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.


The only people who want Socialism are people who don't produce

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 01:38 AM
The Op's opinion may be correct, but I can't help thinking the assertion needs the added reminder that most Americans apply the word Socialism in totally incorrect contexts for the most part. This could lead to a misunderstanding.

posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 04:04 AM
a reply to: toysforadults

There is a wave coming..

Captilism is finished.. It is a dying system and its death is needed. We need something that puts people and planet before money..

Of course you can produce if you are against capitlism... Look at the concept of peramculture.. Permament culutre with production..

As I said there is a wave coming.. You are the problem or the solution..

posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 04:05 AM

originally posted by: toysforadults
This is my theory and you will not talk me out of it. My assertion is that *nearly* only the people who don't produce are the ones who want a socialist or quasi socialist society.

My theory is based on this fact;

Capitalism is about the ability to own what you produce EI private property rights. This issue is essentially what the Revolutionary war was fought over. Remember it was fought over taxes and sovereignty. The king was taxing goods without representation essentially stealing your property or what you produce from you.


here we go, here we go, how many times have I heard that said.

Do these people realise they are claiming the only way a hum person contributes to a society is in an purely economic form and in no other way? Are they admitting that they do NOT contribute to their society in any other way?

Funny that, i thought people contributed to a society in non economic ways as well as in an economic way.

I reckon the people who pay the most tax are the working masses. The big end of town pays only token level tax, if that, wealthy individuals pay only token levels of tax because they use experts to reduce to their tax to token levels.

It would appear to me this leaves the working masses to pay the nations taxes.

Read recently of a study in the UK that found a typical two parent and two kid family pays about 70-80% of their income in tax and in taxes by other names.

posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 04:38 AM
If capitalism is about the ability to own what you produce, how many of you own what you produce in your jobs?

Unless you are self employed, the profits of your Labour belong to your boss or your company. Who then make a profit off your Labour whilst recompensing you with a wage.

In some cases the wage is fair, in most it is not.

posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 05:07 AM

originally posted by: Bluesma
The Op's opinion may be correct, but I can't help thinking the assertion needs the added reminder that most Americans apply the word Socialism in totally incorrect contexts for the most part. This could lead to a misunderstanding.

Just like communism back in the day encompassed ALL social aspects of politics. Or how the dictatorships of the communist regimes back in the day used Marx as one of their idols. His ideology wasn't that of suppression to create a state of commune in government, it was more on the lines of workers rights, and that if workers had the power to dictate their own future we would be more productive. Funny, how most countries hate unions.

To me capitalism can work, but it's also extremely and overly taken advantage of, it can easily lead back to say feudalism.

posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:02 AM
You fought and gained your freedom from the "British Oppressor" (with a great deal of help from the French and Spanish ahem!). The fact that the US today is divided over the issue of free healthcare is, from the British perspective, very ironic.

posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:13 AM
Unlike the shorthand used in American Republican political rhetoric, socialism doesn't mean welfare state.

In fact, in every version and method of moving an economy toward socialism (which is not a destination but a trend) it becomes more important than ever for every worker, every member of that economy to be involved and producing at their highest possible level.

Perhaps that's why Marx didn't write "Workers of the world, sit down and rest!"

Socialist systems also don't deprive anyone of proper rewards for innovation and development. What most systems do, however, is to ensure that an entire SOCIETY benefits from increased production not merely a few people or a single individual (as in capitalist systems). The logic here is that nothing is developed in a vacuum.

Also, there is not now nor have there ever been any "pure" economic systems. All are varying degrees of capitalism and socialism, state control and market freedom.

It's long past time that we do away with all the idealism and propaganda from all sides ... and concentrate on what works.

posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:18 AM

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: toysforadults

The government taxing you and taking your property to give it to someone else, or taxing you and taking the profit from what you produce is actually anti-American and it goes against the ideas of freedom. It's everything we fought the British to get away from and is the key element to a successful society where everyone has ample opportunity and incentive to be successful.

Then why did The Founders put it in the COTUS?

Apparently You have never read the constitution. The only people that are supposed to have income taxes are the people whom derive ALL their income from the FEDERAL government. The original intent with the taxes was if one person had to pay a tax then everyone had to pat the same set tax. I don't think You liberals would love a constitutional tax system because no one got any freebies and the rich and the poor were taxed the same.

posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:27 AM

originally posted by: jkm1864

Apparently You have never read the constitution. The only people that are supposed to have income taxes are the people whom derive ALL their income from the FEDERAL government.

I know you're trying to argue with Hazardous here, but on this point, I'm intrigued and must ask ...

Can you point me to the Article or Amendment of the Constitution that states anything like "the only people to have income taxes are those who derive all their income from the Federal government?"

Thank you kindly.
edit on 30-8-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling

posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:28 AM

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: jkm1864
I have worked over 40 years in the healthcare arena. I have had times when I have had health insurance and times when I didn't. Yet no one has ever paid for my healthcare, it all came out of my own pocket. Not all people without insurance get services for free.

I have never provided care for someone based on their ability to pay. I have found over the years that those with the least are the most appreciative and most co-operative.

If I had my wish, I would make healthcare services available to anyone that needs it, without them having to go bankrupt in the process.

I have no problem with AFFORDABLE healthcare. The problem I have is so called FREE healthcare that distorts the market and allows hospital admins to raise the prices through the roof. If uncle sugar was picking up the healthcare bill for 40% of the clients then the hospitals have no incentive to lower prices. You can see this in child care where now its just as expensive as college and that didn't happen until Uncle Sugar distorted the market now everyone not getting the benefit is screwed. I can assure You socialism is leading us strait into slavery but then again liberals love the idea of everyone else working for free just as long as they get their freebies.

posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 07:28 AM
a reply to: luthier

The problem I see is that you already have at least one public system in this country that is nearly 100% socialized already.

The public school systems. Most people receive their educations from it.

For a very fortunate few, it works pretty well, but for a lot of the rest, you can graduate high school functionally illiterate and end up dependent on a the social safety net for the rest of your life because your "free" education left you unprepared to hold down even the most basic service jobs ... even *with* your high school diploma.

And yes, it is fully socialized. The means of production (facilities) are government owned (public). The workers are government employees. The curriculum is government controlled. What school you attend is controlled by your zip code, and a few blocks one way or the other could literally mean the difference between being consigned to a demilitarized zone where you won't learn to read and a nice school where you could learn a decent amount, and trying to fudge your assignment will get your parents jailed.

Money is assigned by attendance and nothing else. There is little pressure to produce quality or compete so many school systems are corrupt and top heavy with very, very well fed bureaucrats leading to the constant crying of being underfunded.

We pour more money into our school system than most other developed nations and get less return. In fact, our education rates are slipping, not improving. Now there are arguably more factors than just the organization of our schools to blame for this, but the education system does not help.

And people are taxed heavily to pay for it all, but you can always pay over and above for a quality education at a private school if you are dissatisfied ... which creates a tiered system of haves and have nots - something I thought socialism was supposed to not be about.

posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 08:12 AM
There's no argument that public school education owes more to the socialist side of economics and pure capitalism, but capitalists were certainly glad to benefit from the public investment in creating literate, decently educated citizens.

However, the Republican Party created the public school system supported by general taxes.

Any analysis of where we are today in terms of public education's effectiveness certainly cannot be summarized in a few paragraphs (at least, honestly.) What we can say is that continual and arbitrary cuts to education funding, teachers' salaries, etc. all play into the equation, and most of those cuts have come from Republican initiatives.

I don't think many of us can agree that public monies should be used to send our young people to private religious schools, and most so-called charter schools are little more than gimmicks to filter public funds to private entities.

posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 08:21 AM
a reply to: toysforadults

so what exactly are you producing big man? Making a few extra bucks to feed into a system that's so corrupt it would make a maggot puke. Congratulations and enjoy your whale skin hub caps. You're a type of cattle and they love it cause you make them richer.

posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 08:29 AM
a reply to: Gryphon66

It's long past time that we do away with all the idealism and propaganda from all sides ... and concentrate on what works.

But who defines which policies "work" and which metrics to use? That's the dilemma that creates the conflicts in the first place.

posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 08:35 AM
a reply to: ketsuko

Your post doesn't really reflect reality. A lot of countries have much better public schools then even our private schools. It's about the actual policies and the people and parents. Schools are often bad because parents don't care enough then blame the government that they didn't solve all their kids problems they gathered by distracted parents.

Again you have to buy car insurance right? It's cheaper just by the compulsory aspect alone.

You aren't a dressing actual policies but rather the vague failing of American politicians and their legislative ideas.
edit on 30-8-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 09:36 AM

originally posted by: stormcell
So it's like a four person tug-of-war over a chest of gold coins...

Except the representative "fiat" gold coins that used to have tangible value, are more like the empty foil wrappers from those chocolate coins...they don't even have the value of the chocolate inside them and backing them anymore....

posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 09:53 AM

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Hazardous1408
You need to read their writings and the constitution to understand the full scope of what when and how.

From what I've read I was told that the Constitution was a living document and the phrases can be interpreted to suit the times and needs of the population. If politicians what to interpret "general welfare" as social programs that is ok with the Constitution. Hence why no SCOTUS has ever overturned a social program. Though I'm sure your internet Constitutional law degree trumps the knowledge of the various SCOTUS' since FDR.

PS: My existence proves your entire OP wrong. I am not on a single social program of any sort and I support them 100%.
edit on 30-8-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 09:54 AM

Ever wondered how NASA Kennedy's endevour to go to the mon not because it is easy but because it is hard created an almost endless list of revultionary discoveries and advancements in science to having to rely on Europe and Russia to get anything in space.

Read up on the 'Impact Agenda' and how the best minds in the country are forced to lie under capitalism and how policies are not set on truth but threats to remove money if scientists don't bend to their every whim.

Here's one I wrote earlier

Published: 01 June 2007

In the private sector, scarcely a day passes without some company announcing the steps it is taking to be more friendly to its employees.Even the most demanding city employers use the vocabulary of staff empowerment and talk about promoting work-life balance as a way of building staff commitment.But in higher education it seems that employers are taking an altogether tougher approach to those at the coalface. At Imperial College London and elsewhere they are assessing staff not as members of a scholarly community but based on a numerical analysis of their publications and their ability to bring in money..


In practice, universities may discover that telling the cleverest and most driven people how to run their professional lives is not likely to be a success. They will find ways of looking as if they are enthusiastic about change while continuing to work as they want to. And although talented academics like to work at top institutions, they also like to feel well treated. No university gets the best staff purely by offering good salaries. It tempts them with interesting work, good colleagues, the right facilities and the feeling that they are valued. Even world-famous institutions will become less attractive in the job market if they measure staff success in inappropriate ways.

Are you aware that top scientists at Universities are

Here's an example from my work of how Noble prizes for science are now not awarded on your work but on Noble Prizes you may have come up with the best work in human history, but if you didn't write four papers, you're not elligible for consideration-----the worlds top scientists are beig forced to forgoe actual scientific endevours to meet

The divisional minimum benchmarks are:

“To have sufficient papers in top rated journals in the speciality to ensure 4 publications in the RAE review period (2001-2007) with an Impact Factor of at least 5 and with no overlap with co-authors from ImperiaL”

The “productivity” target for publications is to:

“To publish 3 papers per annum including one in a prestigious journal with an impact factor of at least 5”

Unfortunately Dr X has published only two papers in 2006 . .

This paper describes one example of what happens when universities change from being run by academics to being run by managers. It describes an effect of corporatisation in the medical school of Imperial College London, but the same trends are visible in universities throughout the world. The documents on which it is based were sent to me after I’d written “All of us who do research (rather than talk about it) know the disastrous effects that the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) has had on research in the United Kingdom: short-termism, intellectual shallowness, guest authorships and even dishonesty (Colquhoun, 2007). The problem is not so much the RAE itself (the last one was done much better than the assessment described below), but rather it is the effect that the RAE has had on university managers, who try to shape the whole university in their misperception about its methods. It is another example of Goodhart’s law. The problem arises when people with little understanding of scholarship, or of statistics, attempt to measure numerically things that cannot be so measured. That is a plague of our age (Colquhoun, 2006), but it is a process loved by politicians, ‘human resources’ people and university managers.

Imagine how you would feel if you were sent every year a spreadsheet that showed your publication score and financial viability, and showed these things for all your colleagues too. Well, you may say, there’s nothing wrong with knowing how you are doing. But imagine too that your publication score is entirely automated, with no attempt to measure the quality of what you are doing. And imagine that if your grants don’t cover your costs, you are in danger of being fired. And imagine that your meetings with senior colleagues consist of harassment about what journals you publish in, and how many grants you have, not a discussion of your scientific aims. Not so good, you may think. But this is exactly what has been happening at Imperial College Medical School.

Let’s take a closer look at how academics are being assessed.

Full paper here:
Russian tranlation here:
Guide distributed worldsiwde here:


So no the worlds cleverest minds disagree with your theory because they know how things actually work.
edit on 30-8-2017 by bastion because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 09:55 AM
a reply to: toysforadults

Socialism is the political justification of theft.

posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 10:16 AM
a reply to: DBCowboy

That is taxation.

Calling it something else so that you can point fingers and plead innocence is just partisanship.

new topics

top topics

<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in