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.

 

Socialism is bad for the environment

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: Gryphon66

Marxist socialism.


Empty phrase.

(Because "Marxist socialism" is merely a theoretical framework that is over 150 years old. No socialist governmental or economic system has ever truly been based on those vague, general, idealistic theories.)
edit on 23-1-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted




posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Did I not answer your question directly?



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: Gryphon66

Did I not answer your question directly?


Not at all. In the context of this conversation, "Marxist socialism" is equivalent to "Christian charity" ... both are concepts that do not exist except in the realm of idealism.



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well, that's convenient. If you want, we can go through the list of countries that reference socialism in their constitutions, and compare that to their place on the environmental index, if that is more concrete for you.



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: thinline
It's really quite simple. Socialism is a big pyramid scheme. You always need a bigger base to pay for the people that came ahead of you. Since Socialism always needs an expanding base. That means an ever expanding population. That population increase will need more land, more resources, more corporatiins, basically everything a good socialist marches against.


Socialism is Capitalism in disguise.

Grampaw Marx defined Capitalism.

The hidden agenda was transition from Monarchy to longevity.

Marxist/Corporatism.

Socialism depends heavily on all that.




posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well, that's convenient. If you want, we can go through the list of countries that reference socialism in their constitutions, and compare that to their place on the environmental index, if that is more concrete for you.


Are you really going to try to argue that the appearance of the word "socialism" is unified and means exactly the same thing everywhere in every context regardless of any actual facts?

If you are, please let me know, so that I will no longer waste any of our precious time in meaningless jabber.

You imply that every socialism is Marxist, having evolved no farther than "The Communist Manifesto" ... which was, at best, a provocation. You imply that all socialism denies property rights.

Here's a thought: refer to something exact ... in which "socialist" country is property ownership denied? That might be a reasonable starting place ... unless you merely want to mouth platitudes.



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well, that's convenient. If you want, we can go through the list of countries that reference socialism in their constitutions, and compare that to their place on the environmental index, if that is more concrete for you.


Are you really going to try to argue that the appearance of the word "socialism" is unified and means exactly the same thing everywhere in every context regardless of any actual facts?

If you are, please let me know, so that I will no longer waste any of our precious time in meaningless jabber.

You imply that every socialism is Marxist, having evolved no farther than "The Communist Manifesto" ... which was, at best, a provocation. You imply that all socialism denies property rights.

Here's a thought: refer to something exact ... in which "socialist" country is property ownership denied? That might be a reasonable starting place ... unless you merely want to mouth platitudes.


Meaningless jabber? Weird implications, references to the communist manifesto (try Das Capital), the unification of a definition of socialism – I've never read a more meaningless post.

We can talk about socialist states and their environmental rankings, or we can play make believe.



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well, that's convenient. If you want, we can go through the list of countries that reference socialism in their constitutions, and compare that to their place on the environmental index, if that is more concrete for you.


Are you really going to try to argue that the appearance of the word "socialism" is unified and means exactly the same thing everywhere in every context regardless of any actual facts?

If you are, please let me know, so that I will no longer waste any of our precious time in meaningless jabber.

You imply that every socialism is Marxist, having evolved no farther than "The Communist Manifesto" ... which was, at best, a provocation. You imply that all socialism denies property rights.

Here's a thought: refer to something exact ... in which "socialist" country is property ownership denied? That might be a reasonable starting place ... unless you merely want to mouth platitudes.


Meaningless jabber? Weird implications, references to the communist manifesto (try Das Capital), the unification of a definition of socialism – I've never read a more meaningless post.

We can talk about socialist states and their environmental rankings, or we can play make believe.


Then refer to something. All I read is hot air and more posturing.

EDIT: I just realized, perhaps English is a second language for you. With that possibility in mind, I'll try to use simpler terms.

The word "socialism" doesn't mean the same thing every time its used. English words have more than one meaning, and also, have contextual meaning. Context means that a word can change based on where it is used and what it refers to.

There are different ideas about what socialism is, what it means, and how it might be implemented.

What I'm asking you is to provide actual examples of what you're claiming here ... there, is that a bit more clear for you?


edit on 23-1-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: thinline

Actually, I think you've got it somewhat backwards.
Socialism is an economic system in which the government taxes wages, wealth and property at an extremely high rate and then takes that wealth and distributes it back to the population in the form of benefits and free services like health care, etc. As a result, the socialist system discourages capital investment and it discourages "working" so there's far less, if any growth and economic expansion. Consumption falls off as workers keep less of what they earn and as a result less is produced so fewer resources are needed.



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Compare any socialist state to their respective environmental performance index.



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: Gryphon66

Compare any socialist state to their respective environmental performance index.


Now, we're talking ... actual facts. Progress!

Although, all you've done is gesture at lists and say "hey, these words mean I'm right."

Try again.

Be specific. What specific implementation of socialism is bad for the environment?



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: thinline


Socialism is an economic system in which the government taxes wages, wealth and property at an extremely high rate and then takes that wealth and distributes it back to the population in the form of benefits and free services like health care, etc.


I'd love to see a source for this definition that doesn't stem from right-wing nonsense sites ... do you have such a reference?



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

is your snark a defence mechanism? All I can imagine is a child.

State run manufacturing, and the state silence of scientists are contributing causes.



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: Gryphon66

is your snark a defence mechanism? All I can imagine is a child.

State run manufacturing, and the state silence of scientists are contributing causes.


I'm uninterested in your imagination, if you'd like to discuss facts, please continue.

You gave us two lists. One lists "Socialist States" of which there are currently (at least according to the list) four: China, Cuba, Laos and Vietnam.

Your second list is an arbitrary "environmental health" scoring composed by two American universities.

(Which, of note, includes most of the European "socialist countries" ranked very high on the list ... )

You have yet to do a single thing to prove that socialism is "bad for the environment" or that all socialism is exactly the same, or that national implementations approach "Marxist socialism" etc. etc.

And please, you started with the "snark" so it's too late to whine about it ...

Facts are what we're looking for here.

Got any?



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: thinline
It's really quite simple. Socialism is a big pyramid scheme. You always need a bigger base to pay for the people that came ahead of you. Since Socialism always needs an expanding base. That means an ever expanding population. That population increase will need more land, more resources, more corporatiins, basically everything a good socialist marches against.


completely unfounded. Show citation please.

Actually, free market capitalism has utterly failed to protect the environment. Basically, too many people put greed and profit over the environment or future generations. Unless regulations are passed to make them pay the real cost of doing business, i.e. internalizing the "externalities" such as pollution, companies simply will not calculate those into their bottom line.

Moreover, such "socialist ideas" such as universal education, universal health care access, and anti-poverty actually REDUCE birth rates for a whole host of reasons. This is proven.



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Every successful economy is a mixed economy.

Capitalism and socialism are ideologies (particularly in the way the words are being used here.)

There must be "free" markets and there must be government regulation.

Absolutism is the enemy (as well as over-simplification.)



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm curious as to what brand of socialism these European socialist countries are. I wouldn't mind a good factual point on this.



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

For instance Beijing. The state owns the urban land and most of the manufacturing there.. If the state owns the land and the manufacturing, it is also their duty to take care of it. But they don't.



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm curious as to what brand of socialism these European socialist countries are. I wouldn't mind a good factual point on this.


Most European economies are "mixed" which is to say, they combine many different theories of social/economic organization. Many confuse the presence of social safety nets and social welfare as "socialism" ... which results in some of the European countries being referred to off-hand as "socialist" when they aren't.



However, that's beside the point ... you made the claim that "socialism (e.g Marxist socialism)" is bad for the environment.

Are you abandoning that claim? Or do you have facts to back it up?



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Weird, I live in Norway, a socialistic democracry. The green movement is quite large this side, except for the 'bible-belt' where everybody is infatuated by the USA. The further east you go, the more liberal, socialist and green the people get. The biggest environmental destruction takes place in the 'bible-belt', where a lot of people are totally into capitalism and raping the environment for maximum profit. The people on the east helps each other and try their best to conserve the environment, and yes, the liberal (socialist) and green parties are voted into power here, and we have huge green forest, unpolluted air, etc....



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join