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: 28
<< 25  26  27   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 04:18 PM
a reply to: enlightenedservant

That's because communism doesn't accept religions. But socialism does, hence my numerous examples. Or are we going to pretend not to know the differences in socialism and communism?

Are we going to pretend history didn't happen?

Almost every state that declared itself socialist oppressed religious peoples.

For instance, the People's Socialist Republic of Albania declared itself the first atheist state. They actively attempted to eradicate religion.

In the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, religion was thoroughly oppressed.

Or the Khmer Rouge? It goes without saying they persecuted the religious.

Many monks were executed; temples and pagodas were destroyed[14] or turned into storehouses or gaols. Images of the Buddha were defaced and dumped into rivers and lakes. People who were discovered praying or expressing religious sentiments were often killed. The Christian and Muslim communities also were even more persecuted, as they were labelled as part of a pro-Western cosmopolitan sphere, hindering Cambodian culture and society.

The Roman Catholic cathedral of Phnom Penh was completely razed.[14] The Khmer Rouge forced Muslims to eat pork, which they regard as forbidden (ḥarām). Many of those who refused were killed. Christian clergy and Muslim imams were executed. One hundred and thirty Cham mosques were destroyed.

Khmer Rouge

The oppression of the religious is a common thread throughout all states that declared themselves socialist, whether they were run by communist parties or some variation thereof.

edit on 1-9-2017 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 04:22 PM
a reply to: Gryphon66

Throughout the history of the Soviet Union (1922–1991), there were periods where Soviet authorities suppressed and persecuted various forms of Christianity to different extents depending on State interests.[1] Soviet Marxist-Leninism policy consistently advocated the control, suppression, and ultimately, the elimination of religious beliefs, and actively encouraged atheism in the Soviet Union.[2] However, most religions were never officially outlawed.[1]

The state advocated the destruction of religion, and it officially pronounced religious beliefs to be superstitious and backward.[3][4] The Communist Party destroyed churches, mosques and temples, ridiculed, harassed, incarcerated and executed religious leaders, flooded the schools and media with anti-religious teachings, and it introduced a belief system called "scientific atheism," with its own rituals, promises and proselytizers.[5][6] The total number of Christian victims under the Soviet regime has been estimated to range between 12-20 million.[7][8][9]

Religious beliefs and practices persisted among the majority of the population,[5] in the domestic and private spheres but also in the scattered public spaces allowed by a state that recognized its failure to eradicate religion and the political dangers of an unrelenting culture war.[3][10]

Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union WIKI

Proof you suppress evidence to advance your socialist agenda.
edit on 1-9-2017 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 04:37 PM
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Both things happened. Still shows your claim is only partially correct.

That is hardly suppression of evidence. It isn't like you couldn't get hold of the information and post it here.

edit on 1-9-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 04:44 PM
a reply to: toysforadults

"Capitalism is about the ability to own what you produce."

Aye including people not so long ago.

End of the day all systems of governance have their shortfalls, whats required for them to work for the people is a rather more even distribution of wealth.

You may have fought the British to get away from unfair taxation but you did not get away from the bankers, and "they" don't even just take a slice of the pie, "They" bake the cake and tell you how to swallow it.
edit on 1-9-2017 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 04:48 PM
a reply to: toysforadults

I don't know. I would bet a lot of people would rather have the business they work for be employee owned.

posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 04:50 PM
Even the title is stupid ( Russian did quite well for over 40 years ) so you say thous people did not work ?
Half the planet is based on it China more then any one ( you say they dont work ?)
Capitalism has a shelf life ( we hit the end years agaio .
capitalism is Based on HIGHER profits
say Walmart bring in 500 billion this year if they even bring in 500 billion next year that is a louse they MUST grow .
Thing is You cant keep growing forever and once the groth is maxed out then company,s ( and people start turning on each other .
Capitalism is as much a dead end as any form any one else has come up with .
Once it can no longer grow it will do exactly what it is doing now
Ps people are no different then any animal they want to survive and will do what is the easy way to do that .
So your one of the lucky ones 99% of the world makes LESS then 2$ a DAY !
And over 3/2 rds Of America is Poverty lv or LOWER .

posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 05:00 PM
The only people that want socialism are those that produce nothing.

You ain't just whistling Dixie.

posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 05:04 PM

originally posted by: neo96
whistling Dixie.

Dude! Trigger warnings, maybe?

posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 05:11 PM

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: neo96
whistling Dixie.

Dude! Trigger warnings, maybe?

That's just me creating jobs.

That gets people paid with stars

posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 12:54 AM
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So the Latin American countries that follow "Christian Socialism", the "Social Gospel", and "Liberation Theology" are suppressing religions like Christianity too? Because if I'm not mistaken, those were my examples.

Also, you keep pointing out communist govts as your examples of "socialism". Albania was the "People's Socialist Republic of Albania" from 1946 until 1992. It was literally a communist govt that was allied with the Soviets and then w/the Chinese communists until the end of the Cold War. It even declared itself the world's first atheist state in 1967.

The Czechoslovak Socialist Republic was literally a communist ruled country from 1960 until 1990 (HERE). That link also shows that 12 years after seizing power in 1958 in a Soviet backed coup, the "Communist Party of Czechoslovakia" changed the name of the country it now controlled to the "Czechoslovak Socialist Republic".

And the "Khmer Rouge" is literally the nickname for the followers of the Communist Party of Kampuchea in Cambodia. Literally (HERE).

You seem to only be going by the official names of specific countries, rather than the names and/or policies of the communist political parties that control them. By your logic, North Korea is actually a democratic republic since its name is officially the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Nevermind that its system of self reliance, called "Juche", was introduced into the constitution as a creative application of Marxism–Leninism (as is mentioned HERE).

So if anything, your examples are only proving my point that communist govts don't accept religions while socialist ones like the ones in Europe and Latin America do.
edit on 2-9-2017 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 05:46 AM
a reply to: enlightenedservant

(facepalm) I see one typo but it's too late to change it. The "Communist Party of Czechoslovakia" completed its coup in 1948, not 1958. This was a few years after WW2 ended and when the Cold War was beginning in earnest. 12 years later they officially changed the name of the country to the "Czechoslovak Socialist Republic". Either way, it was a communist country led by a communist party & was backed by the communist Soviets.

To further make the point about names versus ideologies, the USSR (aka "the Soviet Union") officially stands for "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". But they were undoubtedly following communism & their main political party was the "Communist Party of the Soviet Union". Notice the pattern? The political parties called themselves communist parties while often calling their nations Socialist Republics.

posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 11:40 AM
a reply to: toysforadults

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

"Socialism" per se is not the problem.

When we get past the buzzwords and whistles and look at the nitty gritty of it all, the real problem with Socialism (as we know it), is that socialism takes away our individual and collective control and power, putting it in the hands of a few... but power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely... so whatever "they" can do for us, "they" can do to us. And that is a recipe for disaster. But the same is true of any system that takes the power away from the people and places it in the hands of a few.

The real beauty of free-market capitalism and property rights is that WE THE PEOPLE are in control and have the power. It's not a perfect system either, and people can and will make mistakes, but we also still have the power to do better because it's a free-market... we are not stuck with the bad decisions of anyone.

However, as you have already pointed out, we really don't have a free-market system, and a crony capitalist system -- which takes away our control and power and gives it to corporations -- isn't any better. For the same reasons.

Health care is a perfect example. Our control and power over nurturing and nursing our health -- and therefore our very lives -- has been taken away from us on almost every level. To the point that we are now being told that we do not have "a right" to healthcare. So we don't have "a right" to use a God-given plant to heal our dis-ease, but government has "a right" to throw us in jail if we do, and Big Pharma has "a right" to synthesize and patent and monopolize and profit from the plant, and then doctors have "a right" to play gatekeeper in order for us to obtain an unnatural form of a nature given medicine....

On a different note, let's talk about "producers" vs "non-producers." Because that really means squat.... except in the divide-and-conquer battles of the PTB. What purpose is served by focusing on those "people who don't produce," rather than those corrupt people in power? Who decides what qualifies anyone as a "producer"? And why should anyone be forced to produce anything at all?

We are being conditioned to believe that one can only be a responsible and productive member of society if they are "producers," which really means corporate slave, which leads to folks knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. Lots of people who don't have a job contribute a hell of a lot to their communities and to society as a whole. Is the good full-time mom/dad who "produces" responsible and productive members of society any less valuable than the mom who works and brings home a paycheck? How about the retired folk who give their time and energy and love to various organizations? Are they less valuable just because they don't bring home a paycheck for their labor? I would say exactly the opposite.

I would also say that our world would be a far better place if we had more people with the time and opportunity to give of themselves, rather than having to chase the almighty dollar as corporate slaves in our debt- and gambling-based economy. We don't live to work... we work to live.

The only way to correct the situation is to take the power away from the fictional legal entities and give it back to the people; then in accordance with the Social Contract -- a form of socialism so to speak -- which demands that ALL government business is to be for the good of the people, we can use government as a tool to make the people as strong and independent and resourceful and self-sufficient as possible. When people have the power and means and opportunity to do for themselves by themselves, they don't want handouts and they don't want interference.

posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 11:47 AM
a reply to: Boadicea

There is nothing about many conceptions of socialism that require autocracy.

Early Marxism, probably. Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism? Certainly.

The only reasonable system is a mixed system: capitalism, socialism, and the democratic rule-of-law.

edit on 2-9-2017 by Gryphon66 because: -s

posted on Sep, 2 2017 @ 12:06 PM

originally posted by: Boadicea
The real beauty of free-market capitalism and property rights is that WE THE PEOPLE are in control and have the power.

Are in control? You act like that has ever actually happened.

A free market only exists until someone makes enough extra money to influence policy and then the free market is gone.

posted on Sep, 7 2017 @ 12:06 PM

originally posted by: CarlsBad

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: CarlsBad

Concluding this means Fascism is Good

At what point in the constitution or in the free market does Fascism take place?

Fascism being an authoritarian dictatorship. They don't work together. You present a fake argument.

You don't know anything about the USA if you think we aren't fascist at all.

It's honestly not worth debate if this isn't a given fact. You're a detractor of the truth to state such a comment without the knowledge.

Many things are fascist in the United States, down to the slogan "United We Stand".

It's a paradigm, that you cannot obviously see and apply. You can only see the example of fascism in the USA as an absolute, so you cannot comprehend the finer details of it in our society. Sad.

How true. Here in the US, Nazi Germany has been taught as an isolated event. It was one big bad guy that we can all focus on with little to no thought about the context in which he arose. I once started a poem on that topic that I never got around to finishing. It started
How would you know Hitler if you saw him on the street
Would he wear a German Swastika, have Fascist smelling feet.
Would he walk around sig heiling with his hand up in the air
Or would he wear a three piece suit, have corporate polished hair.

Never finished it.

top topics

<< 25  26  27   >>

log in