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 Truth of Sanders is That He Is a Socialist.

page: 12
37
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: dismanrc

More money has been given to the corporations and war machine than anything. Corporate welfare to help create well paying jobs in America for Americans, yea that worked out just great!!




posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: greencmp

lol. It makes for a convenient albeit idealistic example. Yes I know it's only fiction. Yes I know it's a TV show. But as we all know there is no actual corruption free society for me to use as an example anywhere. So I used that. I figured you were all intelligent enough to realize that.

Should I have used Atlantis instead??? Or maybe our Lords Kingdom in Heaven perhaps??? Would that have worked better for you???




I do like Star Trek too.

I have seriously considered writing a book on the subject as the genre is big and should be enough to derive plenty of examples of erroneous postulates.

What I discovered was that there are no actual explanations, they simply skip completely over the how. This is hardly surprising given that it is utopian fiction.


Actually its pretty simple.

The idea being energy is easy to come by and resources so plentiful they are worthless plus with replicators and robotics manufacturering is dirt cheap.

So with that capitalism kinda goes obsolete as what good is money when everyone can have everything for near nothing?


lol

Yes, if you can afford to use the energy of a small star to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, you haven't got an energy problem.

What I meant was that they never even attempted to describe the transition from a resource scarce society to the Land of Cockaigne so, there wasn't much in the way of economic misunderstandings to refute.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: conscientiousobserver
a reply to: greencmp

Communism is not socialism. The difference being in socialism everyone owns a piece of the means of production and the people have the right to vote on how the means will benefit them. With communism only a single group/community (governments or banks)owns everything and the people have no say whatsoever.


Uh-huh, the people, got it.




posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: EmmanuelGoldstein
The future of our planet will not be operating under capitalism.

There's no way this can keep going like it is.


Like what?


Those that have and those that have nothing - Should be those that have and those that have more.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: pithos
Capitalism. Socialism. What's the third option?


There is no third option, we must choose.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu


What have the liberals who live there done?


Well, using capitalism we created SoDoSoPa, a high brow paradise of shopping and culinary delights.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

See, this is the liberal crap they teach nowadays. Yeah, socialism always looks real good on paper. I mean everyone wins right? But inevitably, folks learn they can't live in some utopian society with equal distribution of resources. No, man has and ALWAYS will seek to gather as much as they can to themselves.

Sanders sounds just like Lenin.

I'm telling you, bullets are going to start flying in revolution if a socialist wins.
edit on 12-2-2016 by Freenrgy2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Freenrgy2
a reply to: greencmp

See, this is the liberal crap they teach nowadays. Yeah, socialism always looks real good on paper. I mean everyone wins right? But inevitably, folks learn they can't live in some utopian society with equal distribution of resources. No, man has and ALWAYS will seek to gather as much as they can to themselves.

Sanders sounds just like Lenin.

I'm telling you, bullets are going to start flying in revolution if a socialist wins.


And it's even worse, even if there is no selfishness, greed or corruption, it still can't work.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   
socialism will never work as long as there is greed. socialism will only work if the elites (corporations) are willing to have a little less so that the rest of us can have a little more (jobs, money). under our current capitalist model the corporations get welfare intended to trickle down but it never does, instead profits are used to create more profits and send more jobs over seas to you guessed it make more profits. if only some of those profits could be used to create higher paying jobs here in the u.s. so that people could pull themselves up by their bootstraps and support themselves and not have to look for handouts.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: pithos
Capitalism. Socialism. What's the third option?


There is no third option, we must choose.

Well we need to hurry up and find one.

Technology and Space exploitation could end up makieng a good proportion of the work force obsolete.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Freenrgy2


I'm telling you, bullets are going to start flying in revolution if a socialist wins.



Who are you going to shoot?



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: pithos
Capitalism. Socialism. What's the third option?


There is no third option, we must choose.


Black and White again.

Of course there is a third option. We can have a system that uses both capitalism and socialism. We do that today, but we need a bit more socialism.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: pithos
Capitalism. Socialism. What's the third option?


There is no third option, we must choose.

Well we need to hurry up and find one.

Technology and Space exploitation could end up makieng a good proportion of the work force obsolete.



I think mining the resources of our solar system is utterly necessary and completely beneficial. Why would cheap clean energy and uncommonly pure materials be a hinderance? Of course, whether you want to be a space miner is another story.

Neoluditism is in direct opposition to the very improvements that we all demand.

Bastiat's candle maker petition sums it up well:

A PETITION From the Manufacturers of Candles, Tapers, Lanterns, sticks, Street Lamps, Snuffers, and Extinguishers, and from Producers of Tallow, Oil, Resin, Alcohol, and Generally of Everything Connected with Lighting.



We ask you to be so good as to pass a law requiring the closing of all windows, dormers, skylights, inside and outside shutters, curtains, casements, bull's-eyes, deadlights, and blinds — in short, all openings, holes, chinks, and fissures through which the light of the sun is wont to enter houses, to the detriment of the fair industries with which, we are proud to say, we have endowed the country, a country that cannot, without betraying ingratitude, abandon us today to so unequal a combat.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Im not for Neoluditism.

Technology and progress should not be slowed down.

But we need to work out what to do with all the low skilled people who will find themselves simply displaced and made obsolete.

We are going to find ourselves in a economy that only needs high skilled/high intelligent people.

So what do we do with the surplus people?
edit on 12-2-2016 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: pithos
Capitalism. Socialism. What's the third option?


There is no third option, we must choose.


Black and White again.

Of course there is a third option. We can have a system that uses both capitalism and socialism. We do that today, but we need a bit more socialism.


"It is often said that one half of the world cannot remain committed to the market economy when the other half is socialist, and vice versa. However, there is no reason to assume that such a partition of the earth and the coexistence of the two systems is impossible. If this is really the case, then the present economic system of the countries that have discarded capitalism may go on for an indefinite period of time. Its operation may result in social disintegration, chaos, and misery for the peoples. But neither a low standard of living nor progressive impoverishment automatically liquidates an economic system. It gives way to a more efficient system only if people themselves are intelligent enough to comprehend the advantages such a change might bring them. Or it may be destroyed by foreign invaders provided with better military equipment by the greater efficiency of their own economic system.

Optimists hope that at least those nations which have in the past developed the capitalist market economy and its civilization will cling to this system in the future too. There are certainly as many signs to confirm as to disprove such an expectation. It is vain to speculate about the outcome of the great ideological conflict between the principles of private ownership and public ownership, of individualism and totalitarianism, of freedom and authoritarian regimentation. All that we can know beforehand about the result of this struggle can be condensed in the following three statements:

1. We have no knowledge whatever about the existence and operation of agencies which would bestow final victory in this clash on those ideologies whose application will secure the preservation and further intensification of societal bonds and the improvement of mankind's material well-being. Nothing suggests the belief that progress toward more satisfactory conditions is inevitable or a relapse into very unsatisfactory conditions impossible.

2. Men must choose between the market economy and socialism. They cannot evade deciding between these alternatives by adopting a "middle-of-the-road" position, whatever name they may give to it.

3. In abolishing economic calculation the general adoption of socialism would result in complete chaos and the disintegration of social cooperation under the division of labor."

-Ludwig von Mises
edit on 12-2-2016 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Wow, just wow.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: greencmp

Im not for Neoluditism.

Technology and progress should not be slowed down.

But we need to work out what to do with all the low skilled people who will find themselves simply displaced and made obsolete.

We are going to find ourselves in a economy that only needs high skilled/high intelligent people.

So what do we do with the surplus people?


We allow them to decide how they will live their lives.

What else do you propose?



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Thats not a solution.

You cant let them decide when they dont have anything to decide.

How can they live there lifes if there are no jobs for them with no money?

No job = no money

No money = no food

No food= death.

USA has a population just over 300 million.

What happens when there are only 100 million jobs?

What do you do with the other 200 million ?

You cant just let them starve and die.

Its simple maths.

The only thing to decide is lay down and die or take up arms and take by force from the those who do have jobs.

And if 200 million are starving you think those 200 million wont take up arms against the 100 million?
And when it gets to that sort of uprising/revolutions you get catatrophes like the USSR, cuba,revolutionary france and maoist China.

edit on 12-2-2016 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

So can I therefore conclude that you have no knowledge on the matter and must resort to quotes from a member of the Austrian school? You do know that one of the main arguments against Austrian School economics is that it has become part of US mainstream economics and is a contributing factor to some of our problems today?

Libertarian-style economics will no longer work in the US, or any other country for that matter.
edit on 12-2-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: pithos
Capitalism. Socialism. What's the third option?


There is no third option, we must choose.


Black and White again.

Of course there is a third option. We can have a system that uses both capitalism and socialism. We do that today, but we need a bit more socialism.


But once we vote for that "little bit more socialism" we'll never be able to vote it back.




top topics



 
37
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join