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.

 

The Beginning of Socialism

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Azureblue


At the end of the 19th Century, also known as the 1800's, the individual in every country possessed the money and intellect to be become the master of his own fate.


Jim Crow. Child labor. Tenement life. No Irish Need Apply. Triangle fire. Let's not even look at what life was like in China or Africa. Oh, and passports would come in and out of style depending on the state of international relations. After WWI they became permanent and universal. About the only thing you got right was that Germany was the first state to look after its workers. They still have some of the most progressive non-socialist labor policies.


That was due to an increase in population which was only averted from mass famine death by the industrial revolution. That is the efficient distribution of essentials that would have been impossible before cheap steel structures and faster transportation.


The US population rose much faster than the world population, passing from only 5 million in 1800 to 23 million in 1850 to 76 million in 1900 to 151 million in 1950 to 281 million in 2000. In other words, the US population has been multiplied by 56 in these 200 years, as opposed to 6 for the world population (from 1 to 6 billion).
www.eupedia.com...


There was no need for passports before WW1 so there was no need for passports after WW1 unless the peace was screwed up by centralized power. What is the need for passports in peace time?.

Progressive non-socialist is an oxymoron. Please explain the distinction without a difference.




posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 09:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: nwtrucker


Much of our Constitution and Bill of Rights originated in France...


Actually wrong.

Most of it orginated here in the English Bill of rights in 1689 even your right to bear arms.
The problem in 1776 was the British were just not following it!


Ahh, you SO kind, full of the Christmas spirit.

The U.S. Bill of Rights was heavily contributed to by a collaboration between Jefferson and Lafayette in France. The French version was heavily influenced by Jefferson.

The Founding Fathers certainly weren't consulting with the Brits. Most of the points in the English Bill of Rights pre-date the British as well. A part of the evolution? Sure. Not the sole contributor whatsoever.

Have a nice Christmas...



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 03:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Azureblue

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
The Beginning of Socialism

At the end of the 19th Century, also known as the 1800's, the individual in every country possessed the money and intellect to be become the master of his own fate.

few.


At the end of the 19th Century, also known as the 1800's, the individual in every country possessed the money and intellect to be become the master of his own fate.

A very big statement to make???


As big as the Industrial Revolution, the Renaissance, and the Rights of Man.




I wonder what evidence exists to prove that no people of low IQ, people who were 'fringe people' people who for so long as they had their family around them they are OK but left alone in the world, they would not be able to fend for themselves.


No one does well left alone in the world. Individuality is enabled by a diverse, complex, and impartial market economy. Charity has always received more money when gov has demanded less taxes.





Might it be based on "because I did'nt know about it, therefore it didin't exist' type thinking.




Perhaps its just a convienient truth.

Im not sure what drives this 'welfare for individuals is bad'


Transfer payments do not promote the genuine welfare. "Welfare" is propaganda. The poverty rate decreased every year until "Welfare" started. Since "Welfare" began, poverty has increased, mostly due to the economics of guns and butter, but "Welfare" clouds the issue and "Welfare" is used to justify increased State power and control over all human life.



but if people who are anti welfare for individuals only knew that if banks can create money out of thin air so can goverment and create all the money required in the economy, including incomes for all, just by reserving for the people of the nation, through themselves, the power to create credit outa thin air just like the banks do.

I often wonder if people who are anti welfare for individuals are just as anti corporate welfare, that is, even if they are aware of its existence which I doubt because the man and the lady on the TV dont talk about corporate welfare do they?



The Welfare system is part of the Welfare Warfare package deal of modern government. As is the waste of time mainstream media and crony banker capitalism.

Socialism centralizes and sustains power in the hands of the fewest and makes all of the cronyism easier.

The cronies made socialism. Socialism is a con.


I think many people would be advantaged if only they knew why Henry Ford said that its just as well that ordinary men and women do not understand how money works because if they did there would a riot before dawn.

If when governments gave away the right to create credit (money) to the banks, they kept the same right for the people they were elected to represent, through themselves, the govt could, and in fact still can, create money out of thin air just like banks do.

This would enable the government to create all the money the economy required each month or each quarter, including incomes for all, at close to zero cost to the tax payer in the sense that tax rates would close to zero.

In such an environment, socialism, capitalism, communism etc would all mean absolutely nothing and one very big tool TPTSNB will be desperate to keep, would eliminated.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 06:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
"been a part of" lacks any relevance. Crony capitalism uses politics. The free market is devoid of politics. Crony capitalism uses Socialism better than socialists do.


This sentence isn't really saying anything. Crony Capitalism has been with us since the founding of the country. That simple fact says that we've never had a totally free market. So your claim about such things is false.


There has been, is essence, a free market in newly invented goods. Can't make regulations about them until they take shape and performance characteristics.


True, but that isn't the entire market. Just that one product. Plus it'll be regulated eventually as soon as unscrupulous businessmen use it to exploit the public and get caught. That's usually how those things come about.


During the Industrial Revolution in America, Bakunin said "America already has Anarchism" That means the Industrial Revolution in America happened in a very close to free market.


Starting with the Excise Whiskey Tax in 1791 the government has been meddling in the economy ever since. Alexander Hamilton created the First Bank of the United States? Do you know what that was? It was the first Federal Reserve.
First Bank of the United States

Bakunin was CLEARLY exaggerating about anarchism because you cannot have a totally free market with a government in charge. It is simply something you'll have to get your head around.


Wanting is not proving that socialism is more than a dream.


Do you have anything to say about Socialism besides empty rhetoric that sounds insightful but really isn't? You can't just say that Socialism doesn't work and be correct. You actually have to demonstrate it.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 06:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
Socialism is an economic system which is entirely dependent upon the beneficent guidance of omniscient rulers and omnipotent enforcement.


Well since the people are in charge of the government, they are beholden to elect the right people to make sure that is the case now isn't it?



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

a reply to: Krazysh0t

What makes it socialist? Last I checked we had a capitalist economy. Are you going to say welfare? China and North Korea have welfare too.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 07:41 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker





The U.S. Bill of Rights was heavily contributed to by a collaboration between Jefferson and Lafayette in France


What ?

Who told you that nonsense? Here are the influences that the U.S. Bill Of Rights drew upon.

The Magna Carta, 1215

The English Petition of Right, 1628

The Massachusetts Body of Liberties, 1641

The Fundamental Laws of West New Jersey, 1677

The Pennsylvania Frame of Government, 1681

The English Bill of Rights, 1689

The Pennsylvania Charter of Privileges, 1701

teachingamericanhistory.org...

Lafayette's " Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen " was influenced by Jefferson. Lafayette had no input into the U.S. Bill Of Rights as you implied.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 07:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: MystikMushroom

a reply to: Krazysh0t

What makes it socialist? Last I checked we had a capitalist economy. Are you going to say welfare? China and North Korea have welfare too.


The social programs that are considered Socialist in nature.

China and North Korea's governments aren't ran like our governments. So comparing them is irrelevant. Stop trying to suggest that Socialism is the same as Communism. There is some overlap, yes, but they AREN'T the same thing. Should I just go around labeling all conservatives as fascists? No, that doesn't get us anywhere.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Why are you bringing up their style of government? When I brought up ours you said it's not the same thing. Contradict yourself much?

China and north Korea have social services JUST LIKE WE DO. So they are socialist too. You can't go one way when you want and another when something else throws a wrench in it.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 08:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Why are you bringing up their style of government? When I brought up ours you said it's not the same thing. Contradict yourself much?

China and north Korea have social services JUST LIKE WE DO. So they are socialist too. You can't go one way when you want and another when something else throws a wrench in it.



China and North Korea are Communist. Like I said, there is some overlap but there IS a difference, even if you don't want to see it.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
"been a part of" lacks any relevance. Crony capitalism uses politics. The free market is devoid of politics. Crony capitalism uses Socialism better than socialists do.


This sentence isn't really saying anything. Crony Capitalism has been with us since the founding of the country. That simple fact says that we've never had a totally free market. So your claim about such things is false.


There has been, is essence, a free market in newly invented goods. Can't make regulations about them until they take shape and performance characteristics.


True, but that isn't the entire market. Just that one product. Plus it'll be regulated eventually as soon as unscrupulous businessmen use it to exploit the public and get caught. That's usually how those things come about.


During the Industrial Revolution in America, Bakunin said "America already has Anarchism" That means the Industrial Revolution in America happened in a very close to free market.


Starting with the Excise Whiskey Tax in 1791 the government has been meddling in the economy ever since. Alexander Hamilton created the First Bank of the United States? Do you know what that was? It was the first Federal Reserve.
First Bank of the United States

Bakunin was CLEARLY exaggerating about anarchism because you cannot have a totally free market with a government in charge. It is simply something you'll have to get your head around.


Wanting is not proving that socialism is more than a dream.


Do you have anything to say about Socialism besides empty rhetoric that sounds insightful but really isn't? You can't just say that Socialism doesn't work and be correct. You actually have to demonstrate it.


Invented goods is the entire market. Everything you buy was invented or made pennies on the dollar cheaper because of inventions. Nothing at WalMart is 19th century technology.

The Socialist position always assumes that the economy is a given. All of our quality of life has come from the free market. Socialism would freeze the state of our culture forever.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

More empty rhetoric that hasn't come true in reality. The simple fact, and something you can't argue away, is that the first world has existed alongside Socialism for a long time now and it hasn't fallen apart yet. In fact, as I pointed out in my thread on this topic, we actually performed better economically while under a stronger Socialist net. So you telling me that Socialism doesn't work just because you don't like it isn't going to cut it. It just sounds empty.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


we actually performed better economically while under a stronger Socialist net.


Empty rhetoric, the call to arms of the socialist.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: Krazysh0t


we actually performed better economically while under a stronger Socialist net.


Empty rhetoric, the call to arms of the socialist.



So do you have any evidence to suggest that Krazyshot is incorrect or do you just dislike socialism?



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: Krazysh0t


we actually performed better economically while under a stronger Socialist net.


Empty rhetoric, the call to arms of the socialist.



That isn't empty rhetoric. That is demonstrably (which I have demonstrated in the other thread) true. You saying it isn't so doesn't make it so. You on the other hand just level disagreements with what I'm saying without ever backing your position up with facts, figures, or historical precedent. And NOW you are dismissing historical precedent as "empty rhetoric".

Be honest, you just wanted to bash Socialism but you couldn't think up a decent rebuttal to my thread so you made this one where you can redefine the argument to suit your narrative instead of one that aligns with history.
edit on 18-12-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate


That was due to an increase in population which was only averted from mass famine death by the industrial revolution. That is the efficient distribution of essentials that would have been impossible before cheap steel structures and faster transportation.


Child labor was caused by an increase in population? Wage slavery was caused by an increase in population? People stopped dying in industrial accidents because of cheap steel? Your response has nothing to do with the issues I brought up. Unrestrained capitalism results in imprisonment and degradation for all but the elite. Without the rise of the labor movement, you could be working twelve hours a day, seven days a week with no possibility of furthering yourself through education. Without government regulation, you would have no idea whether you were drinking milk or chalk water. Wake up!


There was no need for passports before WW1 so there was no need for passports after WW1 unless the peace was screwed up by centralized power. What is the need for passports in peace time?.


There was a pressing need for passports before the World War. Spies, saboteurs, and assassins roamed at will. Governments were hesitant to issue passports because they require a large, professional bureaucracy.


Progressive non-socialist is an oxymoron. Please explain the distinction without a difference.


In Germany, corporations cut workers' hours during a recession, but retain them. This means that the workers continue to contribute to the economy, inventory sells down, and the manufacturers do not have to retrain their work force when the economy recovers. Because of this progressive policy, which does not in any way redistribute wealth, Germany has suffered least from the recent recession.

Socialism is an economic system in which everyone is expected to contribute something for the benefit of the entire society. By that definition, all societies are socialist. Progressive simply means that policies use fresh ideas that improve a situation. Ayn Rand was progressive, but wrong.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Why are you bringing up their style of government? When I brought up ours you said it's not the same thing. Contradict yourself much?

China and north Korea have social services JUST LIKE WE DO. So they are socialist too. You can't go one way when you want and another when something else throws a wrench in it.



China and North Korea are Communist. Like I said, there is some overlap but there IS a difference, even if you don't want to see it.

And in which case makes us a capitalistic constitutional republic, not a socialist state.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Why are you bringing up their style of government? When I brought up ours you said it's not the same thing. Contradict yourself much?

China and north Korea have social services JUST LIKE WE DO. So they are socialist too. You can't go one way when you want and another when something else throws a wrench in it.



China and North Korea are Communist. Like I said, there is some overlap but there IS a difference, even if you don't want to see it.

And in which case makes us a capitalistic constitutional republic, not a socialist state.


Fine. Believe what you want. Most of America recognizes that we are a Democratic Socialist society (and a Constitutional Republic), but if you want to play word games so you don't have to believe this do you. I'm done. You clearly aren't interested in facts.
edit on 18-12-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: Krazysh0t


we actually performed better economically while under a stronger Socialist net.


Empty rhetoric, the call to arms of the socialist.



So do you have any evidence to suggest that Krazyshot is incorrect or do you just dislike socialism?

Pointed out that China and North Korea have social services as well. Krazy is saying that is what makes us socialist, so by definition then so are China and North Korea.

Neither is true, Those are communist governments and we are NOT a socialist society.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: Krazysh0t


we actually performed better economically while under a stronger Socialist net.


Empty rhetoric, the call to arms of the socialist.



So do you have any evidence to suggest that Krazyshot is incorrect or do you just dislike socialism?

Pointed out that China and North Korea have social services as well. Krazy is saying that is what makes us socialist, so by definition then so are China and North Korea.

Neither is true, Those are communist governments and we are NOT a socialist society.


Ok then chief.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join