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: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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?


Are you saying the omniscient and omnipotent governance is possible?



Well it's certainly possible. Though highly unlikely. Though I don't look at things in such a black and white scope. I recognize that no form of governance is without corruption or special interests. That doesn't mean that an idea like Socialism cannot improve over a system of smaller government. Socialism works. History proves that is the case.


History proves exactly the opposite.


Could you provide some evidence to back this up if possible please?

Many thanks.

USSR comes to mind


No sorry you are mistaken, I was asking for evidence.

You just wrote 4 words, that is not even a full sentance never mind evidence.




posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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?


Are you saying the omniscient and omnipotent governance is possible?



Well it's certainly possible. Though highly unlikely. Though I don't look at things in such a black and white scope. I recognize that no form of governance is without corruption or special interests. That doesn't mean that an idea like Socialism cannot improve over a system of smaller government. Socialism works. History proves that is the case.


History proves exactly the opposite.


Could you provide some evidence to back this up if possible please?

Many thanks.


For starters, the USSR and Nazi Germany come to mind.

Forgive my serious response if you were you just playing with me.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That is what socialism is. OMG you don't even know what socialism is.


I didn't see anything in that definition about state factories. Look, I've already told you I'm done playing your petty games. If you want to debate me seriously, present a real argument instead of more "gotcha" moments.

PS: For the record the part about social ownership of the means of production (in the context of a Democratic society) refers to things like regulations and the ability to tax businesses. Though I know you don't care about that and just want to "gotcha" me again.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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?


Are you saying the omniscient and omnipotent governance is possible?



Well it's certainly possible. Though highly unlikely. Though I don't look at things in such a black and white scope. I recognize that no form of governance is without corruption or special interests. That doesn't mean that an idea like Socialism cannot improve over a system of smaller government. Socialism works. History proves that is the case.


History proves exactly the opposite.


Could you provide some evidence to back this up if possible please?

Many thanks.


For starters, the USSR and Nazi Germany come to mind.

Forgive my serious response if you were you just playing with me.


This isn't a serious response because the USSR was communist and Nazi Germany was fascist. Neither are Socialist and they DEFINITELY aren't Democratic Socialist. In fact, this was just a standard right wing dismissal talking point. It is the antithesis of an intelligent response.
edit on 18-12-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That is what socialism is. OMG you don't even know what socialism is.


Yes, and they are clearly not alone.

This is not a joke and it isn't funny.




posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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?


Are you saying the omniscient and omnipotent governance is possible?



Well it's certainly possible. Though highly unlikely. Though I don't look at things in such a black and white scope. I recognize that no form of governance is without corruption or special interests. That doesn't mean that an idea like Socialism cannot improve over a system of smaller government. Socialism works. History proves that is the case.


History proves exactly the opposite.


Could you provide some evidence to back this up if possible please?

Many thanks.


For starters, the USSR and Nazi Germany come to mind.

Forgive my serious response if you were you just playing with me.


To be honest I just had to go out for a smoke as I was thinking the same thing...

PLease show me evidence that socialism does not work, as in write something substantial with links and historical reference.

Actually show me how it does not work.

All you have done is name two defunct communist regimes, that is not proof that socialism does not work.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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?


Are you saying the omniscient and omnipotent governance is possible?



Well it's certainly possible. Though highly unlikely. Though I don't look at things in such a black and white scope. I recognize that no form of governance is without corruption or special interests. That doesn't mean that an idea like Socialism cannot improve over a system of smaller government. Socialism works. History proves that is the case.


History proves exactly the opposite.


Could you provide some evidence to back this up if possible please?

Many thanks.


For starters, the USSR and Nazi Germany come to mind.

Forgive my serious response if you were you just playing with me.


Depending on what measures you want to use the USSR worked very well.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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?


Are you saying the omniscient and omnipotent governance is possible?



Well it's certainly possible. Though highly unlikely. Though I don't look at things in such a black and white scope. I recognize that no form of governance is without corruption or special interests. That doesn't mean that an idea like Socialism cannot improve over a system of smaller government. Socialism works. History proves that is the case.


History proves exactly the opposite.


Could you provide some evidence to back this up if possible please?

Many thanks.


For starters, the USSR and Nazi Germany come to mind.

Forgive my serious response if you were you just playing with me.


To be honest I just had to go out for a smoke as I was thinking the same thing...

PLease show me evidence that socialism does not work, as in write something substantial with links and historical reference.

Actually show me how it does not work.

All you have done is name two defunct communist regimes, that is not proof that socialism does not work.


How many millions of dead people will it take to convince you?



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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?


Are you saying the omniscient and omnipotent governance is possible?



Well it's certainly possible. Though highly unlikely. Though I don't look at things in such a black and white scope. I recognize that no form of governance is without corruption or special interests. That doesn't mean that an idea like Socialism cannot improve over a system of smaller government. Socialism works. History proves that is the case.


History proves exactly the opposite.


Could you provide some evidence to back this up if possible please?

Many thanks.


For starters, the USSR and Nazi Germany come to mind.

Forgive my serious response if you were you just playing with me.


To be honest I just had to go out for a smoke as I was thinking the same thing...

PLease show me evidence that socialism does not work, as in write something substantial with links and historical reference.

Actually show me how it does not work.

All you have done is name two defunct communist regimes, that is not proof that socialism does not work.


How many millions of dead people will it take to convince you?


You know. I normally have a lot of respect for your posts because you seem to put effort into your opinions on things (especially your knowledge of Libertarianism) so I find it HIGHLY insulting that you'd stoop to such low brow tactics to dismiss Socialism. Even when I was advocating Libertarian I considered comparing Socialims to Communism like they are the same thing as lazy arguing. So if you aren't going to respect the other side of the debate, I may have to reduce my opinion of you and lump you in with all the other idiotic conservatives who think that soundbytes and cheap rhetoric are enough to dismiss an opponent's argument.
edit on 18-12-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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?


Are you saying the omniscient and omnipotent governance is possible?



Well it's certainly possible. Though highly unlikely. Though I don't look at things in such a black and white scope. I recognize that no form of governance is without corruption or special interests. That doesn't mean that an idea like Socialism cannot improve over a system of smaller government. Socialism works. History proves that is the case.


History proves exactly the opposite.


Could you provide some evidence to back this up if possible please?

Many thanks.


For starters, the USSR and Nazi Germany come to mind.

Forgive my serious response if you were you just playing with me.


To be honest I just had to go out for a smoke as I was thinking the same thing...

PLease show me evidence that socialism does not work, as in write something substantial with links and historical reference.

Actually show me how it does not work.

All you have done is name two defunct communist regimes, that is not proof that socialism does not work.


How many millions of dead people will it take to convince you?


How many times do you need to be told that communism and socialism are not the same thing?

I suspect that you may have been indoctrinated as to the so called evils of socialism, the Regan administration did a very good job of this as did our own right wing governments of the same period.

I think that if you spend a few hours on google reading up about the topic that is being discussed you may be able to have a more valuable input.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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?


Are you saying the omniscient and omnipotent governance is possible?



Well it's certainly possible. Though highly unlikely. Though I don't look at things in such a black and white scope. I recognize that no form of governance is without corruption or special interests. That doesn't mean that an idea like Socialism cannot improve over a system of smaller government. Socialism works. History proves that is the case.


History proves exactly the opposite.


Could you provide some evidence to back this up if possible please?

Many thanks.


For starters, the USSR and Nazi Germany come to mind.

Forgive my serious response if you were you just playing with me.


To be honest I just had to go out for a smoke as I was thinking the same thing...

PLease show me evidence that socialism does not work, as in write something substantial with links and historical reference.

Actually show me how it does not work.

All you have done is name two defunct communist regimes, that is not proof that socialism does not work.


How many millions of dead people will it take to convince you?


You know. I normally have a lot of respect for your posts because you seem to put effort into your opinions on things (especially your knowledge of Libertarianism) so I find it HIGHLY insulting that you'd stoop to such low brow tactics to dismiss Socialism. Even when I was advocating Libertarian I considered comparing Socialims to Communism like they are the same thing as lazy arguing. So if you aren't going to respect the other side of the debate, I may have to reduce my opinion of you.


I merely state fact.

I detect an irreconcilable impasse.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 11:56 AM
link   
First we need to educate.


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.

Is the definition of socialism. In a socialist society individuals do not own businesses, co-op's or the state does.

Now let's ask again. How is America socialist?



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
First we need to educate.


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.

Is the definition of socialism. In a socialist society individuals do not own businesses, co-op's or the state does.

Now let's ask again. How is America socialist?


Did you notice the word "or"



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Vector99
First we need to educate.


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.

Is the definition of socialism. In a socialist society individuals do not own businesses, co-op's or the state does.

Now let's ask again. How is America socialist?


Did you notice the word "or"

Did I notice a word I typed? Yes, indeed I did.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Vector99
First we need to educate.


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.

Is the definition of socialism. In a socialist society individuals do not own businesses, co-op's or the state does.

Now let's ask again. How is America socialist?


Did you notice the word "or"

Did I notice a word I typed? Yes, indeed I did.


Apologies ATS quoting fail.

This or

"means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

the community regulates things? I thought politicians did. You don't know what socialism is either. Individual ownership doesn't exist in it.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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?


Are you saying the omniscient and omnipotent governance is possible?



Well it's certainly possible. Though highly unlikely. Though I don't look at things in such a black and white scope. I recognize that no form of governance is without corruption or special interests. That doesn't mean that an idea like Socialism cannot improve over a system of smaller government. Socialism works. History proves that is the case.


History proves exactly the opposite.


Could you provide some evidence to back this up if possible please?

Many thanks.


For starters, the USSR and Nazi Germany come to mind.

Forgive my serious response if you were you just playing with me.


To be honest I just had to go out for a smoke as I was thinking the same thing...

PLease show me evidence that socialism does not work, as in write something substantial with links and historical reference.

Actually show me how it does not work.

All you have done is name two defunct communist regimes, that is not proof that socialism does not work.


How many millions of dead people will it take to convince you?


You know. I normally have a lot of respect for your posts because you seem to put effort into your opinions on things (especially your knowledge of Libertarianism) so I find it HIGHLY insulting that you'd stoop to such low brow tactics to dismiss Socialism. Even when I was advocating Libertarian I considered comparing Socialims to Communism like they are the same thing as lazy arguing. So if you aren't going to respect the other side of the debate, I may have to reduce my opinion of you.


I merely state fact.

I detect an irreconcilable impasse.


No, you've stated some sentences that are likely opinions, but are DEFINITELY unsourced and are in conflict of evidence presented earlier in this thread. Plus stating something is a fact doesn't make it so.
edit on 18-12-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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?


Are you saying the omniscient and omnipotent governance is possible?



Well it's certainly possible. Though highly unlikely. Though I don't look at things in such a black and white scope. I recognize that no form of governance is without corruption or special interests. That doesn't mean that an idea like Socialism cannot improve over a system of smaller government. Socialism works. History proves that is the case.


History proves exactly the opposite.


Could you provide some evidence to back this up if possible please?

Many thanks.

USSR comes to mind


No sorry you are mistaken, I was asking for evidence.

You just wrote 4 words, that is not even a full sentance never mind evidence.

While the USSR can be argued as state-capitalism or socialism, I don't know how to give you a better example of socialism failing other than a failed socialist state. Unless you are suggesting the USSR still exists.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
Individual ownership doesn't exist in it.

Common misconception. Thank the red scare for that one.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Communism vs. Socialism


In a way, communism is an extreme form of socialism. Many countries have dominant socialist political parties but very few are truly communist. In fact, most countries - including staunch capitalist bastions like the U.S. and U.K. - have government programs that borrow from socialist principles. "Socialism" is sometimes used interchangeably with "communism" but the two philosophies have some stark differences. Most notably, while communism is a political system, socialism is primarily an economic system that can exist in various forms under a wide range of political systems.


Naturally the site goes into the actual differences, but you'll have to click on the link to read them. Though I'm sure none of these inconvenient facts will stop any of you from ignoring it completely and continue to mislabel Socialism as Communism.
edit on 18-12-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join