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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

The Beginning of Socialism

page: 8
14
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

It is characterized by the presence of socio-economic interventionism and a highly regulated economy.




posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Socialistic factors, such as welfare and social security. That does not equal socialism. I never said there weren't socialistic things about America. I said America is not a socialist society, and it is not.

Socialism means the janitor and the ceo get the same bonus.
edit on 18-12-2015 by Vector99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Vector99

Yes, call it anything else, as long as you don't call it socialism.

I wouldn't call a horse a cat, why would I call America socialist, especially when I've given you many sources showing it isn't one.


And yet the Federal Government spend around 50% of expenditures on "Social" programs.

Not to mention the States and Counties.

And they all operate on debt.


edit on Dec-18-2015 by xuenchen because: social tea and crumpets



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: daskakik

Socialistic factors, such as welfare and social security. That does not equal socialism. I never said there weren't socialistic things about America. I said America is not a socialist society, and it is not.

Socialism means the janitor and the ceo get the same bonus.


So where does that cream-dream exist?




posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

That might be what it means to you but just like you can choose a gray tone for the US I'm sure shades of gray can also be used with socialism.

Just like I said, differentiation is applied when it suits a particular purpose.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: daskakik

Socialistic factors, such as welfare and social security. That does not equal socialism. I never said there weren't socialistic things about America. I said America is not a socialist society, and it is not.

Socialism means the janitor and the ceo get the same bonus.


That's communism.

Modern socialism is more concerned with basic needs issues. Food, water, housing, healthcare and such.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Vector99

Yes, call it anything else, as long as you don't call it socialism.

I wouldn't call a horse a cat, why would I call America socialist, especially when I've given you many sources showing it isn't one.


And yet the Federal Government spend around 50% of expenditures on "Social" programs.

Not to mention the States and Counties.

And they all operate of debt.


While I did just call social security a "social program" I hate to call it that because it is just the money we paid in anyway, I would call it a savings account. But I do know some people collect more than they paid in so it has to get that technical definition of "social service".



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: daskakik

Socialistic factors, such as welfare and social security. That does not equal socialism. I never said there weren't socialistic things about America. I said America is not a socialist society, and it is not.

Socialism means the janitor and the ceo get the same bonus.


That's communism.

Modern socialism is more concerned with basic needs issues. Food, water, housing, healthcare and such.

Ok fair enough not the best example, but the basic principle is the same. Individual ownership and personal gain as such doesn't exist in socialism. That doesn't benefit the community as a whole which is the basic principle of socialism.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
Individual ownership and personal gain as such doesn't exist in socialism. That doesn't benefit the community as a whole which is the basic principle of socialism.

The consititution of the USSR:


THe personal property of citizens of the USSR may include articles of everyday use, personal consumption and convenience, the implements and other objects of a small-holding, a house, and earned savings. The personal property of citizens and the right to inherit it are protected by the state.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: daskakik

Socialistic factors, such as welfare and social security. That does not equal socialism. I never said there weren't socialistic things about America. I said America is not a socialist society, and it is not.

Socialism means the janitor and the ceo get the same bonus.


That's communism.

Modern socialism is more concerned with basic needs issues. Food, water, housing, healthcare and such.

Ok fair enough not the best example, but the basic principle is the same. Individual ownership and personal gain as such doesn't exist in socialism. That doesn't benefit the community as a whole which is the basic principle of socialism.


Why can't you own personal property, etc? Socialism must exist within a capitalist framework. We cannot have a purely socialist society because that leads to communism. You can have a completely capitalist system either because that leads to absolute slavery.

Have to have a good mix of both and can also protect individual liberties.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Vector99
Individual ownership and personal gain as such doesn't exist in socialism. That doesn't benefit the community as a whole which is the basic principle of socialism.

The consititution of the USSR:


THe personal property of citizens of the USSR may include articles of everyday use, personal consumption and convenience, the implements and other objects of a small-holding, a house, and earned savings. The personal property of citizens and the right to inherit it are protected by the state.



I meant in business, not personal property.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: daskakik

Socialistic factors, such as welfare and social security. That does not equal socialism. I never said there weren't socialistic things about America. I said America is not a socialist society, and it is not.

Socialism means the janitor and the ceo get the same bonus.


That's communism.

Modern socialism is more concerned with basic needs issues. Food, water, housing, healthcare and such.

Ok fair enough not the best example, but the basic principle is the same. Individual ownership and personal gain as such doesn't exist in socialism. That doesn't benefit the community as a whole which is the basic principle of socialism.


Why can't you own personal property, etc? Socialism must exist within a capitalist framework. We cannot have a purely socialist society because that leads to communism. You can have a completely capitalist system either because that leads to absolute slavery.

Have to have a good mix of both and can also protect individual liberties.

I should have been more specific, I meant in regards to business.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

What are you trying to tell me here? That you agree with me? Because that is literally the same link I just posted on the previous page, and it agrees with what I'm saying.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Let's put it this way, in America I am free to open a business, make as much as I want, pay people the minimum required by the state, which forces them to seek social services to survive, and this is socialism how?



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Vector99

What are you trying to tell me here? That you agree with me? Because that is literally the same link I just posted on the previous page, and it agrees with what I'm saying.

It contradicts everything you are saying because that doesn't exist in America.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
I meant in business, not personal property.

Same document

Article 17. In the USSR, the law permits individual labour in handicrafts, farming, the provision of services for the public, and other forms of activity based exclusively on the personal work of individual citizens and members of their families. The state makes regulations for such work to ensure that it serves the interest of society.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Vector99

What are you trying to tell me here? That you agree with me? Because that is literally the same link I just posted on the previous page, and it agrees with what I'm saying.

It contradicts everything you are saying because that doesn't exist in America.


It does exist in America. You are just trying to redefine words to suit your narrative so you don't have to admit that socialism is not only successful if done right but IS currently successful. I've been saying from the beginning that Democratic Socialism is what we have in our country.
edit on 18-12-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

So it says you can work for yourself, but the state decides what to do with your income. What is that proving?



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Vector99

What are you trying to tell me here? That you agree with me? Because that is literally the same link I just posted on the previous page, and it agrees with what I'm saying.

It contradicts everything you are saying because that doesn't exist in America.


It does exist in America. You are just trying to redefine words to suit your narrative so you don't have to admit that socialism is not only successful if done right but IS currently successful. I've been saying from the beginning that Democratic Socialism is what we have in our country.

Individual benefit in business doesn't exist in socialism. It has to benefit SOCIETY. You explain how walmart helps the community over itself and I'll agree we live in socialism.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

It doesn't say that.

You are grasping at straws.

ETA: Besides, taxes in the US, also fits what you are describing.



edit on 18-12-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join