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.

 

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

page: 2
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults

originally posted by: Singswithchickens
I don't agree with your opinion. Doesn't the rich elite on the left want socialism? Are you saying the wealthy left doesn't produce anything? Or are you saying the rich left wing isn't socialist like many on ATS preach?


Can you provide an example of a rich elite leftist who wants socialism, or in other words, doesn't want to own what they produce?



I do not know any rich leftist. What is presented as "left" in USA is in fact to right side from center.

What is wrong on collective ownership? Agri collectives in Spain are most successful enterprises, there are factories in Germany, Italy and other countries owned by its workers. What is bad on fair share of produce and decision making?




posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: JanAmosComenius

In our alleged free market system you can form your own collective.

Why do you have to force the rest of us into your system when you have the freedom to create your micro-cosm?

Actually by the government stepping in and doing it for you it prevents you from doing so because now you can't afford it. They actually remove the incentive for you to act collectively on your own.
edit on 29-8-2017 by toysforadults because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

There is a line of thinking that capitalism is no longer or will shortly not be a viable econ system. Automation may make huge swaths of the populace literally useless (for labor).

Holding on to any system blindly is very dangerous.



.
edit on 29-8-2017 by seasonal because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

I've heard many people from silicone valley talking about this recently.

Haven't seen the manifestations from it yet though.

Also, why does the government have to force us to do good things, can't we allow these things to happen organically or do you believe they won't or can't?
edit on 29-8-2017 by toysforadults because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Germany is a socialist country and they produce enough to have a better standard of living than the US; As do all Scandinavian countries all socialist.

www.quora.com...
edit on 29-8-2017 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Germany is another quasi-socialist country. They REQUIRE the benefits of capitalism (private ownership) in order to produce enough to support the social element of their society.

That right there tells you what's actually working and what won't.



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Singswithchickens
I don't agree with your opinion. Doesn't the rich elite on the left want socialism? Are you saying the wealthy left doesn't produce anything? Or are you saying the rich left wing isn't socialist like many on ATS preach?


Wealthy leftist want socialism as a virtue signal, but the trick is their policies never actually apply to them. A good example of this is public schooling. The rich left will drone on and on about public schools, slam charter schools and school choice. Yet, they will send their kids to rich private schools. All the socialism and leftist policies are for the plebes, not the rich.



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
This is my theory and you will not talk me out of it.


oh

well nevermind then



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

As we modernize year after year we will recognize that a hybrid of capitalism and socialism. Health care seems to be much more controllable(costs and quality) under a single payer system as we can see by any metrics.



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 08:04 PM
link   

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.


Well said sir.
I could say a lot more, but not in this very short sighted thread.



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

Healthcare Organization Act of 1973



The Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 (Pub. L. 93-222 codified as 42 U.S.C. §300e) is a United States statute enacted on December 29, 1973. The Health Maintenance Organization Act, informally known as the federal HMO Act, is a federal law that provides for a trial federal program to promote and encourage the development of HMOs. The federal HMO Act amended the Public Health Service Act, which Congress passed in 1944. The principal sponsor of the federal HMO Act was Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (MA).


It was ilegal to profit off of healthcare until 1973 when prices began to skyrocket.

Why isn't this the solution and not socialization?



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 08:06 PM
link   
I agree with you, but I also think that people who want socialism believe that they will get to keep all their stuff plus gain some more, and other people *cough*rich*cough* will have to fork over plenty of their goodies.



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: JanAmosComenius

In our alleged free market system you can form your own collective.

Why do you have to force the rest of us into your system when you have the freedom to create your micro-cosm?

Actually by the government stepping in and doing it for you it prevents you from doing so because now you can't afford it. They actually remove the incentive for you to act collectively on your own.


Huh .... is USA government forcing you to socialism? I do not think so. What I see is capitalism on steroids. Even Sanders who is old style social democrat is no revolutionary figure. So who is forcing you to collective ownership of means of production?



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

But what they don't understand is that nothing is there's in socialism. There are no private property rights.



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

Are you saying corps will put people before profits?

There are many examples of corps doing horrible things to keep the profits rolling.

No system is going to allow us to skip along hand in hand. There are problems with all of them.



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

As long as the irrational reverse thinking that's very popular with the right isn't applied, hate socialism all you want.

Justifying fascism because socialism is bad just makes the ulterior motives seem ridiculous.

Reasonable people are mostly moderate. This is why those with extremest views and 'unfailing logic' aren't appealing. They are only able to apply their logic 'skills' to a single paradigm.

Concluding socialism is sort of bad is reasonable.
Concluding this means Fascism is Good, Capitalism is the best, Socialism can only have bad possible results, specific qualifiers like 'owning property' is the sole difference between them, or any other reaching argument justified solely by your knowledge 'socialism is bad' is not reasonable.

The newest form of Right wing Terrorism isn't Nazis, it's denying ignorance. As long as the Right is more stubborn, it doesn't matter if they are correct. Today, it's capitalism is 'dying', thus this means American is dying. Because American is solely how we deal with money. /s It's not good to be so revealing that you think that is what is so important, to be a nationalist over it. An American nationalist generally is someone that accepts all races based on our culture. Get this 'preservation' bullsnip out of your minds. This is the MAIN reason being a racist, and racism is such a huge buzzword, you can't be both American, and also Racist, it's irony when people are Racist in the sense that they are so misguided to where they 'come from' they consider America the home of their race. This is the main reason white nationalists are effing stupid, they aren't even 'from' here. They came here, and then decided to kill people in the name of a country they stole.

American Nationalist means you are accepting of all people that come here, but you can try to incorporate racism to defunk the meaning of nationalism, it won't work in America though. From THE DAY this land was stolen from the Indians, the idea of working together instead has been most appealing to Americans, hating socialism is almost hating our roots itself. Do you know what "Thanksgiving" is? Coming up pretty soon here.



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

I think the fact that Bernie Sanders lost in the Democrat primaries demonstrates the truth of your OP. I'd say it's not entirely confined to "non-producers," as he had a lot of support in the public employee realm of teachers and a sizable number of public employee unions. I'd suggest it is more along the lines of "anyone who's life isn't paid for or subsidized directly by the taxpayer don't want socialism."



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: JanAmosComenius

Uhhh yes, that's why I pay over 30% taxes. To think there is no socialism here and to think we live under capitalism shows that you don't understand either of them.



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Teikiatsu

But what they don't understand is that nothing is there's in socialism. There are no private property rights.


Hence why I said 'believe'



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: toysforadults

I think the fact that Bernie Sanders lost in the Democrat primaries demonstrates the truth of your OP. I'd say it's not entirely confined to "non-producers," as he had a lot of support in the public employee realm of teachers and a sizable number of public employee unions. I'd suggest it is more along the lines of "anyone who's life isn't paid for or subsidized directly by the taxpayer don't want socialism."


Good point, people who work for the government are pro expanding government, not surprised.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join