It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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

Hungry Citizens of Socialist State Raid Stores for Bread

page: 11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in


posted on May, 2 2016 @ 11:40 AM
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

And what exactly does that have to do with Socialism, Karl Marx lived in the 1800's he was born in Germany and died and is buried here in England were I am.

The first Communist state only came into being in 1916 but Socialist ideal's go far further back than Marx.

Christianity for example, go sell all you own and give to the poor, what you do unto the least of these you do unto me, if you have two coat's and your brother has none then give him the one you are not using.
I could further point out passages in the new testament which show the church (the real and original Apostolic church before it became a state religion) even under Apostles held wealth in Common and shared it out among the congregation with the rich members selling there possession's and placing the money in the Apostles keeping, Apostles whom also worked, then there is the love thy neighbour as thyself bit.

Also I could go into the concept of fairness being a near enough universal concept and how smaller more HUMAN community's would look after there ill and bereaved being as they were extended family's.

Then there were poem's and even a well loved British Hymn written before Marx by one William Black called Jerusalem which called the Mill's which were the heart of the industral revolution Dark Satanic Mill's, Jerusalem is the name of the Poem and Hymn.

Jewish Kibbutz were not based on Marx though they functioned in exactly the way he envisaged.

But it was Lennin whom tried to create a Communist state, in fact it was almost working as he intended until his death and Stalin took it over then he turned it into his own little despotic empire based on secret police, the party and FEAR they neighbour concept's.

So I have to ask WHY have you tried to deflect the point of the comment in this manner?.

posted on May, 2 2016 @ 11:45 AM
From the 'Big Commie Kahuna', himself:

"The goal of socialism is communism."
- Vlad 'The Impaler' Lenin

posted on May, 2 2016 @ 11:58 AM
It was about the late 70's our company was selling some equipment to a Russian company . Automobile part making stuff anyway all the Russian engineers wanted to see was a US grocery store. So we took them to a Meijers Thrifty Acres. They didn't know what to think. that day was a 3 hour long lunch hour.

posted on May, 2 2016 @ 12:01 PM
a reply to: xuenchen

So what are you saying here, that the capitalist model of the US is the example we should all follow?

Well the data doesn't back you up. Here is a list of the 25 cities in the world with the biggest homeless populations

This is based on data collected by the UN and 11 out of 25 of those cities are in the US. No other country even comes close to that number. You want to use one example of how socialism doesn't work, well I could offer you a thousand to show that capitalism isn't the answer.

It's good practice to educate yourself before you go spouting garbage like in your OP.

posted on May, 2 2016 @ 12:06 PM
a reply to: IAMTAT

You know Lennin did not want the Russian Royal family murdered, that was the Bolshevik's whom performed that act, Lennin wanted them alive as a bargaining chip.

On his death Bed Lennin refused to make Stalin his heir so Stalin threatened Lennin's wife and of course Stalin was then made heir, he would probably have siezed control anyway though and more poeple died in the purges probably even than Hitler killed, he was in short a psychopath.

But you must not forget the part Lennin played in History, his action's bringing about the Russian Revolution good or bad actually helped the west become more democratic as well since the revolution made the upper class' fear the lower class whom drastically outnumbered them and whom at that time even in the most progressive european societys lived in grinding poverty working hand to mouth for what little they could earn.

Personally though I am definitely Socialist, I am not a Communist but the interpretation of Socialist also varies from Country to Country with Labour in England being our socialist party (or they used to be) and our communist party never really ever having had many supporters of it's own.

Though I have said that I believe that though Industrialisation of Russia would have been far more slowly performed (but far less people would have died as well) if Lennin's form of leadership had continued in Russia that we would not see communism in such a terrible light today but as a footnote in Social justice history that had long past since Lennin actually allowed dissenting voices unlike Stalin with his Gulag's and indeed I believe democracy would probably have come more organically to Russia far earlier than it did had Stalin never happened to destroy and corrupt what Lennin had intended.

Which of course mean's that I think Lennin's revolution would probably have failed of it's own accord without the Stalinist secret police state but it would (without Stalin to muddy the waters) have likely left strong social reform's that would have lingered and made for a far fairer society when and if Democracy had flowered in Russia.

posted on May, 2 2016 @ 12:11 PM
a reply to: LABTECH767

Impressed with your knowledge on the subject of Lenin.

posted on May, 2 2016 @ 12:18 PM

originally posted by: projectvxn
No, it is your lack of understanding the history of socialist regimes, its founding philosophies, and how it affects people that is causing your confusion.

No, I just buffed the red scare coating that it was given by the US government.

You're trying to lead the conversation in a way that makes you right. But the facts don't go that way and neither Ketsuko or I are willing to play such a stupid game with you.

Of course not, the conservative only think in terms of their own country and only look at other nations, usually just the surface, to try and prove their points.

As soon as nationalization by capitalist countries pops up they backpeddle to "capitalsim is just free exchange". Seen it happen a bunch of times.

edit on 2-5-2016 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 2 2016 @ 12:25 PM
a reply to: IAMTAT

Well I am neither a Lenninist, Stalinist or Maoist (god forbid dirty little monster had syphalus and had bus loads of young virgins driven to his home to be raped as his chinese doctors told him it would be good for him), or indeed Communist of any ilk.

Communism was a repressive, anti freedom, prison state regime to be nice about it, it abused and twisted Socialist idiology to justify thing's which were never socialist.

How did Stalin become Emperor of Russia, that is what he was in reality.

Socialism ENGLISH style is democracy with fairness bolted on, the rich do not think it is fair but everyone else does, just like the rich think it fair to work people to death with no employment right's, no safety protocol's and to live as wage slaves but the rest of us do not think that is right or fair at all.

PRE-BLAIRITE labour was the real British party of Socialism.
Most Labour votors want it back but most well off NEW LABOUR (BLAIRITE) MP's are from the upper class and do not want that OLD (REAL) LABOUR Back.

The point is that Idiologically I am socialist, not Marxist to the nth Degree but Democratic Socialist or Christian Socialist as they stand for exactly the same thing, Christian socialist of course being my personal choice but as they do not have a foothold in the UK as a concept party Labour, Left wing which is extremely far right of communism is my choice.

They stand of Regulated Capitalism, socialism in the form of Social housing, you can own your own home, buy it etc but the concept is that no one should be homeless, no one should have to go to food bank's and we should have access to free medical care, a safety net and state pension's.

But guess what let's start with state pension's, Capitalism does not want that, they want the money in THERE private hedge fund's not the State, A good health service is bad for business, why give it free when you can charge them and if they die you get to keep there pension contributions anyway, housing, why force rent's down when your hedge fund can buy up housing stock and the housing crisis is good for business as it increased demand and you can increase your rent's even more.

Get the picture of what we are facing in the UK because of Right wing politics, hedge fund investors with offshore bank account's for MP's.
edit on 2-5-2016 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 2 2016 @ 12:34 PM

originally posted by: jamespond
a reply to: xuenchen

So what are you saying here, that the capitalist model of the US is the example we should all follow?

Sorry professor, you need to quote me on that.


Your twisting mis-quotes are embarrassing to the cause.

posted on May, 2 2016 @ 01:01 PM
a reply to: xuenchen

So what are you getting at then?

My response is based on the fact that whatever your criticisms of socialism are, you can't cite me a source that's a perfect solution to those problems, anywhere in the world, because there aren't any.

posted on May, 2 2016 @ 01:07 PM
a reply to: jamespond

What's your "perfect" solution?

I like to criticize failure.

posted on May, 2 2016 @ 01:12 PM
In the USA in 2015 one in six lived in poverty.
One in seven were food insecure.
1.6 Million children were housed in shelters or emergency housing.
46.7 million people live under the poverty line.
More than half a million people were homeless.

The entire population of Spain is about 46 Million. Just for some reference.

Venezuela, the country in question, has a population of about 30 Million.
There are more hungry people in the USA than there are just people in Venezuela.

In the USA in 2015 approximately $71Billion was NOT collected in taxes from churches, and clergy.
The argument that charitable donations, and religious entities help to feed the poor is questionable - especially when you look at the Megachurches, the pastors' homes, cars, jets, clothes. That's real money that could help the poor; which is what the Christians especially are supposed to do (according to their teachings).

Before you question the politics of another country make sure you have a clean record at home.

Everyone I've ever heard use the 'pull yourself up by your bootstraps' line usually had a pretty nice pair of boots on...

Capitalism - because calling it "greed and selfishness" just isn't as palatable.

posted on May, 2 2016 @ 01:17 PM

originally posted by: xuenchen
What's your "perfect" solution?

Previous poster says there are no perfect solutions, OP asks the above.

Par for the course.

posted on May, 2 2016 @ 01:19 PM
a reply to: jamespond

Some of the problems with it can be fixed. Like the confiscatory policies, economic central planning that has never worked anywhere it has been tried, and the fact that you can have socialism in a capitalist country, but you'll go to jail or worse for being a capitalist in a socialist country.

edit on 2 5 16 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 2 2016 @ 01:29 PM

originally posted by: projectvxn
but you'll go to jail or worse for being a capitalist in a socialist country.

So much hyperbole.

posted on May, 2 2016 @ 03:26 PM
a reply to: daskakik

Go try it in Cuba Socialista.

posted on May, 2 2016 @ 03:36 PM
a reply to: LABTECH767

Hmmm, but those ideals are voluntary, not forced. When you create a state-run socialist system, it is forced. Therein lies the difference. Did the early church compel anyone to hold goods in common with them or was it voluntary? Did it have the power to make it compulsory?

Remember, all of those ideal dictates are made to the person, on a personal level, and if you are compelled to follow through by an outside force, such as the state, did you follow those dictates on your own or were you forced against your will?

Consider that before you tell yourself that Jesus is a socialist in the sense that most of us are discussing.

posted on May, 2 2016 @ 03:40 PM
a reply to: Badgered1

In the US in 2015, poverty is a percentage of the income span meaning that even if the lowest incomes in the nation were all in 6 digits, the bottom percentage would still live in poverty.

All food insecurity means is that you can't name what you are having for dinner. I am food insecure even though I know I will be having dinner because I know I have plenty of food, I just don't know for sure exactly what I will be eating from one meal to the next, but that is a big part of how you define food insecurity.

So just right there are two reasons why your numbers are unnecessarily skewed.

posted on May, 2 2016 @ 03:43 PM
a reply to: LABTECH767 oh pardon me I thought you said that communism twisted Marx's ideals

edit on 2-5-2016 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 2 2016 @ 03:46 PM
a reply to: ketsuko

All food insecurity means is that you can't name what you are having for dinner.

This is the real definition of food insecurity.

Food insecurity—the condition assessed in the food security survey and represented in USDA food security reports—is a household-level economic and social condition of limited or uncertain access to adequate food. Hunger is an individual-level physiological condition that may result from food insecurity.

new topics

top topics

<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in