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: 3
30
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

There is a lot more context to the situation that you did not include. Outside forces were trying to sabotage the economy in order to precipitate the coup. It almost worked but they were able to keep things together. When the "bottom fell out" it was because Maduro had stopped vital programs that not only helped the people with basic needs, but also employment.

Also, those jailed "political opponents" were not just people that disagreed with Chavez. They were individuals that were found to have ties with or working for those outside forces I mentioned. Some of them were connected with the CIA as well.

So, like I said. The situation in Venezuela is quite complex and not a good example.




posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Well yes, "community as a whole" tells me that everyone in a society gets these benefits. So naturally they should all have the same rights. How can a slave be considered part of the community as a whole if he doesn't have the ability to speak up about the means of production, distribution, and exchange? The very BUILDING of a "community as a whole" requires that everyone has the same rights.



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

originally posted by: Indigent
a reply to: introvert

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


Please correct me where I may be wrong. I feel I have a pretty decent understanding about what happened in Venezuela, but am open to being educated.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Is that what it tells you?

To me, it just means the Administering body i.e. Government, simply owns every aspect of economic activity.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I guess that since I don't equate the two, you don't want my opinion?

Meh, I'll give it anyhow, short and sweet: I don't like Socialism because I don't think people have a right to the fruits of other people's labor, nor should they be forced to work for the benefit of others.

Helping out one's neighbors and the less fortunate should be the choice of the individual--at least in a free state. While America isn't a free state under that viewpoint, it's a lot more free than if it were purely Socialist.

I adore helping out my fellow man, but when it's my money taken by force and then given to things with which I may disagree, that's where the taste of things start souring for me.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
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.


But every government in existence has to tax its citizenry to survive. Even Libertarian governments have to give out taxes. Our Founding Fathers recognized the necessity of taxes. They wrote the ability to do so into the Constitution. So to speak ill of Socialism because you view taxes as theft is dishonest unless you are advocating living in a society of anarchy.


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.


I think it is the height of fear of the unknown that would compel someone to say that there is a magical size of the population that would cause Socialism to not work. Are you aware that the majority of the people that are against Socialism in this country are homogenous in nature, while all the ones who appear to support it are of different ethnicities? So if what you said is true, why is that the case?



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

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Is that what it tells you?

To me, it just means the Administering body i.e. Government, simply owns every aspect of economic activity.


Well do you honestly think that a deep political ideology like Socialism would be so simple? Why is Thomas Paine considered to be a Founding Father? If you can argue that Paine had influence over the ideals of our other Founding Fathers then it reasons that there MUST be elements of Socialism in our Constitution.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: NihilistSanta

The problem with a strictly capitalist system is that it is entirely dependent on perpetual growth. That is the only way it can sustain that "upward mobility". Once growth slows or stalls, wealth begins to trickle-up to those that have the most resources and you begin to have more and more people become impoverished.

What cure does a capitalist system have to take care of those that have been screwed by the capitalist system? Capitalism does not have a safety net for the poor. Capitalism is a "every man for himself" ideology. So no matter what, Capitalism funnels money to those in power and with wealth and drains the resources from everyone else.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigent
a reply to: introvert

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



Tell us about it please. From somebody that had actual experience. It would be much appreciated.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn



To me, it just means the Administering body i.e. Government, simply owns every aspect of economic activity.



That's communism, not simple socialism.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

As I told another poster, every government imposes taxes. Even the most Libertarian government you can think of imposes taxes. Our Constitution DEFINITELY allows the government to impose taxes. Having a problem with Socialism because you view taxes as stealing is dishonest. You should really just have a problem with government in total then. The only government that can survive without taxes is no-government. IE anarchy.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Taxes are necessary for any government that is correct. Your point? You are trying to muddy things here. The US has a smaller tax rate than Scandinavian countries and it is obvious by the amount of opulence and opportunity.

As for your attempt to turn the tables in regards to population. Yes the homogeneous resistance you point out is true but that is because they will be the ones paying the bulk of the taxes so its no surprise to me that large swathes of non-native and minority supporters of a system of entitlements should arise. It doesn't mean that the system will work.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Indigent
a reply to: introvert

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


Please correct me where I may be wrong. I feel I have a pretty decent understanding about what happened in Venezuela, but am open to being educated.


If you like documentaries have a look for Ross Kemp's Extreme World (Veneuela episode)...
Very non partisan.

It explains outside interference that you mentioned, but also inner turmoil where some communities didn't feel the benefits of the full on socialistic appliance.

Great documentary series all round, but the Venezuela episode is good for this subject.


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

edit on 10-11-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: Spelling, communities & the fixed. Noted.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

What resources from everyone else? You mean the welfare supporters with no resources? Socialism is the funnel by its very nature.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Here is why people see no distinction between communism and socialism. Communist movements were propped up by socialist. Its that simple. They are hand in glove no matter how much historical revisionism you apply to it.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Taxes are necessary for any government that is correct. Your point? You are trying to muddy things here. The US has a smaller tax rate than Scandinavian countries and it is obvious by the amount of opulence and opportunity.


I would use the word "different" and not "smaller". Comparing our tax code to another country and using a comparison word like "smaller" or "larger" to describe the differences between our tax systems cannot adequately explain the differences.


As for your attempt to turn the tables in regards to population. Yes the homogeneous resistance you point out is true but that is because they will be the ones paying the bulk of the taxes so its no surprise to me that large swathes of non-native and minority supporters of a system of entitlements should arise. It doesn't mean that the system will work.



Are you suggesting that minorities pay less taxes than the white conservative base? Are you sure about this? Like do you have any data to back those claims up? Because frankly I find it unbelievable that the homogenous group of people who dislike Socialism are responsible for more taxes paid than the minorities that support it.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
Here is why people see no distinction between communism and socialism. Communist movements were propped up by socialist. Its that simple. They are hand in glove no matter how much historical revisionism you apply to it.


Ok, if you think that is a fair comparison then Libertarianism is really anarchy.
edit on 10-11-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: projectvxn



To me, it just means the Administering body i.e. Government, simply owns every aspect of economic activity.



That's communism, not simple socialism.


Argue that with a dictionary.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




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.


The problem with Democractic Socialism with how our system is setup is that it will be bastardized before it even gets of the ground. There are to many Oligopolies that have spend billions to setup the system the way it is , hence while the system is broken for us tax payers it is working awesomely for them with record profits.

Society nor our current system is equipped to handle socialism. However, if you fix the system and remove all external sources and truly create a capitalist society based on true competition that might give socialism a run for its money.

I'm not against socialist views but I also don't think one system fits all ,is the best way to go. Certain non essential industries should be capitalist while certain essential industries should be socialist like healthcare and education.

The problem I see with a capitalist healthcare system is that there are numerous conflict of interest for a private company to provide the best healthcare possible to the individuals. We see this today we have the most capitalist healthcare system in the world, yet we are not ranked at the top of the list when it comes to healthcare. I also see it as a oxymoron to call our nation a superpower among the 1st world nations when our people can't get the healthcare they need without paying up and often loosing everything they worked for in order to get procedures done.

So the problem is that even democratic socialism won't work and has been proven to not work in the way the system is setup, because of the monetary influences.

Obamacare for example. That system was designed by the Healthcare Oligopolies to make themselve money versus really providing coverage to the American people.

3 largest healthcare insurance provider after Obamacare:


Its not that I won't listen to different political models or I'm against them, its that until we fix the 1 issue in DC of monetary influences over congress , every system implemented will be like what we have today.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

The problem with our current government is that certain interests have grown massively wealthy off of Social aspects then lobby the government to remove access to them for everyone else. They do this by hiding behind a front of "Capitalism", but all of them are guilty of buying into some form of Socialism too (ex: corporate welfare). Then they administer a concerted propaganda train to demonize Socialism to close the door from anyone else getting to their level of wealth.
edit on 10-11-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join