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: 24
30
<< 21  22  23    25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: NihilistSanta


You act like basic needs being met will somehow create world peace.

It will.....well, it can. If it's given a chance.

Basic social science and anthropology, psychology etc. - if people's baser needs (fundamental needs for survival) are taken care of, THEN they have the ability to eventually self-actualize.
Maslow's pyramid.
I'm pretty sure KrazySh0t posted a link to it.


edit on 11/16/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



Maslow wanted to understand what motivates people. He believed that people possess a set of motivation systems unrelated to rewards or unconscious desires.

Maslow (1943) stated that people are motivated to achieve certain needs. When one need is fulfilled a person seeks to fulfill the next one, and so on.

Maslow's heirarchy of needs


EDUCATION is the real answer.

edit on 11/16/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 10:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NihilistSanta

Do you HONESTLY think that Socialism is solely to blame for Mississippi's poor performances? Have you actually visited or lived in that state? I have and I can tell you that they have problems that need addressing that go above and beyond Socialism and Capitalism.

Also, a Socialist utopia wouldn't be one where everyone is on government assistance. A Socialist utopia would be one where all the necessities can be taken care of government, BUT very few need to use them. The idea that a Socialist utopia is one where everyone is on government assistance is a strawman invented by the right to demonize it.


Exactly. I'd even take it a few steps further and say this: In a real socialist utopia, no one would even need to use most of our government assistance programs. Those programs are literally just a strong safety net for when people are in bad financial situations. But the rest of the socialist policies would be focused on making sure no one is in a bad enough situation that they would need that help in the first place.

As an example, medical bills are one of the largest causes of personal bankruptcies in America. But if we had a strong form of universal healthcare, none of our citizens would ever go bankrupt from their medical bills. That alone would prevent many Americans from needing financial assistance, food stamps, etc.

Another example is a living wage, profit sharing, & price controls. Normally those are treated as 3 separate situations (I think), but I see them as symptoms of the same issue. Even though American wages look high on paper when compared to many other countries, that doesn't take into account our equally high cost of living. This is why some reports from this year say that up to 62% of Americans are only one paycheck away from financial disaster (as in, have no emergency savings).

But having living wages would drastically reduce this number, and would eliminate it completely in many fields (I don't know about NYC, that place is ridiculously expensive). Profit sharing is also a great way to increase the wealth & motivation of individuals workers (which should be obvious since many executives get variations of profit sharing, like bonus stock options & performance bonuses). And even limited price controls would not only ensure than citizens' purchasing power would go further, but it would prevent incidences like that "Pharma Bro's" price gouging on prescription drugs. All of these policies would create conditions that would reduce people needing to use our social safety net programs, not increase it.

And there's also the idealist reason I'm for this socialist utopia. This is something I've seen with my own eyes from my travels. To be blunt, I'm tired of meeting incredibly talented people who are stuck in dead-end jobs because they can't risk financial failure. I've met incredible musicians, singers, philosophers, business minds, etc who would possibly be "game changers" if they ever had an opportunity to try for their dreams. And I've met people with amazing inventive minds that would be incredible in a R&D lab. But our current system simply doesn't allow for any errors, and a single mistake or bad condition can ruin a person's chances. Especially if the person has kids or a medical condition. I want to undo that and I think a strong safety net would be crucial in that.



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

I understand where you are coming from however to get to the point you are talking about you have to go through all of the steps I mentioned. Centralizing power, redistribution, etc. In the mean time until this glorious place is built people need jobs. If they don't have jobs the system places them in a safety net. It becomes a cycle.

This is what happened in the above case of Mississippi. Laws were passed funding was granted all kinds of government intervention and when the businesses left it just put people into a place of dependency that has not ended. The businesses left because the money/merchant class decided to go elsewhere. Like a micro Atlas Shrugged.

I am not getting into all of the race issues with Mississippi. That would just lend more credit to my points about demographics/homogeneity/culture etc and illustrates how Americas diversity undermines itself in a socialist system.

Adding democracy to socialism just means a tyranny run by the mob which has grown used to entitlements. It does not have the benevolence that the people who use this term always imply nor does it mean the system is the right one for America.



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 10:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

How do you feel about Warren Buffet?


A Philanthropist: (legal crook).



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Conspiracy theories are damaging to government and society!!



posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 11:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: youcannotwin
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Conspiracy theories are damaging to government and society!!

Content abridged: tell the truth as one knows it to be.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 04:08 PM
link   


I have a question for critics of Socialism on ATS. Why do you think it is ok to make up things about Socialism to show your contempt for it? Namely I'm talking about expressions such as, "All Socialism leads to Communism," or, "Socialism ='s Communism." Socialism and Communism are too distinct political ideologies. Here is a site that shows the differences between Socialism and Communism.


Gee I wonder why ?

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics- Communist state.

Socialist Republic of Vietnam - Communist state.

The only people who don't understand socialism/communism is are those that push them.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96



I have a question for critics of Socialism on ATS. Why do you think it is ok to make up things about Socialism to show your contempt for it? Namely I'm talking about expressions such as, "All Socialism leads to Communism," or, "Socialism ='s Communism." Socialism and Communism are too distinct political ideologies. Here is a site that shows the differences between Socialism and Communism.


Gee I wonder why ?
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics- Communist state.
Socialist Republic of Vietnam - Communist state.
The only people who don't understand socialism/communism is are those that push them.

True; and are not successful on the world stage of those businesses regarding finance (banking) or the exportation of REAL goods and services (only cheap labor). The third world remains so because it is not smart enough to gain entry to the first.
edit on 9-12-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 08:47 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 09:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs


Socialism and Communism are not the same thing. It's very easy to discern between the two - even if one just used the ATS search function. They are not the same.



Oh but you seem to forget the main "same thing".

Massive Authoritarian policies necessary to enforce the massive bureaucracies.

The Authoritarianism leads to massive failures, especially financial.



edit on Dec-09-2015 by xuenchen because: nix



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 09:08 PM
link   

edit on 9-12-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 09:08 PM
link   

edit on 9-12-2015 by vethumanbeing because: VERY FUNNY



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 09:08 PM
link   
originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: vethumanbeing


Buzzy:Neo said this:
The only people who don't understand socialism/communism is are those that push them.
And, in response I say - NO. What he (neo) said is totally incorrect.
Socialism and Communism are not the same thing. It's very easy to discern between the two - even if one just used the ATS search function. They are not the same.

Depends upon the history re-enacted (WW2), Stalin vs Nazism or Mau Tse Tung; Emperor Hirohito. Forward the history, Pol Pot, Edi Amin, Kim Jong Ill, Rashid Assad: all crazy dictators.

Buzzy: But, sadly, neo's one of those people who won't lower himself to actually look at the facts.
(I still don't know what his thing is...what the guns and war and stuff is all about. But. Oh well.)

Neo is not understanding the basis for both dictatorial/totalitarian ruler ship (THE SAME PREMISE). We rule YOU and you oblige our whims OR ELSE. *YOU ARE SPECIAL* (know that Jesus was an Essene time traveler).
edit on 9-12-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

So you say.

I guess when half of the populace refuses to contribute, that's true.

Nevertheless, what is being proposed is not "Authoritarian" or "Dictatorial." It is COOPERATION.

I'm still optimistic, no matter what you guys think. Something needs to be done.
edit on 12/9/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 09:30 PM
link   
We don't need to coerce cooperation. People want to help each other or they don't. Those who do benefit in ways both material and emotional. No need for government overhaul.

'Mandating cooperation through government force' is a fancy way to say 'slavery.'



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 09:33 PM
link   
originally posted by: xuenchen
originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

Buzzy: Socialism and Communism are not the same thing. It's very easy to discern between the two - even if one just used the ATS search function. They are not the same.


xuenchen: Oh but you seem to forget the main "same thing".
Massive Authoritarian policies necessary to enforce the massive bureaucracies.
The Authoritarianism leads to massive failures, especially financial.

The Authority in charge needs only one thing accomplished; taking the land and the owners of such; which then become a free slave labor force. This has been the driving source of nation conquering/building for centuries by the English, Dutch, Spanish, and French (foot in the door first for the spice/precious mineral trades).
edit on 9-12-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

What is being proposed is not "FORCE."

sheesh



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

It has to be enforced though. You think people will willingly pay taxes if they are not forced to? Do you think that businesses will just decide they have earned to much money and put their own salary caps in place? Do you think environmental policies will just appear through good will?



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Neo ALSO said this:

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics- Communist state.

Socialist Republic of Vietnam - Communist state.

So what part of SOCIALIST are some people missing ?

The FACTS are both the USSR and the SVR are COMMUNIST states.



The Soviet Union was a single-party state, governed by the Communist Party with Moscow as its capital.


en.wikipedia.org...



Vietnam was then unified under a communist government but remained impoverished and politically isolated.


en.wikipedia.org...

Now explain to me if socialism and communism are 'different'.

Why they both got that SOCIALIST in their names ?



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 10:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: xuenchen

So you say.

I guess when half of the populace refuses to contribute, that's true.

Nevertheless, what is being proposed is not "Authoritarian" or "Dictatorial." It is COOPERATION.

I'm still optimistic, no matter what you guys think. Something needs to be done.


so says historical facts

not your wild hair-brained fiction

your "cooperation" is fantasy





top topics



 
30
<< 21  22  23    25  26 >>

log in

join