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.

 

Define Socialism... IN YOUR OWN WORDS.

page: 7
14
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: ScepticScot



The British empire (and its private capitalist forerunners) probably chalked up more deaths than the combined total of socialist regimes.


Not quite sure about that one mate, but one thing is certain; the Spanish killed a damn sight more than the British ever did.....strange no-one ever mentions that.

Hell, there's been numerous 'empires' and dynasties that killed more than the British!

But I guess that's a completely different discussion altogether.



Would gave to look it up but I think other empires killed more in % terms but we win in straight body count due to sheer size and population.

Wasn't really singling British empire out as being any worse than other empires. Arguably better than most.




posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

They sure don't mean the Great Chinese Famine.

en.wikipedia.org...

But don't expect some to know real world history.



posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: MrVancityeagle


I dont know why it has become such a negative thing.


Probably because it has led to the deaths of millions.

It takes power and influence from the 99% as well. Some little farmer can’t eat from his own crops because it is owned by the “collective”.


this is the stock right wing response which is complete bull.

How many deaths has capitalism lead to ?

Got an answer ? It is far more than whatever you believe can be attritbuted to Socialism, if you want to play this game.


Stock, socialist piffle.

I’ll play that game. Collectivized farming under Stalin, for example. The cultural revolution under Mao, for example.


we can play this game. But since every war in history has been for resources and profit, and since capitalism is a system based on making profits, every single death from war in history is a result of Capitalism.

Every single war has been a capitalist war

That by far dwarfs any claims of deaths from Socialism


What? So all wars before Adam smith were capitalist?

Have you heard of the Cambodian killing fields? Kmer Rouge? Vietnam? the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?


the wars in southeast Asia and Afghanistan were largely due to heroin. Golden Triangle and Golden Crescent

Drug wars are capitalist wars. Does that need to be spelled out for you ?

Where there is money to be made, there will be wars, and millions and millions of people will die.

Capitalism KILLS. Far more than Socialism. Deal with reality.


You can’t spell it out because it’s nonsense. When socialist countries go to war, usually with their own people, it’s capitalism. That’s the worst socialist lie I have ever heard.


The British empire (and its private capitalist forerunners) probably chalked up more deaths than the combined total of socialist regimes.

I think the broader point is that trying to compare different economic systems by counting deaths caused by dictatorships is pretty pointless.


But a body count directly related to governance isn’t pointless. If millions die due to famine as the result of a government policy, that is a direct effect of the system.


Pretty sure Capitalism wins in a straight famine body count.


For instance?


I think I already gave one. The British empire.



posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
I love how capitalism gets demagogued here.

Blame for 'death'.

And yet the single driving force behind the 21st century, and the push FORWARD(PROGRESSIVE).

Was a single thought behind it.

Create A THING to get rich off.

The betterment of lives is a by product.

Technology is the greatest example.

Radar,medicine,satellite, INTERNET( PRIVATE) has saved more lives, and created FIRST WORLD countries.



Instead of discussing the merits of both capitalism and socialism, (of which I believe both have) the discussion always devolves when some "know it all" drops the retarded meme "socialism has killed millions"

Well if you want to go down that stupid route, then its only reasonable to look at Capitalism's body count, which is much much worse.

By the way, wasn't it a Socialist country that first put a man in space ?



posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: ScepticScot

Sure if you ignore the hell out of Russia and China, and North Korea starving their citizens to death.

That's just a few decades out of the 20th century.


Not ignoring. Including and still behind.



posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
I love how capitalism gets demagogued here.

Blame for 'death'.

And yet the single driving force behind the 21st century, and the push FORWARD(PROGRESSIVE).

Was a single thought behind it.

Create A THING to get rich off.

The betterment of lives is a by product.

Technology is the greatest example.

Radar,medicine,satellite, INTERNET( PRIVATE) has saved more lives, and created FIRST WORLD countries.



3 of your examples were first developed by government spending...



posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Don't expect them to mention Holodomore either.

en.wikipedia.org...

Socialism is AWESOME people!

Socialist body count.



However, contrary to Western usage, these states do not describe themselves as "communist" nor do they claim to have achieved communism—they refer to themselves as Socialist or Workers' states that are in the process of constructing socialism.[6][7][8][9]


en.wikipedia.org...

Remember people.

Capitalism is 'bad'.

Socialism is AWESOME!




posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: MrVancityeagle


I dont know why it has become such a negative thing.


Probably because it has led to the deaths of millions.

It takes power and influence from the 99% as well. Some little farmer can’t eat from his own crops because it is owned by the “collective”.


this is the stock right wing response which is complete bull.

How many deaths has capitalism lead to ?

Got an answer ? It is far more than whatever you believe can be attritbuted to Socialism, if you want to play this game.


Stock, socialist piffle.

I’ll play that game. Collectivized farming under Stalin, for example. The cultural revolution under Mao, for example.


we can play this game. But since every war in history has been for resources and profit, and since capitalism is a system based on making profits, every single death from war in history is a result of Capitalism.

Every single war has been a capitalist war

That by far dwarfs any claims of deaths from Socialism


What? So all wars before Adam smith were capitalist?

Have you heard of the Cambodian killing fields? Kmer Rouge? Vietnam? the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?


the wars in southeast Asia and Afghanistan were largely due to heroin. Golden Triangle and Golden Crescent

Drug wars are capitalist wars. Does that need to be spelled out for you ?

Where there is money to be made, there will be wars, and millions and millions of people will die.

Capitalism KILLS. Far more than Socialism. Deal with reality.


You can’t spell it out because it’s nonsense. When socialist countries go to war, usually with their own people, it’s capitalism. That’s the worst socialist lie I have ever heard.


The British empire (and its private capitalist forerunners) probably chalked up more deaths than the combined total of socialist regimes.

I think the broader point is that trying to compare different economic systems by counting deaths caused by dictatorships is pretty pointless.


But a body count directly related to governance isn’t pointless. If millions die due to famine as the result of a government policy, that is a direct effect of the system.


Pretty sure Capitalism wins in a straight famine body count.


For instance?


I think I already gave one. The British empire.


No, which famine?



posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

No.

The private sector made those technologies today.

That's like saying Henry Ford is responsible for the TESLA.

Entirely effing different.



posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: MrVancityeagle


I dont know why it has become such a negative thing.


Probably because it has led to the deaths of millions.

It takes power and influence from the 99% as well. Some little farmer can’t eat from his own crops because it is owned by the “collective”.


this is the stock right wing response which is complete bull.

How many deaths has capitalism lead to ?

Got an answer ? It is far more than whatever you believe can be attritbuted to Socialism, if you want to play this game.


Stock, socialist piffle.

I’ll play that game. Collectivized farming under Stalin, for example. The cultural revolution under Mao, for example.


we can play this game. But since every war in history has been for resources and profit, and since capitalism is a system based on making profits, every single death from war in history is a result of Capitalism.

Every single war has been a capitalist war

That by far dwarfs any claims of deaths from Socialism


What? So all wars before Adam smith were capitalist?

Have you heard of the Cambodian killing fields? Kmer Rouge? Vietnam? the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?


the wars in southeast Asia and Afghanistan were largely due to heroin. Golden Triangle and Golden Crescent

Drug wars are capitalist wars. Does that need to be spelled out for you ?

Where there is money to be made, there will be wars, and millions and millions of people will die.

Capitalism KILLS. Far more than Socialism. Deal with reality.


You can’t spell it out because it’s nonsense. When socialist countries go to war, usually with their own people, it’s capitalism. That’s the worst socialist lie I have ever heard.


The British empire (and its private capitalist forerunners) probably chalked up more deaths than the combined total of socialist regimes.

I think the broader point is that trying to compare different economic systems by counting deaths caused by dictatorships is pretty pointless.


But a body count directly related to governance isn’t pointless. If millions die due to famine as the result of a government policy, that is a direct effect of the system.


Pretty sure Capitalism wins in a straight famine body count.


For instance?


I think I already gave one. The British empire.


No, which famine?


Take your pick. There are several to choose from.
edit on 3-7-2018 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: ScepticScot

No.

The private sector made those technologies today.

That's like saying Henry Ford is responsible for the TESLA.

Entirely effing different.



No private sector exploited* the existing development of those technologies.

*In the non derogatory meaning.



posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: MrVancityeagle




nstead of discussing the merits of both capitalism and socialism, (of which I believe both have) the discussion always devolves when some "know it all" drops the retarded meme "socialism has killed millions"


Because it has.

See Maos great leap forward referenced above, and other well known events.

When the 'masses own the means of production'.

Turns out.

Socialism is the great lie of the 20th century.



posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

They sure don't mean the Great Chinese Famine.

en.wikipedia.org...

But don't expect some to know real world history.


Socialism is responsible for zero deaths because socialism has never been tried on a national scale.

Never has a nation that claimed itself socialist actually shared the wealth of production with the workers. The workers have never owned or had a say in any system that classified itself socialist.

Without any ownership their is no incentives for invention or increased production.

Elitism, Fascism, Dictatorships, Oligarchy's and Religion have been the reason for most deaths.

Uncontrolled Capitalism leads to slavery of the working class, but not necessarily death.

Please stop spreading the lies of those who hid behind the term socialism to mask forced communism, facism or dictatorship. Deny Ignorance.


edit on 3-7-2018 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Socialism is slavery to the state with a promise and a smile. All they need is more money, while things slowly get worse.

Sanders said people standing in bread lines is a good thing. Michael Moore praises Cuba's healthcare, neglecting to mention that many Cubans have to craft hearing aids, for instance, from various odds and ends they scrounge up.



posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73




Socialism is responsible for zero deaths because socialism has never been tried on a national scale.


What part of this was confusing?



However, contrary to Western usage, these states do not describe themselves as "communist" nor do they claim to have achieved communism—they refer to themselves as Socialist or Workers' states that are in the process of constructing socialism


en.wikipedia.org...

And don't forget about these people.

National SOCIALISTS.

It's been tried ALOT.



posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73


Without any ownership their is no incentives for invention or increased production.


The original Jamestown colony was a socialist construct. Everyone held a share of everything in common. No one truly owned anything, so no one was incentivized to work. They all nearly starved. This was changed to no eating if you weren't working, but the colony failed to thrive.

Things didn't change until personal plots were assigned and colonists were allowed to hold some of the fruits of their own labors as their own. Why? They were then incentivized to succeed.



posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

And the private sector made them available to all.



posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Isurrender73


Without any ownership their is no incentives for invention or increased production.


The original Jamestown colony was a socialist construct. Everyone held a share of everything in common. No one truly owned anything, so no one was incentivized to work. They all nearly starved. This was changed to no eating if you weren't working, but the colony failed to thrive.

Things didn't change until personal plots were assigned and colonists were allowed to hold some of the fruits of their own labors as their own. Why? They were then incentivized to succeed.


The original Jamestown was a private owned enterprise. Not even remotely a socialist construct.



posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
a reply to: ScepticScot

And the private sector made them available to all.


Almost like a mix of private and state is the best solution...



posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Isurrender73


Without any ownership their is no incentives for invention or increased production.


The original Jamestown colony was a socialist construct. Everyone held a share of everything in common. No one truly owned anything, so no one was incentivized to work. They all nearly starved. This was changed to no eating if you weren't working, but the colony failed to thrive.

Things didn't change until personal plots were assigned and colonists were allowed to hold some of the fruits of their own labors as their own. Why? They were then incentivized to succeed.


pure nonsense. WHere do you make up this garbage ?

Jamestown was a settlement established by the VIRGINIA COMPANY, a JOINT STOCK COMPANY OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE.

Socialist my ass.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join