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: 13
58
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2016 @ 03:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: DBCowboy

Preach it, brother.

I find the idea of a Government taking care of me a lot like moving in with your parents. There is no way to feel good about yourself when something like that happens. Also, once the Government starts taking care of you then they own you. Your freedom is gone.



You must build your own roads and streetlights, fight your own fires, write and enforce your own laws, home school your kids, and have no plans to ever retire and get medicare. Guess your freedom's gone, huh?

edit on 15-5-2016 by andrewh7 because: (no reason given)
extra DIV




posted on May, 15 2016 @ 03:25 AM
link   
a reply to: humanityrising

Socialism is like pregnancy.

You can't be "a little pregnant".

You either are or you're not.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 03:26 AM
link   
a reply to: andrewh7

So you are putting all your faith and trust into a government that can't even keep its promises from one election to the next.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 04:31 AM
link   
Every society has people that don't want to work to support themselves and improve their quality of life. They would happily hand responsibility to the nanny state. No system is perfect, but some are much worse then others. Bring on the bread lines!



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 04:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Konduit capitalism requires a surplus in labour, so wages can be controlled, which means there will always be unemployed people. It's always been that way so it's about how we manage as a society the surplus labour "unemployed" that capitalism requires. Victorian work houses? Social security or mass poverty?or maybe the good old send people off to fight wars on the behalf of the capitalist


edit on 15-5-2016 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-5-2016 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 04:57 AM
link   
Not arguing for or against socialism, but from the DSA website it seems the endgame is outright socialism. So is there truly a difference between socialism and "democratic" socialism?


Although capitalism will be with us for a long time, reforms we win now—raising the minimum wage, securing a national health plan, and demanding passage of right-to-strike legislation—can bring us closer to socialism.


DSA Q&A



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 05:06 AM
link   
a reply to: woodwardjnr

And people wonder why a lot of Americans are concerned about illegal immigration and our industry being sent overseas. When you have 8 million undocumented workers and every industry sending it's production to China and Mexico, it tends to tip the scales.

Destruction by design. They are literally priming this country for Socialism.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 05:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ForteanOrg

Why do so many have such an issue with the definition?

I mean, I got it from Webster's Dictionary.

Socialism is the government controlling the means of production.


I don't have any problem with any definition as long as it matches reality and is not seen as the only possible definition. Another one is "An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity.". Yet another one is "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" (and that's from Webster's too).

But you might try to get it from the horses mouth: I'm a socialist. So, I believe I have a very good notion of what socialism is - at least in my country. It revolves around 3 basic principles: solidarity, dignity and equality. I often use these simple principles to determine if something would be advocated by a socialist: if something offends the principles of solidarity, dignity and equality, it can't be socialism.

As an example: when the Eastern German "socialist" state forbade their citizens to leave the country, they offended the principle of equality: some citizens were allowed to travel abroad (party members), others weren't.

In socialist states, free enterprise would still be possible - as long as it serves others, and not self.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 05:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: humanityrising

Socialism is like pregnancy.

You can't be "a little pregnant".

You either are or you're not.


Did you just make that up?



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 06:10 AM
link   
Weren't the Nazis socialists? NAZI stands for National Socialist German Workers Party
The Socialists were the ones that invaded Australia and killed the Aboriginals because they didn't fit into the distopic Socialist society they envisioned.
Does Nth Korea still align itself under the socialist dear Leader?

In a perfect Socialist society everyone works and contributes. In a real society some people are lazy, some are sick, some are old and they can't work. The Nazis killed a lot of these people as well as the Jews.

I remember reading 1984 and being sh*t scared. It seems people today like to sit behind screens sending hate out to anyone they disagree with. They have become their own Thought Police.

I don't know anyone who walks into a supermarket and says "I disagree with Capitalism. There's just too much choice here!!"

There's an old adage "If you're a Conservative in your 20s you're heartless. If you're a Socialist in your 40s you're an idiot".



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 06:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: andrewh7

So you are putting all your faith and trust into a government that can't even keep its promises from one election to the next.


Of course they can't - it's a democracy, not a dictatorship. During election day the would-be captains set out a course, tell you about it so you may vote in favour of it - and they really intend to follow it. After election they are appointed captain and then tell the crew where to go, as promised. But alas half of the crew fiercefully obstructs the plan. So, the ship won't get to the planned destination (in time) and the obstructors will point to the captain and say "told ya. He can't deliver, hes a liar.".

In a country like the US, where half of the population fights the other half, it's a miracle things get done in the first place..



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 06:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: mymymy

Ahhh I get it now.

According to the definition.

It's the transition from free society capitalism, to totalitarian socialism. It's the transition period, if we are to look at both definitions.

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



Free society? How many people are in jail in the US? How much working hours does the avarage American have to make to make ends fit? Right free capitalist society...



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 07:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: andrewh7

So you are putting all your faith and trust into a government that can't even keep its promises from one election to the next.


Of course they can't - it's a democracy, not a dictatorship. During election day the would-be captains set out a course, tell you about it so you may vote in favour of it - and they really intend to follow it. After election they are appointed captain and then tell the crew where to go, as promised. But alas half of the crew fiercefully obstructs the plan. So, the ship won't get to the planned destination (in time) and the obstructors will point to the captain and say "told ya. He can't deliver, hes a liar.".

In a country like the US, where half of the population fights the other half, it's a miracle things get done in the first place..


No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent.
Abraham Lincoln

No wonder you socialist don't think capitalism works because you are being lied to about the US still being Capitalist in orientation, when it has been Fascist a while now.In the Republic system we attempt to circumvent the problem of dictators but Socialism doesn't.

We have seen many examples of the idea that seems so good at the time, to be socialist, slips into genocide with NO checks and balances as a Republic has in place. NO and I agree, Capitalism is sure not perfect. In the Western society it has been morphed into Fascist/Socialist where the business owner becomes the government. Making it easy for this white collar crime spree are the lazy people voting in crooks (or maybe it is the vote counting is being rigged as Stalin pointed out, take your pick).


edit on 15-5-2016 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 07:07 AM
link   
Criminals in places of power tend to protect those who bribe them appropriately; making sure those who bribe them get their wishes against common sense and the common good. If the LEO"s would find the cajones to arrest the criminals on Wall St and in DC we can move on by vetting the people who have gummed up the works in a courtroom setting. Then those wanting socialism will diminish their complaints dramatically. Not arresting the criminals who are so bold as to commit their crimes in broad daylight is a problem. Criminals such as those Senators like Reid or Representatives like Pelosi who have been letting their family and friends cash in on backroom deals that are easily exposed are all over DC. Vet these people with a fair trial. Then we had a SOS trading favors to foreign entities after donations to the "foundation" and the apparent violation of espionage laws, this type of corruption now seems to be a theme in our Federal gov types. Republic, if we could only keep it.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 07:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Konduit

ATS has always been considered very left leaning, but recently it feels like it's more in the middle.

I think the pendulum is starting to swing back the other way in society as a whole. The Progressives have had control of media and education for over 20 years and the PC culture has started to become unhinged. The rise of Trump being a great example of the push in the other direction.


Culturally or socially left-wing, perhaps? Because economically, it's always appeared to me that the prevailing views of most ATS members are far too the right of me. Maybe it's my left bias skewing my perception.


originally posted by: deadlyhope

I disagree - you'll see a proportionate amount of sanders and trump followers. You'll see plenty of gun rights threads and plenty of Marijuana usage threads.

Ats is a mix of things really. I would actually call it in the middle.. because more people than average here seem to be okay with Marijuana usage, gay marriage, plenty are sanders fans, etc. Yet we like our gun rights,... abortion, drugs, Trans issues are contested, etc.


Yeah but views on economic policies are usually staunchly right wing. For instance, if you were to conduct a poll on whether a guaranteed basic income is a good idea or not, I think you'll find the overwhelming majority say no.

Of course, I must admit that I am what people might call a radical leftist, on economic policies.

I am indifferent to the other issues you mentioned. And I believe I'm a cultural conservative in other cultural or social issues than those you enumerated.


originally posted bydeadlyhope

That's a hell of a first post. Kudos, and welcome to ats membership.


Thank you.
edit on 15-5-2016 by Fishy because: improper formatting

edit on 15-5-2016 by Fishy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 08:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: Fishy
When Bernie's bread lines come to fruition is when reality will come to you. Thanks for posting and welcome to ats. 😄


Thank you. I don't live in the US. If I were a US citizen, between Hillary and Bernie, I'd vote Bernie. Between Hillary and Trump I'd vote trump. Between Trump and Bernie I'd vote Bernie.


originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Fishy

Well thanks for registering and replying.

As far as socialism goes, I take it to mean, "controlling the means of production".


Controlled by whom? Someone always controls the means of production. I take you don't want that to be the state? Are you against the state controlling them?

Then are you for collective control over the means of production by workers?

Or are you in favour of the current system, where rich plutocrats who hardly put in any real work control them and milk them and the workers working in them as well as their customers?


originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Fishy

We have a very corrupt capitalist economic system right now in the US. Giving more control and authority to an already corrupt system would lead to a corrupt socialist system.


You seem to be implying that capitalism isn't naturally corrupt or, if it isn't at the very onset, it doesn't become corrupt by itself. That it requires some outside influence for it to be corrupt.

I disagree. I believe there is ample, good reason to believe that capitalism is intrinsically corrupt or destined to become corrupt, as I understand corruption. I'm not really sure what you mean by corruption.

For instance, do you believe a few people or their businesses issuing money out of nothing and lending it out at interest is corruption? BTW, all banks do this, not just the central bank. In fact, the central bank charges hardly anything as interest for the money it creates out of nothing and loans out.

Are you in favour of abolishing or disbanding the central bank while leaving the other banks free to continue to engage in FRB?

Should the power to issue the nation's money lie with privately owned banks? Or with the government? Or should there be some sort of arrangement where this is shared?

Currently, privately owned banks and them only have the power to issue any and all nations' currencies by being allowed to legally loan out, at interest, money they don't have (can be any currency, not just the currency of the nation they are operating in) or which they already owe, many times over, either on demand or on maturity due sooner than they'll see that money back from the person or business they are lending it to. Are you ok with this or is this corruption?

Are you in favour of limited liability companies? Are these not corruption?

Are you in favour of corporate personhood? Is this not corruption?

Are you in favour of a basic income?

Should or shouldn't stock holders be both civilly and criminally accountable for crimes committed and damages produced by the corporations they hold stock in?


originally posted by: DBCowboyI'm not that big into authoritarian rule, personally.


How do you define authoritarian rule? Capitalism positively relies on authoritarianism and even totalitarianism, albeit sometimes in disguise.

It's how property rights, as proponents, advocates or apologists of capitalism, understand them, are enforced.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Fishy

About that wage idea:

I wonder if a guaranteed wage is truly good when you weigh it out? I think that my position would look to an outsider like a staunch fiscal conservative but social liberal who is not a republican as i am a Libertarian, and IMHO think that some form of minimum wage seems reasonable.

Especially, when you consider the slaves in the Eastern Communist/Socialist/Democratic Socialist systems who must be in hell. But caution is needed as there is a breaking point. It happens when it becomes cheaper to replace your job with robots or immigrants who were slave labor in their former life or sweat shop victims seeking a better life. Then, we've priced ourselves out of the market's ability to justify paying us. Easy for me to see how all hell will break loose on you and I alike when robots take all our jobs because they are a one time fee with minimum expense to maintain.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 08:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: ForteanOrg

Enter Fabian Socialism which is socialism in increments. They knew the people would rise up if real communism is employed all at once.


They would, because they've been taught and learned to love their slavery and their masters.


originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: ForteanOrg
Lenin said that communism is the goal of socialism. These guys all knew it. So they began to set it up incrementally so the frogs would stop jumping out of the pot before their goal is realized.


Most people see their living standards increase under socialism. Why would they object except out of systematic conditioning by their rules and masters to militate against their own enlightened best interest?


originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: ForteanOrg
Ive been railed at for posting that Agenda 21 is the new communism. But look what its about.... its about controlling world resources, its about forcing people to conserve whether they like it or not, its about rationing(no beef for you Komrade, youre killing the earth and causing global warming), its about total control and getting rid of private property rights(no big suvs in fact fewer cars because bikes are better for the environment....conservation easements on private property---seems willing enough but you lose control of your land, eminent domain, land grabs like Bundy Ranch and Oregon stand off, ICLEI type local policies which dictate what you can do on your own property and building codes which reduce single family dwellings and put up more condos....just take a drive through Bozeman, they have ICLEI there and almost all condos, duplexes, and apartments and a housing shortage to boot!!! Its all very subtle and happening before our eyes.


Property rights are not sacrosanct and they are not the most important rights.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Konduit



They are literally priming this country for Socialism.


Who is they?



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
a reply to: Konduit



They are literally priming this country for Socialism.


Who is they?




I will offer that it is the Progressive/Communists who are. They were entrenched in the western world by the Soviet regime and there have been defectors who have shared the plans with the western world.

Here is one example of how these people have been mobilized against the citizens of free lands

www.nytimes.com...


There was a Russian spy who revealed that the plan has always been to undermine capitalism by using social upheaval to incrementally move the political middle from the center. From what i can tell from history they were doing this until the right of center was considered right wing nut job for those who followed the false narrative. Basically redefining reality as we see almost daily with the PC media.




top topics



 
58
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join