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.

 

Is Socialism a Good Thing?

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2019 @ 10:45 PM
link   
To the OP: on a small scale, local/personal level it's probably okay. From a government it sucks rocks.




posted on Aug, 30 2019 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

In reference to your post, I will chime in to say that I believe the government having total control of the economy in the name of socialism will be both an economic and a human rights disaster.

But I think what I would like to add to this idea is that the problem comes in when a small number of people have large amounts of power over large amounts of people, which can also happen in capitalism.

To cite some historic examples, think of the robber barons of the late 19th and early 20th century. They were responsible for hiring murderers to break up unions, etc. Much more can be said about this, I think.
edit on 30-8-2019 by povray because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2019 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Socialism is misguided nostalgia. People saw it as a way to return to a wonderful pastoral olden times that they forgot actually sucked. But there was no way it could work in a more vertically managed society necessary to produce technologically advanced consumer goods. So there is bound to be a social hierarchy, income disparity, and basically what we have now.

I guess deep down people are going to always act a certain way no matter what the political system is, so if you're going to try something new you're better off taking that into account so you and everyone else can benefit from it.



posted on Aug, 30 2019 @ 10:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa
IMO, no. However, if you can provide one single success story, that is more than 30 - 40 years running, I might reconsider my position.

Oh, and scandanavian countries are not true socialist nations anymore....so they do not count.



Is that so? What are Scandinavian countries now, if not socialist nations? (honest question, i am really not an expert on the terminology of this subject)



posted on Aug, 30 2019 @ 11:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Finspiracy

originally posted by: Krakatoa
IMO, no. However, if you can provide one single success story, that is more than 30 - 40 years running, I might reconsider my position.

Oh, and scandanavian countries are not true socialist nations anymore....so they do not count.



Is that so? What are Scandinavian countries now, if not socialist nations? (honest question, i am really not an expert on the terminology of this subject)


Scandinavian countries have never been socialist nations. The welfare and state is strong, but so is the capitalism. There are big companies and extremly rich individuals.



posted on Aug, 30 2019 @ 11:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
To the OP: on a small scale, local/personal level it's probably okay. From a government it sucks rocks.


It sucks rocks in both of those scenarios.

My vision is a self-sustaining gated community that stretches across the whole country like a spider web. All "owned" by a nonprofit organization... which makes it all tax exempt private property.



posted on Aug, 30 2019 @ 11:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Finspiracy

originally posted by: Krakatoa
IMO, no. However, if you can provide one single success story, that is more than 30 - 40 years running, I might reconsider my position.

Oh, and scandanavian countries are not true socialist nations anymore....so they do not count.



Is that so? What are Scandinavian countries now, if not socialist nations? (honest question, i am really not an expert on the terminology of this subject)


They all have various elements of capitalism weaved into their society. Large corporations exists that are NOT owned by the workers, but the actual stockholders. I know many folks living in those countries and when they visit they buy tons of merchandise here because it is literally 1/3 to 1/4 the price of the same items in their own countries. Even adding in the duty costs!

They are amazed at how low our taxes are here as well, compared to back home.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 12:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Finspiracy

originally posted by: Krakatoa
IMO, no. However, if you can provide one single success story, that is more than 30 - 40 years running, I might reconsider my position.

Oh, and scandanavian countries are not true socialist nations anymore....so they do not count.



Is that so? What are Scandinavian countries now, if not socialist nations? (honest question, i am really not an expert on the terminology of this subject)


They all have various elements of capitalism weaved into their society. Large corporations exists that are NOT owned by the workers, but the actual stockholders. I know many folks living in those countries and when they visit they buy tons of merchandise here because it is literally 1/3 to 1/4 the price of the same items in their own countries. Even adding in the duty costs!

They are amazed at how low our taxes are here as well, compared to back home.



Okay i see. And i agree. Sometimes it feels unreal how much option money the CEO:s and other big boys and girls in the upper level of companies get, especially in comparison to the wages that are paid to their workers here.

Thank you



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 12:57 AM
link   
I see many people with right-leaning positions criticize those who do not work yet want/expect to receive something for their lack of contribution. I believe that no one deserves to get luxuries for free.

I would like to point out that there are also many people who don't work or contribute man-hours, labor, talent, or innovation at all in capitalism yet nonetheless get rewarded handsomely. It happens that it's ok in our system for the rich to park their money in investments and get returns larger than anyone could earn with labor or intellect. Does this not, in a sense, count as a "freeloader" or "welfare queen," or are they excused because their investment represents a gamble and potential loss?

What of those people who are not exactly playing by the rules, the members of the "big boy's club" who secretly deal in insider information and shady, crony capitalism. Is their economic power to remain forever unchecked and forgiven?

I do not intend for my posts to amount to nothing but a critique of capitalism. I'm just trying to point out that it has its flaws in the way it's implemented in the reality of our current world.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 01:10 AM
link   
a reply to: generik





edit on 31-8-2019 by deckdel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 02:08 AM
link   
a reply to: generik

Socialism made the blue states rich by creating a commonwealth.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 03:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: povray
I see a lot of reasons stated here that socialism is "bad."

Once again, sticking to the basic definition of socialism being that the people own and control the resources, are we sure that this form of socialism has been implemented historically so that we can use it as evidence that it doesn't work?


eg......In the UK

With social housing, a hinge comes of a door? simple problem re screw it in.

Noooo.... leave it till it drops off and throw it in the back yard!!!

Front garden mow lawn keep tidy, too much like hard work!!!!


Thatcher government gives 'the right to buy to sitting tennent's after 3yrs.

Results

Owner houses start being cared for looked after, and driving through a council

estate it becomes very evident which houses are privately owned and which

ones remain social housing.

People abuse what they haven't had to work for. What people work for they

value.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 03:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ScepticScot

They also have confiscatory tax rates and VATs.


And a very high standard of living.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 04:46 AM
link   
We need to clear up some definitions in here I think. Below is from wikipedia page on Government systems and is a list of economic systems.



Economic Systems

Capitalism: A social-economic system in which the means of production (machines, tools, factories, etc.) are under private ownership and their use is for profit.

Communism: A social-economic system in which means of production are commonly owned (either by the people directly, through the commune or by communist society), and production is undertaken for use, rather than for profit. Communist society is thus stateless, classless, moneyless, and democratic.

Distributism: A social-economic system in which widespread property ownership as fundamental right; the means of production are spread as widely as possible rather than being centralized under the control of the state (state socialism), a few individuals (plutocracy), or corporations (corporatocracy). Distributism fundamentally opposes socialism and capitalism, which distributists view as equally flawed and exploitative. In contrast, distributism seeks to subordinate economic activity to human life as a whole, to our spiritual life, our intellectual life, our family life"

Feudalism: A social-economic system of land ownership and duties. Under feudalism, all the land in a kingdom was the king's. However, the king would give some of the land to the lords or nobles who fought for him. These presents of land were called manors. Then the nobles gave some of their land to vassals. The vassals then had to do duties for the nobles. The lands of vassals were called fiefs.

Socialism: A social-economic system in which workers, democratically and socially own the means of production and the economic framework may be decentralized, distributed or centralized planned or self-managed in autonomous economic units. Public services would be commonly, collectively, or state owned, such as healthcare and education.


Statism: A social-economic system that concentrates power in the state at the expense of individual freedom. Among other variants, the term subsumes theocracy, absolute monarchy, Nazism, fascism, authoritarian socialism, and plain, unadorned dictatorship. Such variants differ on matters of form, tactics and ideology.

Welfare state: A social-economic system in which the state plays a key role in the protection and promotion of the economic and social well-being of its citizens. It is based on the principles of equality of opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth, and public responsibility for those unable to avail themselves of the minimal provisions for a good life.


en.wikipedia.org...

The interesting thing about this is that no country has ever been Communist. The Soviet Union by these definitions would have probably come under the category of Statism-authoritarian socialism. Nazi Germany, Statism-Facism. The Scandinavian countries would most likely be considered a Capitalist Welfare State, as would of Australia until about 20 years ago and the UK before Thatcher. In my opinion, much of the western world today is a Corporatocracy. Some of these categories overlap and some systems in use are blends of these categories but its a good guide nonetheless.
edit on 31-8-2019 by harold223 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 04:57 AM
link   
You might also notice in my post above that there are different variations to how socialism is implemented. To the question of "Is Socialism a good thing?" My question would be, in what manifestation? Desentralized, centralized, self-managed in autonomous units or state planned? Authoritarian or libertarian? Many different ideas behind socialism.




Socialism: A social-economic system in which workers, democratically and socially own the means of production and the economic framework may be decentralized, distributed or centralized planned or self-managed in autonomous economic units. Public services would be commonly, collectively, or state owned, such as healthcare and education.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: generik

As other have eloquently said we are NOT talking classic socialism in the U.S.A., we are talking about today in the USA a new kind of socialist, who likes to call themselves progressive liberals, and sometimes "democratic socialists".

What are the personal characteristics of today's young modern US progressive/liberal that many are calling socialist (i.e. Squad like)

They strongly defend their new brand of morality:

They demand everyone celebrate and encourage all forms of sexuality.
They say heterosexuals who won't date LGBT are mean and narrow minded.

They want government run healthcare for all, no private insurance allowed, no private pay allowed.
That way the government has total and complete control over the healthcare of all citizens and is the ultimate decider of everyone's body, oops healthcare.

They want government run free education from cradle to adulthood.
That way they can insure only the government approved thought is allowed to be taught and people can be conditioned by the government.
Everyone can go to college, just like in Europe where they have lots of free colleges that most attend. They even have a mandatory college to be a janitor where you have to attend for 2 years to get a janitorial job (Germany). (Europe has many such "colleges", we call trade schools, where tuition is free, but it is mandatory to do part time unpaid apprentice work) That way "everyone" can get free "college" while very very few (mainly children of the rich and elite) attend University (what the US calls college).

They say they believe in free speech.
But if someone is invited to speak that holds a political philosophy in opposition to theirs, they become violent and riot to prevent the person from speaking to students. They persecute those who violate their PC code of speech.

They say they believe in the free market and so are not socialist, but democratic socialists.
But to pay for what they want they admit they will have to take up to 70% of everyone's income and say that is fair because of all the "free" stuff they will give back. They MUST take a huge chunk of everyone's, even the middle class, wealth and income. They hold up Europe as an example the US should follow: In Europe to fund democratic socialism: they have middle class tax rates of 30-40% : then they have "sales" VAT tax of 19-25% on goods and hide the tax by making it mandatory for the tax to be part of the price the customer sees and the customer never sees the tax amount : then they have TV tax on every TV in the house : then they have very annual taxes on automobiles : then they have federal property taxes : add this all up and for the middle class in Europe the annual tax rate goes as high as 70% of their income. Why? Because there are not enough rich people to pay for all the free stuff.

Did you say or write something they don't like? Something they deem an ist/ism?
Did you write something 14 or more years ago (even if you were a child) that was acceptable then, but with their new morality is no longer acceptable?
Do you oppose their political philosophy? They will call you an ist/ism because you disagree with their political philosophy.
Then they will destroy you publicly and thoroughly, insuring loss of job, reputation, and take away your business if you have one.

Do they strongly oppose your political ideas? They will confront you, taunt you, film your reaction.
Then using only your reaction they will destroy you publicly and thoroughly, insuring loss of job, reputation, and take away your business if you have one.

Someone who champions their political philosophy is "forgiven" and their behavior explained away as long ago, or they "didn't mean it" if they do any of the things that caused the people above to be destroyed.

So is socialism a good thing? Well it depends on your definition of socialism.

What today's progressives/liberals want is a form of socialism, but not classic socialism as they say, because they don't want to nationalize commerce. Many say what they want isn't socialism at all.

I look at this definition of a political movement and see it encompasses what today's modern progressive/liberal is practicing and this is what I come up with: Imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed.

I think I have proved my case with all I have written above. This definition is not socialism that the US progressives/liberals are demanding.
In bold is the definition of totalitarianism.




edit on 8/31/19 by The2Billies because: addition formatting grammar



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 08:52 AM
link   
No. Get a Job or create something valuable to society.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: generik

I've lived in three first world socialist states, and honestly it was a good experience. A lot of peoples fears are unfounded or are based on a misunderstanding of what socialism is really like.

I never once felt like the state was unfairly taking from me, as what I got back in return was fair. Particularly the education system.

If you have a problem with socialism then try living in isreal, socialism done right really benefits the average person as it takes power away from the liberal elite.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: eXia7
No. Get a Job or create something valuable to society.


A socialist education system help you to achieve both of those. Under socialism it's like everyone has a scholarship. So the poor can get into good schools not just the wealthy elite.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 09:16 AM
link   
What those who refer to themselves as "democratic socialists" in the US today advocate is not socialism. It is a Capitalist Welfare State as seen in Scandinavia today and Britain and Australia 20-30 years ago. Until the 1990's, Australia had free tertiery education, mostly state owned infrastructure, extensive social safety nets etc. But most enterprise was free market capitalist. Then along came Thatcher/Reaganism (neoliberalism) and all this was abolished.

True Socialism (not authoritarian state-socialism) would involve state planned infrastructure and co-operative, democratic run enterprise. All enterprise would essentially take the form of not-for profit co-operative organisations with industrial democracy. Yugoslavia probably had the closest example of this in the 1970's and 80's (although not without flaws). They allowed small business and private sales, private ownership of land etc. But any enterprise over a certain size (from memory more than 7 employees) and the enterprise would have to become a co-operative. Then every worker had an equal share in the enterprise and directors, managers would be elected. You could not buy shares in an enterprise, they were worth 1 person and that was it.

What "democratic socialists" in the US are proposing is not socialism by any definition. Welfare State Capitalism is what they are proposing. The PC virtue stuff has nothing to do with socialism either. That is more to do with a concept called "Superdiversity" or "the diversification of diversity" which is a direct result of globalisation and the internet. Basically, due to the movement of people and more importantly, ideas, the dominant culture of society is being replaced by many different cultures within cultures. By cultures, this does not necessarily mean ethnicity based cultural diversity; it really means all the many and varied subcultures that are proliferating like mushrooms throughout modern society. The PC stuff is just an overreaction of accomodating diversity imo. This has nothing at all to do with socialism.
edit on 31-8-2019 by harold223 because: Additions

edit on 31-8-2019 by harold223 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join