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: 4
30
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

But they don't OWN everything, and they're not free to HOARD everything.

Please, do some real research about the differences. The Scandinavian countries have working, established Democratic Socialist systems in place, and have had for quite some time. They have not turned "Communist."

So - they are proof that it can work. On as large a scale as the USA, no, because they're more the size of states. But - if we were implement Democratic Socialism (much like legalized mj) one state at a time, we could find out better.

As it is, I live in Kansas. A giant FAIL of Capitalism. Gigantic failed experiment.




posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Thanks!

a reply to: NihilistSanta



What resources from everyone else?


Money, food, water, etc. When growth stalls, those with wealth will find any means necessary to continue to grow, but it is at the expense of those that have to give what little they have just to survive. We can see that happening in the US today. Growth slowed/stalled and the people at the top are separating wealth from those on the bottom by keeping them hungry and in need.
edit on 10-11-2015 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

In regards to your last point there is no need for fancy data. Its very simple. There are more whites therefore more whites will pay taxes. The other groups are minorities for a reason. Just like in Sweden more whites are taxed than Arabs.

Essentially your logic is the minorities/have nots are in support of having the producing sectors of the country subsidize their lives. This sounds somewhat racist but its just demographics. Its acknowledged by liberals and socialist that the minorities are the poorest segments of the country and that the top % of income are white. So does that clear things up? This isn't to say all minorities are in favor of socialism obviously as in the Scandinavian countries. Nor does it mean that working class and poor whites are not in favor of socialism. This is more or less just showing where the funding will have to come from and why you noticed a somewhat homogeneous contingent of resistance although that too is a false assertion as many minorities oppose socialism.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: Krazysh0t

In regards to your last point there is no need for fancy data. Its very simple. There are more whites therefore more whites will pay taxes. The other groups are minorities for a reason. Just like in Sweden more whites are taxed than Arabs.


Your reasoning isn't taking into account that not all white people disagree with Socialism. There is a large percentage of white people who also agree with the minorities and their opinions on Socialism. So yes, I'd like to see some data to back your claims.


Essentially your logic is the minorities/have nots are in support of having the producing sectors of the country subsidize their lives. This sounds somewhat racist but its just demographics. Its acknowledged by liberals and socialist that the minorities are the poorest segments of the country and that the top % of income are white. So does that clear things up? This isn't to say all minorities are in favor of socialism obviously as in the Scandinavian countries. Nor does it mean that working class and poor whites are not in favor of socialism. This is more or less just showing where the funding will have to come from and why you noticed a somewhat homogeneous contingent of resistance although that too is a false assertion as many minorities oppose socialism.



Not all minorities are poor though.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Both of those claims were cleared up in my post. Perhaps you should reread the post??



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: NihilistSanta

Great. I still want to see data for your claims. Right now I just have your gut instinct that you are correct. While I am not trying to insult your gut feelings, gut feelings can more often than not be the result of misapplied data or based off of anecdotes.

Prove to me that the homogenous group of people opposed to Socialism is more responsible for paying the total taxes in the country than the non-homogenous peoples in support of it. That is certainly a provable statement too.
edit on 10-11-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I can easily dig up data to support my claims but why should I? Will you change your opinion? I am engaged in another thread where people refuse to acknowledge evidence contrary to their claims. ATS becomes this pissing contest of sourcing materials and data and ultimately its futile as each side tries to invalidate the other. If you really insist though it can be done.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: NihilistSanta

I can only give you my word that I will analyze the data honestly. As for the basis for trusting my words, I just defer to the fact that I am putting out an effort to be polite in this thread instead of my usual abrasive self.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Absolutely!

Oligopolies don't wan't capitalism they want communism and socialism when the system is compromised.

Oligopoly today control our gov't that is why regardless of a GOP or DNC endorsed candidate the gov't continues to get bigger and we continue to loose individual rights.

If they control the gov't and the gov't controls the policies and the people then they control both the market and the consumers.

They want a bigger and more powerful gov't because it gives the Oligopolies more control.

That is why its crucial that a system such as socialism must have a rock solid system foundation that can prevent external influence.

IMO I think what we need TODAY is a libertarian gov't that shrinks the gov't and its power so we can rebuild that rock solid foundation and remove the existing external influences.

Then implement socialist pieces such as healthcare and education. Yes there will be an upfront cost , but the long end benefit will be worth it for our children and humanity.


edit on 341130America/ChicagoTue, 10 Nov 2015 09:34:55 -0600000000p3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think what you are missing is that interventionism precedes socialism or, another way to put it, cumulative socioeconomic interventions amount to de facto socialism.

No communist will ever claim that they are not socialist.

So, the progression (pardon the pun) is interventionism>socialism>communism/fascism.

The important thing to remember is that socialism could only be considered an economic system if it controls the economy, otherwise it is still only interventionism.

I can tell you with certainty that statists accuse libertarians of being anarchists regularly. It isn't that the accusation is without merit, many libertarians have anarchic world views. To most libertarians, the question becomes what is the minimum size of government possible.

As a federation of states, local law is more than capable so national legislation can be, in my opinion, safely binned without risk of injury to society. The federal government ought not to do anything that can be done by states, states should not do what towns can do and, individuals should do everything else.

Socialism is "bad" because it necessarily erodes all of the positive influences of liberal society. The fact that liberalism is roundly derided by socialists should inform you as to the nature of the beast.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

NAtional Taxpayers Union- Who pays taxes?

I cant seem to post the info graphic into the thread but clearly the top 1% pay the bulk of taxes. You are saying the top 1% is comprised of minorities?

The Atlantic- How We Pay Taxes


The U.S. tax code is very complicated, but it follows one general rule (Buffett, notwithstanding): Richer people pay more. In fact, the top 1% pays more federal taxes than the bottom 60% combined. Is that outrageous? You might think so. But consider also that the top 1% also makes more than the bottom 40% combined. That's the thing about being rich in America: You make lots and lots of money and you get taxed at a progressive rate on it.


A little more on the 47%

The 47%: Who They Are, Where They Live, How They Vote, and Why They Matter

This isn't meant to be about race its about income. Race was mentioned in regards to homogeneous cultures and you tried to insinuate that rich whites were the only block against socialism. I agree they are probably a predominate group in that regards but hardly the only group as the inverse can be said about the poor being solely in favor of socialism.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Socialism implicitly claims to know everything.

Socialism is the rule of man by man.

Socialism opportunistically uses the State.

If Socialism didn't exist, the State would invent it.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

I think what we have now is working. I think the biggest threat to what you are saying is the internet and the widespread proliferation of information. People are getting smarter and smarter and learning how to detect the bs better. I think that is one of the reasons why the political field is so polarized these days. You have people able to see propaganda for what it is and you have others who readily buy into it accusing the other side of buying into propaganda so it muddies the water. I think the next 20 or so years are going to be critical to see if America truly wants to embrace Democratic Socialism or if it wants to swing in the other direction. Heck, it'll probably start with this election next year.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Oh and I just wanted to say I appreciate the civility in discourse Krazysh0t. I can be abrasive myself although I don't really intend to come across that way. I generally consider any disagreements a matter of passion



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

The Scandinavian countries became wealthy by using free-market, capitalist systems. In fact their level of economic freedom, although it has dropped is still high compared to most other countries across the world.

www.heritage.org...



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBandit795

Exactly precisely.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: TheBandit795

Exactly precisely.


What he means to say (I think, correct me if I'm misattributing this paraphrase) is that socialisms consume capital.

Eventually they run out of other peoples money and must lower their living standards or engage in violent expansionism, something unimagined by Marx since he presumed it would be a global insurrection, not individual national socialisms.

Socialists never seem to understand that capital creation is the mechanism that allows technological advancement and living standard improvement. He (and you) thought incorrectly that capitalists were hoarding resources.
edit on 10-11-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: NihilistSanta

As I promised I reviewed all three of your links carefully and have determined that your original claim was correct. The homogenous group opposed to Socialism pay more taxes than the non-homogenous group that supports it. I stand corrected.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

This is why modern Socialism has adopted the idea of Democractic Socialism or in other words, a mix of capitalism and Socialism. Since capitalism relies on the ability to expand infinitely, as long as this requirement is met then there should never be a time where Socialism runs out of capital to fund social programs. Theoretically at least.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

But you're being dishonest in your claim that taxation is equivalent to socialism, and I think that you know this.

Also, there are many different types of taxes, and while I do believe that an income tax is wrong (and is a major part of socialism), if a people want to live in a society and have the basic protections that a federal government provides (like enumerated things in our constitution such as a military), then some form of taxation is necessary. But it should be limited to as small as possible, which our U.S. taxes are not...but they were pretty minimal about a century ago, when there wasn't even an income tax.

So, while I have problems with over-taxation, I don't have a problem with some taxation, as that is a necessity to have a functioning government. Socialism isn't necessary for a functioning government.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join