.


Did you read the full quote of what you linked? Even your definition says that Socialism applies to more than just economics. Do you think that conferring rights to everyone isn't a political idea?

As for your point about the PIIGS nations, I can only say that Socialism isn't perfect. It is possible to fail at it, plus the system is only as good as the people that make it up. Humans ARE still governed by the laws of natural selection and government evolution acts no differently than any other system that follows evolutionary patterns.

I mean I can just as easily point to countries like Somalia as failed anarchy states or the original Articles of the Constitution as a failed Libertarian state.
edit on 10-11-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

It is always the argument that the socialist societies that routinely fail to not be a "Good example" or that it was some foreign influence and caused it to happen, rather than the policies the socialists made.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You're missing the point Let's quote that again:




a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole
.


The conference of rights may be generally viewed as a political idea. HOWEVER, there is nothing in the book definition of socialism that makes that connection.

Economic activity is therefore the central and only real tenet of socialist political philosophy. In that regard government, and by extension the political ruling class, exists only to control economic activity.
edit on -06:00Tue, 10 Nov 2015 08:41:01 -0600201510America/Chicago2015-11-10T08:41:01-06:0030vx11 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

and there are a handful of corporations that do just that. My brother worked for one, and at the end of the year EVERY EMPLOYEE, from the top salesmen to the lowliest secretary, received an EQUAL bonus. That pissed off my brother. Nevermind that the secretary's job is just as crucial to the smooth operation of the company as the salesmen are.

In any case, there are other companies that do that - and when pensions existed, and 'stocks' were held by the employees and not just some quick-fingered investor who relies on others to handle his gambling for him and is free to 'dump' that stock, employees were far more vested, and invested, in seeing the company succeed than they are now.

Socialism as Sanders presents it (and the Scandinavian countries practice it) does not mean what Communism means.
It is simply an extension of what we already have - fire depts, police, highways, public schools, social security, medicaid/medicare - but in a more structured way that LIMITS the amount the CEOs can 'earn' while the front-liners are assured the necessary rewards that help us ALL -
education, health care, security, and ALSO freedom to choose one's career path AND the ability to own personal property.

It's just that no one falls through the cracks, and everyone pitches in toward it without bitching about it.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Socialism/Communism/Collectivism is compulsory. Do you plan to start from scratch? Otherwise you are going to have to literally take from people to equitably redistribute wealth and property to achieve those ends. Capitalist societies based on individualism allows for the most opportunity for upward mobility and therefore is embraced more readily.

The state has to be empowered in order to achieve the redistribution. That same apparatus has historically been used to oppress its people. Collectivism is really based in tribalism without the hierarchy. This works well in say a country like Denmark or Sweden with low (10 million or so) populations of homogeneous peoples and culture. When you try to impose this system on a diverse nation of say 350 million or so you are going to piss off a lot of people.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

As a Venezuelan I must say you should not speak about what you don't know nothing




top topics



 
30
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join