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.

 

Democratic socialism surging in the age of Trump- Associated Press -Really? Propaganda Much?

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2018 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: TerryMcGuire


And we can start that education with the anti-socialists here who rail against it daily with no sense that they are believing the propaganda established by the capitalist system .


I've worked hard my whole life to be well off.

What sense would I have giving some of that up?


As have I. Both of us working in a capitalist system and we give up some of what we have earned on a daily basis. These taxes and fees and insurances are not socialist or capitalist, they are the cost of society. From my perspective, much of those taxes and fees and insurances go to making others rich rather than serving society and other citizens. The capitalist system as it is for us now has little to no control over how it is exploited by those who would profit from these expenses that are taken from us. In a more socialist system it is my belief that that ''loop hole'' would be closed and those monies would not flow so easily to the profiteers.

I can't really prove any of that as I don't know as these bad examples of socialist failure have ever really gotten those loop holes out of their systems.




posted on Jul, 22 2018 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
a reply to: infolurker

No, it hasn't, because as I stated above which the majority ignore is "DICTATORSHIP" and "MONOPOLY OF POWER"

every state-socialist country has had a dictatorship and monopoly of power, that is not Communist ideology

so, basically, you just admitted that "Communism" as it was intended has never happened


Communism as it was intended can NEVER happen.

We are not ants. People are selfish by nature and nothing but drugs or lobotomizing people will change that ever.



posted on Jul, 22 2018 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

But if that definition of socialism is the full involvement of governmental desired outcomes. Where does the public or citizen control of commerce or equity come into play? By the technical definition of socialism, wouldn't any form of government remain out of the picture?



posted on Jul, 22 2018 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: TheJesuit




They have seized on what they view as a leftward lurch by Democrats they predict will alienate voters this fall and in the 2020 presidential race.


The Repubs may well be in for quite a surprise.



posted on Jul, 22 2018 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

I'm GD Einstein for not supporting an asinine ideology called SOCIALISM.

Anyone that DOES support it.

Ain't that bright.



posted on Jul, 22 2018 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker



We are not ants. People are selfish by nature and nothing but drugs or lobotomizing people will change that ever.


Bosh. In a capitalist society where individualism is pushed as the be all and end all of consciousness that may seem to be true. The system pushes that notion on us because with everyone working only for themselves they can be sold more product that the system produces. The system is capable of over production and that is how it thrives by inculcating people with the notion that they must come first because everyone else is selfish by nature. You believe it so strongly because you believe that nothing but drugs or lobotomizing people will ever change it. It is untrue.

Way back when we were struggling to survive in the face of bigger and stronger critters and severe environments the ''true nature'' of people was not individualism but rather collectivism. The only way a tribe could survive was by working together. To bring down the predators people needed to work as a whole dependent upon each other to make the kill, otherwise they would all be killed.



posted on Jul, 22 2018 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Isurrender73

I'm GD Einstein for not supporting an asinine ideology called SOCIALISM.

Anyone that DOES support it.

Ain't that bright.


Even the Nordic countries who are semi-socialist are walking that crap back. They amassed large fortunes under free market capitalism and in less that 30 years they slid into economic stagnation.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The only ones who quote the "Nordic model" are unfamiliar of the REVERSAL that occurred.

Big Government Big Welfare / State Socialism only took less than 30 years to bring them down. Now they CUT taxes, reformed welfare, partially privatized pensions, cut regulations, provided school vouchers....

Luckily, instead of "doubling-down" on stupid, they reversed course.

www.bostonglobe.com...

Scandinavia’s hard-left turn didn’t come about until much later. It was in the late 1960s and early 1970s that taxes soared, welfare payments expanded, and entrepreneurship was discouraged.

But what emerged wasn’t heaven on earth.

That 1976 story in Time, for example, went on to report that Sweden found itself struggling with crime, drug addiction, welfare dependency, and a plague of red tape. Successful Swedes — most famously, Ingmar Bergman — were fleeing the country to avoid its killing taxes. “Growing numbers are plagued by a persistent, gnawing question: Is their Utopia going sour?”

Sweden’s world-beating growth rate dried up. In 1975, it had been the fourth-wealthiest nation on earth (as measured by GDP per capita); by 1993, it had dropped to 14th. By then, Swedes had begun to regard their experiment with socialism as, in Sanandaji’s phrase, “a colossal failure.”

www.investors.com...

Sweden has been repealing its welfare state post-crisis. Norberg says the country has become "successful again, but only after a new reform period, with more deregulation and free trade than in other countries." Taxes have been cut, school vouchers allocated, and the pension system partially privatized as Sweden distances itself from its welfare-state past.


reason.com...

Sweden and the other Scandinavian countries have experimented with very big government and semi-socialist ideas. There's just one problem: That experiment coincided almost perfectly with the region's only sustained period of economic decline over the last 100 years.

Sanders' image of Scandinavia is just like the rest of his policies: stuck in the 1970s. Until that decade, Sweden and Denmark had grown much faster than other European countries and had become richer than most other countries on the planet, in large part by limiting government and embracing markets.



posted on Jul, 22 2018 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

So what you are really looking for is a way to keep more of the money/assets that you have earned. You are trying to stomp out the corruption that allows the unethical and corrupt of siphoning off of your productivity. You also wish for your good will donations to go towards the needy and not become part of some bigwigs salary at a non profit?

Do you really think we have capitalism today? Could it be closer to corporatocracy?



posted on Jul, 22 2018 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Capitalism is a pure evolutionary process.

People adapt.

That's the GD name of evolution.

Socialism is social engineering which is nothing but devolution of the human species.

Get it.

Become better than you were yesterday without the STATE being your GD zookeeper.



posted on Jul, 22 2018 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Capitalism is a pure evolutionary process.

People adapt.

That's the GD name of evolution.

Socialism is social engineering which is nothing but devolution of the human species.

Get it.

Become better than you were yesterday without the STATE being your GD zookeeper.


Now you sound like a liberal politician, making wild claims based on emotions devoid of facts.

Socialism as defined by Marx has nothing to so with state ownership or social engineering.

A capitalist marketplace can and would thrive under Marx's brand of Socialism.


edit on 22-7-2018 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2018 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

Try again.




Now you sound like a liberal politician, making wild claims based on emotions devoid of facts.



posted on Jul, 22 2018 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Isurrender73

Try again.




Now you sound like a liberal politician, making wild claims based on emotions devoid of facts.


It is impossible to educate someone who has less information than they believe they have and resorts to emotional attacks that are opposed to intelligence and understanding.

You could learn a few things about Marx and the failures of Capitalism but you have assumed you possess enough facts to have an opinion. It is impossible to debate with anyone like you regardless of the topic.



posted on Jul, 22 2018 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

Who died and made you god?




It is impossible to educate someone who has less information than they believe they have and resorts to emotional attacks that are opposed to intelligence and understanding.


That intellectual superiority complex?

DOESN'T exist.



posted on Jul, 22 2018 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

Could you educate a bit on your interpretation of marx's ideals?

I had always thought that he took the works of hegel, switched the imposing force from spiritual to material and tried to make a utopia for everyone.

If that is the basis, how was he going to bring about this utopia through commerce and asset ownership?



posted on Jul, 22 2018 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

And yet you point to other countries as Communist?

yes, Communism, as it was intended, Has never happened



posted on Jul, 22 2018 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: CB328

But if that definition of socialism is the full involvement of governmental desired outcomes. Where does the public or citizen control of commerce or equity come into play? By the technical definition of socialism, wouldn't any form of government remain out of the picture?


It's funny/sad because our Government was one of the Greatest Social Experiments in the history of mankind.

People have been brainwashed to believe that Socialim is state ownership and control of production. People have been brainwashed to believe that a Capitalist market place is somehow opposed to Socialism.

Quotes like these are why I believe our founding fathers were ahead of their time in advocating a Socialist Government. "All men are created equal",
Government "Of the people, by the people, for the people".

It is impossible to remove government. But our founding fathers didn't create an elitist form of Government, they did everything they could to prevent it.

If our elected politicians truly represented the will of the people that would be Socialism in Government. If the workers had strong non political and non bureaucratic unions that negotiated how revenue should be divided amongst the ownership, management and labor class that would be Socialism in the market place.

There is no elitism or state ownership written into our constitution. But Socialism as defined by Marx is very much a part of our constitution. A government "Of the people, by the people, for the people" is Socialism. And it is the most effective form of Government the world has ever known.

People say they are for the Constitution and opposed to Socialism. This is an Oxymoron.



posted on Jul, 22 2018 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

But even under socialism, who controls? You have all of the populace/citizens with the ability to claim some type of ownership of the assets and revenue produced. Who runs things? You would still need someone to 'run' things. Who or what would that group be comprised of?



posted on Jul, 22 2018 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: ClovenSky




Who runs things?


The Sanders, and Cortez's.

But the new boss isbetter!



posted on Jul, 22 2018 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: Isurrender73

Could you educate a bit on your interpretation of marx's ideals?

I had always thought that he took the works of hegel, switched the imposing force from spiritual to material and tried to make a utopia for everyone.

If that is the basis, how was he going to bring about this utopia through commerce and asset ownership?


This is where most people get confused.

It looks like you understand Socialism. But for those that don't. Socialism is ownership by the people for the people. A marketplace where owners, management and laborers negotiate equitable wages based on total revenue. Socialism has nothing to do with state ownership or state controlled production. If the state owns everything it is Facism not Socialism.

Marx never said How we would implement Communism. But I can tell what I think he envisioned.

Let's use a simple example. Let's say someday rice is produced 100% by AI without any human intervention who should control the profits? Marx could see a technological age where workers were 100% replaced by machines.

In a pure Capitalist Society even with no costs to the owner of the field the owner would be able to take all profits for themselves. The fields and profits would be handed down each generation and the family would keep the profits.

Marx saw this as a wrong that needed to be corrected. He imagined at the point in which technology became 100% responsible for production the profits should be communal and not Capitalist. He believed it would be a natural and unforced progression.

Those who have come after him have tried to force this system into place. But no where does Marx state how Communism would be adopted except by the will of the people.
edit on 22-7-2018 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2018 @ 02:15 PM
link   
No amount of historical evidence will convince true believers to abandon the false song of socialism.

Democratic socialism is a contradiction in terms.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join