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: 14
58
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2016 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm a socialist and while you and I disagree quite a bit about the topic, I'm saddened to hear someone has been messaging you and asking you to shut up.





posted on May, 15 2016 @ 09:35 AM
link   
It appears that most of the "socialists" on here confuses social responsibility and being charitable with being socialist. Socialism is comunism without money. Capitalism with social responsibility is the only workable system in an unfair world. If it can't work because people are too greedy, socialism will work even less for the same human flaw. Socialism at it's core is giving the state all controll of resources and commerce. You still work for a salary, but the government is your employer. Ideology makes the decisions and commercial viability is not required. Accountability is only an issue during the ellection cycle.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm a socialist and while you and I disagree quite a bit about the topic, I'm saddened to hear someone has been messaging you and asking you to shut up.



Thanks. It's the reason for the rant really. There's much I disagree with in the world. But I either confront it or ignore it.

I would never infringe on another person's right by dictating to them that they should never express themselves.





posted on May, 15 2016 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
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

the military is still a function of govt. but when was the last time you voted on a war?



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman




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.


Comrade - you have no idea

Redefining reality is our specialty - and Trump is our secret weapon

:-)



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: DBCowboy

Okay, but why is this a topic?

No one running for president wants socialism.

No one on ATS wants socialism that I know of.....

Some people want more implementation of social programs and government funding.. But we have that.

You drive on roads, you go to parks I bet, you might even use electricity or the cities water.

What exactly are you arguing? Who exactly are you arguing against? Socialists hardly exist on this site.


I disagree.

Bernie is a socialist, wants socialism. And many here also want socialism.

I thought that was fairly obvious.


Everyone will want socialism, eventually. Well, save perhaps the handful of people who will end up 'owning' the planet. If they don't already.

Propaganda and indoctrination can only go so far. At some point, people will demand socialism. Real hardcore socialism.

And, at that point, the rich will have probably try to commit genocide on the 99% using robots and automated war machines, chemical weapons, bacteriological weapons etc. They would be the ones controlling all of these, unless the people who will have actually developed, designed and built all these weapons for them see the light and put in backdoors or otherwise try and sabotage or prevent this.

The labour for income for 99% (all the while being made redundant by machines and software) and lots of money for basically nothing for the 1% system we have now is primitive, anachronistic and inhumane in today's society. It simply has to go.

History will look back on us as we look back on proponents, advocates and apologists of slavery today. We'll be pointed to as bad examples and arguably justifiably so. Those of us who are against socialism, at least.
edit on 15-5-2016 by Fishy because: grammar correction.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: DBCowboy

He calls himself a democratic socialist, first of all.

Second of all - Socialism has come to mean a lot of different things. Roads can be called socialist because they are a government program, for instance - In that aspect, the government does have control over one part of production of one type of service.

The dictionary definition is no longer reliable, we just don't have words for what is practiced, and what is successful in other nations. Switzerland has free-market and capitalistic elements, as well as a larger government, higher payroll taxes and the like - And likely less corporate loop-holes, and subsidies. They are not full on socialistic, so what are they? There's no one word to describe them, so Sanders takes on the most common term used - Socialist.


Insurance (even private, for profit insurance) can be called socialist because it gives to some people more than they put in while giving other people less.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 11:12 AM
link   
I find it quite ironic that the OP is toting "no socialism" while awaiting retirement benefits...



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gh0stwalker
I find it quite ironic that the OP is toting "no socialism" while awaiting retirement benefits...


Investments. I'm not actually counting on anything from the government.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: Annunak1
As long as i can keep working 3/4 days a week. Make me work 5 days a week and i will start a riot! I was not born to work goddammit i was born to live!

I don't mind you working 3 or 4 days a week. That is 100% fine with me. But the second someone takes my money or takes it from my family after I work 6 days a week, and gives it to you since you don't earn enough...you become my enemy as much as those to stole the money from me and my family.


What if they printed the money then gave it to him. Would that be ok?

Because that's exactly how banks finance loans yet I don't see any anti-socialists up in arms about that.
edit on 15-5-2016 by Fishy because: spelling correction, additional phrase



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Roads, Police, Fire departments.

Those are mostly for protecting and furthering commerce.

And it takes big government to manage those.




posted on May, 15 2016 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: Char-Lee

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.



We are already there.
In 2011 some 49.2 percent of U.S. households received benefits from one or more government programs—about 151 million out of an estimated 306.8 million Americans—according to U.S. Census Bureau data released last October.Jul 2, 2014

Yes...but it is far, far worse than that. Not only is it living with your parents, it is the control you end up giving that government. Who are you going to vote for...the ones who pay for your Netflix or the ones who want to give you a job? And when you live at your parents home, you have to follow their rules. Not just out of being respectful, but because if you don't they will stop paying your allowance. It is the government taking from the masses to enslave them, make them conform to their wishes. In brief...it is slavery.

And as I usually do...it is the left that wants this control. Not the right.


Why is work, in and of itself, desirable and why should it be an objective?

Work is a means to an end. Not the objective in and of itself. Otherwise it would make sense to pay some people to dig holes and others to fill them back in, without actually taking something from the hole or putting something in the hole in between.

If you can devise and build a machine to do 100 people's jobs in a fraction of the time and a fraction of the energy and material cost, why should those people continue to have to work to be paid exactly the same?

What if they cannot find alternate employment in time? What if it doesn't pay enough for them to live or for them to support their family?

What is society supposed to do with those people? Tell them to go ... themselves?

Do you think that's the way society should be run? Do you think that's sustainable? Do you think having 90% of the population living in abject poverty because they've been made redundant by machines and software is sustainable, let alone desirable?

Why this constant fixation with someone else, lower than us on the totem pole, getting a leg up or even a modest freebie? When the richest among us pull in millions each month doing f... all.

Why do people have a problem with someone living below poverty getting a hundred or couple hundred in free food a month but have no problem at all with people who do f... all raking in millions each month? And sometimes have no problem at all with trillions on warfare and military spending?

How lopsided is that?

No one seems to give a damn banks literally make money from nothing, by charging interest on money they create out of nothing then lend out at interest.

And since all money is created this way, banks basically, indirectly, print out their own future interest earnings.

I can't help but feel this is the result of strong, decades longs indoctrination to hate or at least despise those poorer than us and deify the plutocrats, the masters of society.
edit on 15-5-2016 by Fishy because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-5-2016 by Fishy because: misspellings



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
But please, for the love of all things holy, don't ever try to silence people who disagree with you.

Why not?

Although I am all for free speech I understand tht others may not be. That is their ideal. You can't just agree to disagree and go on.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Fishy

Hats off to you, Sir.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Fishy




I can't help but feel this is the result of strong, decades longs indoctrination to hate or at least despise those poorer than us and deify the plutocrats, the masters of society.


I'm not sure that is the case. It is perhaps simply natural to prefer those who put resources, wealth and opportunity into our shared society as opposed to those who don't. It is often difficult to distinguish between those down on their luck and the lazy, and it is foolish to think the poor consists mainly of the former. It isn't the result of indoctrination to be wary of giving the poor resources, it is the result of those who would consistently take advantage of it with no intent on returning the favour.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 01:45 PM
link   
These Commies are PM'ing you to stop posting????

This is hilarious.

Time to double down when they don't like you peaking behind the Socialist curtains.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory
I'm not sure that is the case.

You sure make it sound like that. I mean it being the natural order and whatnot.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




You sure make it sound like that. I mean it being the natural order and whatnot.


You like people taking advantage of others?



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther
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:

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.


I would maintain that the aim of social democracies is to placate the masses so they don't outright overthrow capitalism.

Social democracy are concessions made to the working class and poor. Democratic Socialism is probably bigger concessions.

But even if it were true that the aim of socialism were to overthrow capitalism why is that a problem? It's clearly a problem as far as you're concerned but why should it be a problem for me, for example?

I own no stock in any company. What do I stand to lose? Why should I favour and want to preserve capitalism?


originally posted by: Konduit
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.


How is that socialism? It sounds to me like maximisation of profit and free trade. Both supposedly attributes of Laissez-faire capitalism.

Are you against Laissez-faire capitalism?

Are you for protectionism and tariffs? That's socialistic.

Are you for restricting the free movement of capital and people? That's socialistic as well.

Perhaps you are a cryptosocialist?



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory
You like people taking advantage of others?

Seems like people taking advantage of others happens no matter what.

My likes or dislikes are not going to change that.



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join