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.

 

I'm against socialism, apparently I'm an idiot. Ask me nothing.

page: 12
58
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2016 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: mymymy

The problem is that the aim of socialism is to eliminate capitalism. You're presenting your version of socialism as some sort of balancing act between the two, and that is deceptive.

Let's go back to what "socialism" is, kids:


Full Definition of socialism

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Do you see how the check-and-balance argument is nonsense? The aim of socialism is to destroy capitalism. They are not complementary systems.

Bernie Sanders is lying to you.
edit on 5/14/16 by NthOther because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 14 2016 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: NthOther

They don't hear you.

They are indoctrinated. The definition does not matter, they hate capitalism, they want America to be destroyed.

They will say anything in order to achieve that goal.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: NthOther

Yes my child, but there is a difference between Socialism, and Democratic Socialism.

You are defining Socialism, yes that is bad, Democratic Socialism is very different from that. That is a mix of capitalism and socialism

I will ask again, why is Webster's definition of socialism Bible to you, but a variation of that is not?



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 09:27 PM
link   
a reply to: GodEmperor

No, you're the one plugging your ears, I will ask YOU

why is Webster's definition of socialism Bible to you, but a variation of that is not?



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: mymymy

What variation?

I quoted the first definition.

You quoted the second.

"a political movement that uses principles of democracy to change a capitalist country to a socialist one"

So during the revolution to socialism, you call it 'social democracy/democratic socialism/etc'

Then the second definition is valid, since capitalism is being destroyed and socialism is being implemented. Both are technically in existence at the same time.
edit on 14-5-2016 by GodEmperor because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: GodEmperor




That article is from February.


Oh darn, and here it is May. Oh if only I could have found one from 16 minutes ago. But I guess Fox has changed their tune. Are we griping about Muslims now? Mexicans? I'm involved in another thread where you Republicans are obsessed with genitalia at the moment so please excuse me



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: mymymy

Right.

When you cannot refute the content, attack the character.

Got it.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: mymymy

"Democratic socialism" is a version of socialism (you should go back and read my expository post on grammar, earlier in the thread).

The state still controls the means of production. The fact that the agents of the state are selected by democratic means does not change the fact that the means of production are controlled by the state.

"Democratic" simply denotes the method by which those means of production are controlled.

You are being fooled with cheap word games, my friend.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: GodEmperor




I quoted the first definition.


Yes, I quoted the second, do you know what it means when something has 2 definitions? It means it has 2 definitions

Sanders embodies the 2nd, and yes I know you know this



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: mymymy

Those two definitions are not separate from each other.

They are complimentary.

As I have already explained.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: GodEmperor

Well see, words can have 2 different meanings, like another word that is kind of explosive around Republicans : Race, it means 2 things and they do not compliment each other. There is a difference between what you want to see and what it actually is. We are already living in a "Social Democracy" He only wants to expand on that, not implement anything else



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: mymymy

So, you are saying he is the embodiment of the first definition.

Thanks.

a form of socialism with a democratic government; the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole -- combined with a democratic government
www.dictionary.com...

Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production, with democratic management of enterprises within a socialist economic system.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 10:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: BooCrackers
Thats ok bro, them people like working 16 hour days with no overtime and getting only what they need to live, no luxury, no fancy cars.....

they are the mindless followers and deserve that cheese.


Youre talking about Americans in general here right? Pretty accurate description.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 10:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: mymymy

So, you are saying he is the embodiment of the first definition.

Thanks.

a form of socialism with a democratic government; the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole -- combined with a democratic government
www.dictionary.com...

Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production, with democratic management of enterprises within a socialist economic system.
en.wikipedia.org...


Im pretty sure Sanders is aiming for a model that has been working quite succesfully in some Nortern European cpuntries. And im pretty sure you would call those countries socialist. Also sure that definition doesnt suit there.

Unless you mean that a bit more taxes, better and more social services, less corruption and lobbying = socialism.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 11:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: mymymy
a reply to: GodEmperor

Well see, words can have 2 different meanings, like another word that is kind of explosive around Republicans : Race, it means 2 things and they do not compliment each other. There is a difference between what you want to see and what it actually is. We are already living in a "Social Democracy" He only wants to expand on that, not implement anything else





posted on May, 15 2016 @ 12:34 AM
link   
a reply to: NthOther

oh dear, the irony escaped you too it seems...



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 12:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Whew.

The last few days has been intense here. Not like the usual fun. people have been private messaging me to not post anymore. Apparently my view on socialism is taboo.

I disagree with it.

Look, people have different views, and we can all disagree, but good gravy, to silence me? I'm just a fat old man on the internet doing something to pass the time while I transition into retirement.

And I get hate mail? hahahahahahahahaha

I'm a nobody.

I'm nothing. Just a fart in a tornado.

If you guys want socialism, then suppress your neighborhood and go for it!
Tax your dog 500%!
Beat your neighbor, but do it for the state so you can get extra cheese next time you're in line.

But kiss my fat hairy ass if you want me to accept it.

Really.

Kiss it.

Use gloss.

Rant over, but I hope I was able to convey my feelings without harming anyone's safe space.

Hey, the Socialist President of Venezuela where people are rioting because they have no food just endorsed Bernie Sanders...Americans want Socialism??? Those people are freaking nuts...



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 12:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kangaruex4Ewe
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

I agree with you 100%.

These folks pushing for socialism should put their thoughts into actions and just do it themselves until it catches on.

Work 60 hours a week, get your paycheck and on the way home stop by your local crack house (even the best neighborhoods have at least one). Go in and hand most all of your paycheck to the person of your choice, smile, tell them to have a nice day and go home.

Ride by every day on your way home from working your arse off with the simple joy of knowing that you helped crack head stay high for a bit longer. Smile and wave and relish in that warm, mushy feeling. At least someone got to sleep in today, right?

Do this every week. Spread that love around. It doesn't have to be a crack head. It can be a perfectly healthy person who just has better things to do than you do, so they just choose to do that instead of working.

At the end of the month when your bills roll around and you can't afford to eat, keep your lights on, pay your mortgage, etc. go outside and stand for a bit and wait for the other socialists to come along and help you out.

Until then, use those warm fuzzy feelings to stay warm, and feel full until the bank comes with the sheriff to foreclose on your house.

Sign me up for that sh!# like yesterday...Maybe a little hyperbole.


For a full blown socialistic society to work everyone has to participate and unfortunately, everyone does not. So then that brings everyone else down instead of just those individuals. In a utopia, it would work amazingly well. Right now there is no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody, somewhere is going to have to pay for it.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
The flaw in your post is that these new, young Socialists don't have any intention of working...Their idea is to have the anti-Socialist people who DO work support them...Every thing is free, to them...



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 01:48 AM
link   
a reply to: cody599

Speaking of which, I've yet to see an example of a completely Socialist state that wasn't absolutely corrupt. Impress me.

Anyone who has learned 20th century history knows about the USSR, Maoist China and Khmer Rouge... but I guess some people conveniently suffer from selective memory loss and need to be reminded.

Socialism demands that we place blind trust in whoever takes the power to distribute society’s goods and services. History shows those who have this power abuse it in horrific ways.

Socialism’s Bloody History Shows Millennials Should Think Twice Before Supporting It



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 02:55 AM
link   
Public school, roads, mail, police...where do you draw the line? Would you rather pay for all those things individually?

I'm constantly in awe that people seem to think it has to be one ideology or the other; clearly a successful government will be a well-rounded one. Unfettered socialism leads to disaster and unfettered free market capitalism leads to disaster. One could even say that power corrupts, no matter the system in place.

You're in Walmart. You buy an article of clothing, from a company owned in the US, but made in Bangladesh under conditions that might be called slave labor, simultaneously taking jobs away from American workers. How is this form of deregulation a good thing?

Would you really have everyone monitor themselves, with no oversight, in general? That's some serious faith in humanity.
edit on 15-5-2016 by humanityrising because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join