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.

 

Why is Socialism so heavily disliked?

page: 3
18
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 02:06 AM
link   
a reply to: lydie15

Very few in this thread understand what Socialism is. It is the ownership of the units of economic production and distribution -- factories, farms and so on -- by the state. The state is supposed to be run by representatives of the people whose task is to ensure a fair and equitable allocation of all goods and services.

If you can see how ordinary human nature makes such a system unworkable and perverts it into totalitarianism, you will understand why so many of us dismiss Socialism. If you can't, the long, ghastly record of Socialism's failures should make you think a little.




posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 02:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax



Very few in this thread understand what Socialism is. It is the ownership of the units of economic production and distribution -- factories, farms and so on -- by the state. The state is supposed to be run by representatives of the people whose task is to ensure a fair and equitable allocation of all goods and services.

Which in very close terms defines the Marxist Communist government. So , by its very definition both terms mean the same , but are used for different reasons.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 02:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: lydie15
the long, ghastly record of Socialism's failures should make you think a little.

So what system works then? Long term.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 02:55 AM
link   
The problem is this.

The thread should be re-titled to make it clear that this is "America" e.g. Why is Socialism so heavily disliked in AMERICA?

In Europe, where the word "socialism" has different connotations. Things like healthcare is cheaper and better because the profit motive has been removed.

Some Americans seem to classify any programme where the government helps its citizens as "socialist". They seem to be persuaded of this by their politicians, who are likely in receipt of industries that would suffer from a bit of European-style socialism.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 03:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

Communism is a type of Socialism in which the means of production is communally owned rather than vested in the State. What this means in practice I do not really know, and frankly I do not believe anyone else does either.

Socialism is essentially a theory of economic relations. Communism is a theory of social relations whose economic prescriptions are of an essentially socialist nature. In other words, Communism implies Socialism, but it isn’t necessarily so the other way round.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 03:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Communism is one central entity controls everything and everything pays the same and is considered equal.

Socialism is a similar structure in the sense that all work is considered valuable. it can be either state owned or self owned.

Both systems care more for the populace of a society than capitalism.

Again, WHAT system is the best long term for society?



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 03:50 AM
link   
a reply to: lydie15

Why is Socialism so heavily disliked - Because people have been trained up to dislike it. The rich and powerful, as it seems both Einstien and MLK say unrestrained power of the rich and powerful are able to distort the economy in their own favor.

No one ever seems to say why socialism is bad apart from claiming that welfare for individuals sends the country broke when most of the better informed and better educated people who say it must know their claim is based on the false premise.

The premise being that only welfare for individuals sens the country broke not corporate welfare.

Well, how can they maintain a straight face when they say that because quite clearly they themselves believe in welfare, its just they don't want it to go to individuals, they only want it go to the corporate sector where they,in all likely hood, become recipients of it.

If the people who say welfare for individuals is bad why aren't they making just as much noise in the media about the evils of corporate welfare?

Why aren't they constantly appearing in the media or in these forum calling for the amount of corporate welfare to be quantified and its impacts on the economy assessed, that it should struck out etc etc. What arn't they doing that?

Quite clearly its because they don't oppose welfare, they only oppose it going to individuals because quite evidently they don't oppose it going to the corporate sector.

In my country the govt quite clearly is in favor of welfare because during the 2008 financial crisis they gave my wife and I, $800 and told us to go spend it and stimulate the economy.

These days are demonizing the dole and the people who claim it. Its also quite clear they are slowly phasing it out but again not one single word about corporate welfare, not one.

just for the record, don't any one be silly enough to claim that corporate welfare creates jobs. why, cos that means you cannot escape admitting that welfare money for individuals also creates jobs.

When xyz millions or billions is spent into the economy by the federal govt and it bounces through the bank accounts of individuals and straight into the local economy, don't try n tell me that its not a form of economic stimulus and dont try n tell me that when xyz millions of dollars is pumped into the local shopping centers that that is not creating and or maintaining jobs in that shopping center (or local economy however you define it).



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 03:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99


So what system works then? Long term.

Benign absolutism. Its successes have been numerous and resounding. Modern examples include Yugoslavia under Josip Broz Tito and Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew. It greatest and longest-lasting achievement, however, was the creation of the Roman Empire by Gaius Octavius, who came to be known as Augustus Caesar. Many other Roman emperors also illustrated the capability of benign absolutism to deliver good government, beginning with Augustus’s nephew and successor Tiberius.

As for the long term, well, the Roman Empire lasted 1,500 years. Not too shabby.


edit on 2/4/16 by Astyanax because: of despots.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 03:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Azureblue
There is a good reason for that. Socialism by its very nature holds the common person down.In the Socialist world only the government could rise above.I know , Socialism coupled with Communism (true , absolute) would mean no one would have to. Way back in high school , I had a teacher that stated that in the case I described above, this would be the best form of government. Basically , a Utopian society.
However , as man is not perfect , we can never have this form of true societal bliss.(at least not in the childhood stage we are in now)




posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 03:58 AM
link   
Anyone with half a brain in their head can see the economy isn't working.

The problem is there aren't many people with half a brain in their head left.
edit on 4/2/2016 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 04:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99


Both systems care more for the populace of a society than capitalism.

Capitalism is not a system of government. It is an economic theory.

The system of government in Western countries is liberal democracy with universal adult franchise. It takes different forms in different countries. In France and the USA there is distribution of powers amongst an executive, a judiciary and a bicameral legislature. In Britain the legislature is also the executive, making its head, the Prime Minister, very powerful indeed. Most Western countries offer variations on this kind of system.

It is not the business of government to ‘care for the populace’. The business of government is to protect the populace from foreign and domestic enemies and — in modern, technological societies — to provide basic services that private enterprise cannot or will not supply because it is unprofitable to do so.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 04:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Azureblue
a reply to: lydie15

Why is Socialism so heavily disliked - Because people have been trained up to dislike it. The rich and powerful, as it seems both Einstien and MLK say unrestrained power of the rich and powerful are able to distort the economy in their own favor.

No one ever seems to say why socialism is bad apart from claiming that welfare for individuals sends the country broke when most of the better informed and better educated people who say it must know their claim is based on the false premise.

The premise being that only welfare for individuals sens the country broke not corporate welfare.

Well, how can they maintain a straight face when they say that because quite clearly they themselves believe in welfare, its just they don't want it to go to individuals, they only want it go to the corporate sector where they,in all likely hood, become recipients of it.

If the people who say welfare for individuals is bad why aren't they making just as much noise in the media about the evils of corporate welfare?

Why aren't they constantly appearing in the media or in these forum calling for the amount of corporate welfare to be quantified and its impacts on the economy assessed, that it should struck out etc etc. What arn't they doing that?

Quite clearly its because they don't oppose welfare, they only oppose it going to individuals because quite evidently they don't oppose it going to the corporate sector.

In my country the govt quite clearly is in favor of welfare because during the 2008 financial crisis they gave my wife and I, $800 and told us to go spend it and stimulate the economy.

These days are demonizing the dole and the people who claim it. Its also quite clear they are slowly phasing it out but again not one single word about corporate welfare, not one.

just for the record, don't any one be silly enough to claim that corporate welfare creates jobs. why, cos that means you cannot escape admitting that welfare money for individuals also creates jobs.

When xyz millions or billions is spent into the economy by the federal govt and it bounces through the bank accounts of individuals and straight into the local economy, don't try n tell me that its not a form of economic stimulus and dont try n tell me that when xyz millions of dollars is pumped into the local shopping centers that that is not creating and or maintaining jobs in that shopping center (or local economy however you define it).











Shouldn't everybody have paid off a lot of bills?

Or was everyone debt free?



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 04:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

The roman empire fell. You stated antiquated methods of government. Those may have worked before technology was a thing. How do you work that into modern society with current information sharing? One of the reasons ancient ideas worked was simply there was no transit of information. now there is, and modern rome would fall in 2 weeks.

Again, what method would work?



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 04:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

If you can't see that economics and governance go hand in hand, well I suggest you re-look history.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 04:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99


The roman empire fell.

After lasting 1,500 years. Not long-term enough for you?


You stated antiquated methods of government.

Did you forget that I mentioned Singapore, one of the world’s most modern and high-tech states?


How do you work that into modern society with current information sharing?

Why don’t you ask the Chinese? They seem to manage it quite effectively.


Again, what method would work?

The answer remains the same. Sorry if you don’t like it



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 04:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99


If you can't see that economics and governance go hand in hand, well I suggest you re-look history.

Thanks for the advice. I write history books.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 04:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax



Did you forget that I mentioned Singapore

Singapore has 5 million people in high estimations, do you know what the population of California is?



Why don’t you ask the Chinese? They seem to manage it quite effectively.

Yea, I don't know why our government bought chips for government purpose when we created the tech they simply replicated. I literally am dumbfounded by that.



The answer remains the same. Sorry if you don’t like it

So roman rule.

A dictator. Basically a modern day North Korea.

I don't want to live where you want to live.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 05:13 AM
link   
a reply to: lydie15

To me personally, because I have yet to find a way in which socialism can possibly exist in any form, while adhering to the principles of voluntaryism.



Voluntaryism.. is a libertarian philosophy which holds that all forms of human association should be voluntary.

All socialist are collectivists - but not all collectivists are socialists.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 05:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99


A dictator. Basically a modern day North Korea.

A dictator, yes, but nothing at all like the evil dynasts who tyrannize over that unhappy country. Actually, a king would be preferable, since in a monarchy the interests of the state are automatically identified with those of the people. But I don’t suppose folk would will swallow the idea of a divine right to rule in this day and age, so a dictator it shall have to be.


I don't want to live where you want to live.

Who said anything about that? You asked what the best form of government was.

As it happens, I have lived under Socialism. I lost what would have been my patrimony to the government under a programme of Socialist land reform. I have queued for bread, had my rice, lentils and clothing rationed and put up with the shoddy products and lethargic, grudging service provision of a state-run economic machine. I have experienced the wonders of Socialism up close, at first hand.

I have also lived in Singapore. It’s a bit sanitized and dull, but people there are mostly happy and the quality of life is as good as it gets pretty much anywhere in the world. The state in Singapore is actually quite big and dominates large sectors of the economy, but it is run as a for-profit enterprise and the proceeds are ploughed back into benefits for the people. Nobody is getting rich on the backs of the poor. In fact, there are hardly any poor people.

My own country is no longer run by a Socialist government, though the economic and administrative institutions created during the Socialist era still represent a major obstacle to development and growth. However, the economy is now largely free and the country has never, even during the worst of times, abandoned democracy altogether. I would rather live here than anywhere else because it is my native land, but I could (and did) live very contentedly in Singapore.


edit on 2/4/16 by Astyanax because: of Evil Dynasts.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 05:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax




A dictator, yes, but nothing at all like the evil dynasts who tyrannize over that unhappy country.

Because we can just rainbows and unicorns?



As it happens, I have lived under Socialism. I lost what would have been my patrimony to the government under a programme of Socialist land reform. I have queued for bread, had my rice, lentils and clothing rationed and put up with the shoddy products and lethargic, grudging service provision of a state-run economic machine. I have experienced the wonders of Socialism up close, at first hand.

Yet you have internet access.



I have also lived in Singapore.

INSANELY small population for such a modernized country.



I would ratherlive here than anywhere else because it is my native land

As I suspected. Please don't take that as an insult. You are cultured, and that is that. You will live your culture no matter who it may upset, even if it upsets you. While I can respect that, I can NEVER understand it.

This is the exact conflict in western and eastern thinking. Western thinking will allow you to drop those ideals and beliefs, and while you might mentally judge the culture it breeds, you will also be judged by it.

Either way if god is real he/she won't be happy.

Tower of babel maybe is real.




top topics



 
18
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join