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.

 

Here is what Happens in a Socialist Economy.

page: 9
23
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: MadLad

Ah, well if you said it, then it must be true. I my labor creates about a million a year in profit. I certainly don’t get my grubby hands anywhere near that much. Because our system is authoritarian and the industry I work for has built in barriers to keep us from starting up my field on my own, and charging a reasonable amount. (The amount billed for my services is price gouging to the extreme, 26k for a 30 minute procedure).




posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: MarkOfTheV

There is. Venezuela.

There is. Red China. Study how Mao did it. It's looking a lot like what's starting to happen here.

There is. Look at what happened in Russia when the Soviets took over.

Just look at any communist state and you'll see how it happened if you study their history. You can also see the slow erosion in Europe.

You can also throw in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. Just because they were fascist does not mean they were states that didn't devolve into full-on statist control of everything.



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: pexx421

Are you upset again because you are a technician?



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: pexx421
a reply to: MadLad

Ah, well if you said it, then it must be true. I my labor creates about a million a year in profit. I certainly don’t get my grubby hands anywhere near that much. Because our system is authoritarian and the industry I work for has built in barriers to keep us from starting up my field on my own, and charging a reasonable amount. (The amount billed for my services is price gouging to the extreme, 26k for a 30 minute procedure).



Oh you said the opposite, I guess that means I'm wrong.

In a socialist society, does the farmer get to keep his own produce? Does he sell or trade it as he sees fit? Does he even own his farm?



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: MadLad

Heck, in some socialist countries, you don't even own your own body's ability to produce labor!

Venezuela decreees mandatory farm labor.


A Venezuelan ministry last week announced Resolution No. 9855, which calls for the establishment of a "transitory labor regime" in order to relaunch the agricultural and food sector. The decree says that the government must do what is "necessary to achieve strategic levels of self-sufficiency," and states that workers can be forcefully moved from their jobs to work in farm fields or elsewhere in the agricultural sector for periods of 60 days.


So basically, doesn't matter what you were doing. If the government decides they need you to grow peas, guess what you get to do? You get to grow peas. Your own ability to produce is no longer your own.



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: MarkOfTheV

There is. Venezuela.

There is. Red China. Study how Mao did it. It's looking a lot like what's starting to happen here.

There is. Look at what happened in Russia when the Soviets took over.

Just look at any communist state and you'll see how it happened if you study their history. You can also see the slow erosion in Europe.

You can also throw in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. Just because they were fascist does not mean they were states that didn't devolve into full-on statist control of everything.


And what policies did any of those nations follow which were outlined in marx’s Work on socialism?

Make no mistake, my job is pretty great and I make damn good money. That being said, I only get to “own” about 10% of what I produce. Is that the great capitalist “owning the profit you create” that you speak of? Because I expect this ratio is pretty representative across our society.



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

It’s a system of compulsion and coercion.



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: pexx421

How much would you produce without the facility? Do you own that? Someone else does. Even in socialism, everyone else would, not you. So whatever you produce using those collectively owned facilities would be partially thanks to the group owned means of production. Essentially, you still didn't produce that, not without everyone else's stuff. So they'd still be entitled to the lion's share to distribute as they see fit.

And you'd still be whining about things.



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: pexx421

How much would you produce without the facility? Do you own that? Someone else does. Even in socialism, everyone else would, not you. So whatever you produce using those collectively owned facilities would be partially thanks to the group owned means of production. Essentially, you still didn't produce that, not without everyone else's stuff. So they'd still be entitled to the lion's share to distribute as they see fit.

And you'd still be whining about things.


As usual you sidestep the question because you don’t know anything about what defines socialism, or how the nations you mentioned practiced it or failed to practice it. At any rate, like you said, it all contributes to my production, yes? Just like our roads, infrastructure etc contribute to every us corporations production. Yes? So then they should sacrifice 90% of their pay to the social good that built this system and infrastructure that allows them commerce, just as I sacrifice 90% of mine to the business that supports my commerce. You’re right, I’d be ok with that.



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: pexx421

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: pexx421

How much would you produce without the facility? Do you own that? Someone else does. Even in socialism, everyone else would, not you. So whatever you produce using those collectively owned facilities would be partially thanks to the group owned means of production. Essentially, you still didn't produce that, not without everyone else's stuff. So they'd still be entitled to the lion's share to distribute as they see fit.

And you'd still be whining about things.


As usual you sidestep the question because you don’t know anything about what defines socialism, or how the nations you mentioned practiced it or failed to practice it. At any rate, like you said, it all contributes to my production, yes? Just like our roads, infrastructure etc contribute to every us corporations production. Yes? So then they should sacrifice 90% of their pay to the social good that built this system and infrastructure that allows them commerce, just as I sacrifice 90% of mine to the business that supports my commerce. You’re right, I’d be ok with that.


No one but yourself is hindering you from reaping the reward of your production. You voluntarily took your job, voluntarily signed the contract, and remain there by your own volition. Sooner or later you might have to stop blaming everyone else.



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: pexx421

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: MarkOfTheV

There is. Venezuela.

There is. Red China. Study how Mao did it. It's looking a lot like what's starting to happen here.

There is. Look at what happened in Russia when the Soviets took over.

Just look at any communist state and you'll see how it happened if you study their history. You can also see the slow erosion in Europe.

You can also throw in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. Just because they were fascist does not mean they were states that didn't devolve into full-on statist control of everything.


And what policies did any of those nations follow which were outlined in marx’s Work on socialism?

Make no mistake, my job is pretty great and I make damn good money. That being said, I only get to “own” about 10% of what I produce. Is that the great capitalist “owning the profit you create” that you speak of? Because I expect this ratio is pretty representative across our society.


If you want to own more, you need to put up your own money and start your own company.... it really is that simple. What you don't see is the all the cost associated with actually running the business.

I work in a business where I am in sales. I generate revenue and profit for the company. I split a portion of the profits I bring in with the company. The reason is that the company takes on the risk of licensing, compliance, marketing, etc. I don't have to deal with the overhead BS, so for me it is a better deal being an employee instead of an owner.

Owning a business is a lot of hard work and can be an immense pain in the ass. You take on a ton of risk. Often times, employees simply don't see what the owner sees. You just see your little world, not the big picture.



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: pexx421

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: MarkOfTheV

There is. Venezuela.

There is. Red China. Study how Mao did it. It's looking a lot like what's starting to happen here.

There is. Look at what happened in Russia when the Soviets took over.

Just look at any communist state and you'll see how it happened if you study their history. You can also see the slow erosion in Europe.

You can also throw in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. Just because they were fascist does not mean they were states that didn't devolve into full-on statist control of everything.


And what policies did any of those nations follow which were outlined in marx’s Work on socialism?

Make no mistake, my job is pretty great and I make damn good money. That being said, I only get to “own” about 10% of what I produce. Is that the great capitalist “owning the profit you create” that you speak of? Because I expect this ratio is pretty representative across our society.
There are many businesses which are not large corporations or factories. How about that mom and pop pizzeria on the corner, or the local used bookstore. They are run by individuals who are not ceos with golden parachutes. Even you trading your marbles with me for my comic books is free enterprise capitalism or me mowing your lawn once a week for 25$ a shot is a private contract that you and I make. Now we cannot even have a lemonade stand without government intrusion and bureaucracy. So then we lose an element of the “free market”. In essence, if I make a private contract with you, it is between us. Nowhere in that contract does it mean that the government has a right to confiscate the proceedings and givebit to a third party. Do you see the difference there? If I use my profit to give to charities, that should be my peorogative. But when the government says to me that I must pay a tax to help out this or that person or maybe even to pay for illegals to have free public education or The newest idea now to pay for someone’s free college education, then not only is that unfair to me, it’s an abuse. This is where socialism abuses private property rights and becomes a totalitarian nanny state. As in the case of the Green New Deal, now you are making me pay for things we actually have no control over which is climate change but you want to retrofit buildings in the name of saving the planet. Ivecssid begire, the GND is a totalitarian agenda repackaged to sound like we’re saving the planet for the common good.

edit on 1-3-2019 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Marx and Lenin had much different views on how communism was to be achieved and how it could come to be.

For one, Lenin was just a early teen when Marx died.
Two Marx was extremely critical of socialists because of how unreasonable they generally become, acting upon the 'now' instead of understanding the implications of the future.
Another point is Marx never actually went into detail how communism would come into I guess. 'physical form', it simply would just naturally come. He also advocated that democracy was the first tool for it to allow it to work. That's where he believed that capitalism will inevitably create such a massive underclass that people power will eventually topple it, how many times? Who knows, it can happen hundreds, thousands, as long as people live it will eventually happen.

The thing that separates Marx who is regarded the father of communism between basically, every person who attempted to implement it into a nation is that Marx was just covering all possibilities, from voting to revolution. But when you get dictators reading his work and comprehend:

"wait a minute, you mean, if enough people become poor, they will rise up?"

You can see how communism is pushed to gain complete control over people so that WON'T happen. On paper it sounds fantastic, but when you literally force it, and not let it come naturally, it won't work.
Most of Marx' work is pretty grim, he doesn't have a lot of faith in humanity to be honest, he never even gave his full insight to what a future economy would look like, but he did have a vision that maybe, just maybe, his form of communism will come up somewhere, because communism basically cannot exist, it's consistently becoming something new.


"Communism is for us not a stable state which reality will have to adjust itself. We can call Communism the real movement which abolished the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from premises now in existence."


So if you're wondering why there is an all of a sudden large left / socialist movement happening, maybe you need to look closer at the system that has been dominant for a long time. Looks like Marx might have got it right in some regard.

edit on 1-3-2019 by strongfp because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Marx and Lenin had much different views on how communism was to be achieved and how it could come to be.

For one, Lenin was just a early teen when Marx died.
Two Marx was extremely critical of socialists because of how unreasonable they generally become, acting upon the 'now' instead of understanding the implications of the future.
Another point is Marx never actually went into detail how communism would come into I guess. 'physical form', it simply would just naturally come. He also advocated that democracy was the first tool for it to allow it to work. That's where he believed that capitalism will inevitably create such a massive underclass that people power will eventually topple it, how many times? Who knows, it can happen hundreds, thousands, as long as people live it will eventually happen.

The thing that separates Marx who is regarded the father of communism between basically, every person who attempted to implement it into a nation is that Marx was just covering all possibilities, from voting to revolution. But when you get dictators reading his work and comprehend:

"wait a minute, you mean, if enough people become poor, they will rise up?"

You can see how communism is pushed to gain complete control over people so that WON'T happen. On paper it sounds fantastic, but when you literally force it, and not let it come naturally, it won't work.
Most of Marx' work is pretty grim, he doesn't have a lot of faith in humanity to be honest, he never even gave his full insight to what a future economy would look like, but he did have a vision that maybe, just maybe, his form of communism will come up somewhere, because communism basically cannot exist, it's consistently becoming something new.


"Communism is for us not a stable state which reality will have to adjust itself. We can call Communism the real movement which abolished the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from premises now in existence."


So if you're wondering why there is an all of a sudden large left / socialist movement happening, maybe you need to look closer at the system that has been dominant for a long time. Looks like Marx might have got it right in some regard.
Ok so what part of Karl Marx statement of abolition of private property don’t you get ?



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

He was speaking if the route went revolution. And mainly about peasants who were left with literally nothing, large swathes of land with rich landlords was then to be re-distributed to them and they still had to pay rent, instead of their work being the rent.

Most of his 'rules' were simply based off the French revolution and what happened there. They were guidelines to rebuild a society basically. It may work, it might not. Hence why democracy was still in his sights. Either way, if you oust the leaders and left with nothing, what are you going to do? Might as well see where it goes, if the society wants to go a different route it can, if it maintains stability the way it was rebuilt them go with it.



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
And Socialism is not well suited for this either. In the end we're going to be asking how much is a life worth. What constitutes basic needs? Food, clothing, and shelter? Flat screen TVs and PS9s? What if we want more? Will it be given to us just because? Or do we resign ourselves to our fate because we didn't get into one of the few high paying fields left that hasn't been taken over by full automation.

You might say get rid of currency altogether, and the same questions still remain.


Only if we go full retard. But, as the movie stated, you never go full retard.

Socialism is far better equipped to handle the future than capitalism ever will be.


Give some examples.



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: strongfp


Until we remove the parasites ability to leech off of our labor through converted fiat, we are screwed. This system is doing exactly what it was designed to do.




If the population educated themselves on how to make money work for them, instead of working for money that would be a non issue.

Only our labor is taxed, work out how to make money in other ways than through labor and these leeches will have to find other ways of fleecing the public.


Sure would be nice. I had planned on doing some investing, but I'm sure some Dems will come along and raise the capital gains tax through the roof.



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
Only militarily, at the cost of their own citizens. Only one has competed economically, and funnily enough, by adopting more capitalistic practices.


The US has been turning less capitalist since before the cold war started. Keep trying though.


And look at the perpetual problems its raised, instead of fix.



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 05:34 PM
link   


So if you're wondering why there is an all of a sudden large left / socialist movement happening, maybe you need to look closer at the system that has been dominant for a long time. Looks like Marx might have got it right in some regard.
a reply to: strongfp
No Karl Marx did not get it right in any way shape or form. As soon as you advocate the stealing of people’s Property for arbitrary redistribution you have abuse. What has developed is nanny statism and a giant bureaucracy which requires huge overhead cost. It is simply not sustainable. It is simply not the governments job to pay for college food housing etc. In addition n, wth are we doing advocating forcing people to become vegan because some Green advocates want it.



posted on Mar, 1 2019 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You seem to be doing a lot of finger pointing...


You seem to be denying a lot of facts, and would rather believe dictatorships than the people who lived, and experienced them...




top topics



 
23
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join