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.
When Russian President Boris Yeltsen met his opposite number, newly elected American President Bill Clinton, in early 1993, he came away with a positive impression. “I like him,” said the longtime member of the Communist Party of Russia. “He’s a socialist.”
By June 1993, having watched young Mr. Clinton in action for five months, Nobel economic laureate Milton Friedman, an American free-market capitalist, confirmed that this judgment was much more than an off-hand remark, calling Mr. Clinton “a socialist” in public and in writing.
The response to such a straightforward observation in polite American society today is to ignore it and move on as though nothing has happened. Press the point and you may hear a derisive snort.
As every schoolchild knows, “socialist” is now a totally out of date term, used only by doddering right-wing racists with ill-fitting hairpieces in a laughable attempt to insult today’s moderate, progressive, social democrats.
After all, is it “socialist” to be in favor of racial and gender equality? To be in favor of quality public schools and a compassionate “social safety net” for the unfortunate?
Originally posted by KrazyJethro
I think there is a better balance we could strike, but I promise that if Universal Health Care comes to America, that will be the last sign of our last throws to the bottom.
Originally posted by RANT
so minarchists will get their strongman fantasies eventually
Originally posted by RANT
Compelling story cavscout. Seriously. I hadn't seen you post that before, but it's great you've done so well.
Though, I don't entirely understand the anger at other people in your former situation now just because you got out of it.
If the government would just stop helping (and protecting) the "underserving" (like the people you're so angry at), then they could get rich, powerful or anything they like. Since these strongmen are so self reliant and smart, of course, and everyone else (their "competition") is so weak and unworthy.
You assume too much. Agreeing with them and being knowledgeable of them are separate things.
Originally posted by Odium
The problem you have, Cavscout is like many people you lack the basic knowledge on how many socialist ideologies are actually entwined with the United State’s, prior to the Republican and Democratic Parties
- you also over-look, many socialist theories which you I assume are thankful that are in existence.
On June the 30th, 1800 Glasgow successfully gained the right to establish a Police force through the Glasgow Police Act - this, the first ever professional Police force and where did the idea come from? Well, Adam Smith the basis for Marx and Engel’s works published in 1759, Theory of Moral Sentiments, this work still one of the leading critics of Capitalism called for the Professional Police Force - a force that would protect the morality [norms and values] of Society based on the along the line of the unpaid constables that existed in the United Kingdom from 1663.
The idea of a basic State Education, again can be traced back to early socialist works and this is where my agreement with RANT comes into play - to remove every aspect of socialism from the United State’s is to place a Nation back into the Dark Ages and to cause a massive amount of chaos that’ll only harm the lower/working class.
First off, you display a huge lack of trust and respect for your fellow humans. Just which people would slip into feudalism, you or everybody but you?
You speak of “opportunity” of “going out and doing it”, yet without institutions of socialisation such as School and institutions of control such as the Police society would degrade back into feudalism.
Really? I hadn’t noticed, my paychecks still have money missing from them.
When you compare the Republican Party, just this December they passed an Act which would result in less money being spent in welfare programs
Come now, one name? You make it sound like some sort of liberal socialist revolution, and then you throw out one name. You will have to do better than that since 90% of those who went to school to call themselves economists believe in a free market and privatization of social most social programs.
even though many leading functionalists such as Robert Reiner have accepted that the system of Welfare is actually a positive thing.
This statement is false, and although I do not have time right now to prove this (my computer at home is down and I am limited to memory) I intend to.
In fact, so far every study into Crime/Deviance has found that those who have access to welfare are involved in less crime and it is only the New Right who have yet to accept this.
WOW, now I know this is a lie. Again, later I will provide some studies for you so we can a spread just a little less ignorance.
Yet, the New Right and many of its followers have no basis on which to argue these things - they have no studies
Could you provide some of those official statistics? I don’t spend that much time researching race issues, as I feel that most of the problems that minorities in America face are ones they create themselves through their leaders spreading anti-white racism and an attitude of apathy toward upward advancement because they feel that all whites hate them and will never let them win so it useless to try. However I would like to see those statistics you speak of.
in fact, in the early part of the movement he once publicly said that Black people caused the most crime and when asked how he came to this conclusion [because the official statistics show otherwise]
I dont think that evidence exists.
When confronted with evidence, showing that Welfare helps improve social mobility
You seem stuck on this anti-new right thing. Could this be because the left (just a little more than the right) primarily agrees with your socialist theory? Wasn’t that basically the point I was making in the first place?
there is nothing they can say or do to argue against it except resulting to childish name calling and baiting on peoples emotions and fears - the New Right Movement, thrives off of this.
Yes they do! What, you think that the average American pays half of the money make to the government so that the government can put it into a savings account? Every year we throw more and more money into social programs and every year it doesn’t make a dent in the problems. So you want to what? Throw more money at social programs? This is literally psychotic!
Now, to argue that both parties are Socialist Parties is wrong the Republican Party, primarily follows the ideology of the New Right, where as the Democratic Party tends to follow the ideology of the New Left [who are just as bad.] A true Socialist Party, would desire more money into welfare, education and the Police force where as neither of the parties above do such a thing.
No problem there, I did start it, after all; I kinda have to reply.
Originally posted by Odium
Thank you, Cavscout for taking the time to reply to the thread as I know you are under-going a problematic time
Your argument, is based around several points:
- The Cost of Welfare.
- Education inefficiency and;
- Theorists to backup my argument.
The Cost of Welfare is heavily dependent, the United State’s is clearly going about their Welfare Programs the wrong way - they need to remove taxation on the lower-classes...
Think so? Now this is something I really care about, it will not be as easy as you think, friend.
Education; your argument on this is based around the standards of living, cost and socialisation. Each of these are fairly simple to disprove.
The basis of living standards, isn’t directly wrong but you over-look the fact 12.7% of the United State’s population are below the poverty line.
the ability for parents to school their children
Internet, Libraries, second hand textbooks, need I go on?
access to material
time
ability to afford private school
Well, I suppose after sentencing the parents to 12 years of government schools they probably don’t have the understanding. Good point there, keep it up
parents understanding
per-person Public Education costs £2,500 in the United Kingdom, compared to £7,500 for a Private Education
The idea that they would be able to afford to take time off work to raise children is a joke, so that instantly eliminates those people from the ability to educate their children, except outside of work. You then have those in the lower-income bracket, who can’t afford it as well so instantly it is only the Upper Class to Upper-Middle Class who are able to send their children. You then have to include negligent parents, parents who do not have the basis requirements to educate their children [lack basic literacy for example] and so on and so fourth.
Now, the idea that the education system is controlling what you think isn’t strictly true - although they do not educate you on everything, they can’t possibly do such a thing without drastically increasing the amount of time spent in education.
However, the fact that you and I both went through the education system and question the Government and Agencies of the Government display its inefficiency to socialise the population - the fact that education is only a minor factor in Secondary Socialisation is key to this.
especially since many jobs require a College education.
Originally posted by cavscout
Even when we were on the street I never received help from government programs . . . Shortly after getting a place, I joined the Army. I am now out of the Army and I work on the executive protection team of one 20 richest people in the world.
Mind if I add another? It is un-constitutional (illegal) as well, both "mommy welfare" and educational welfare.
The poor have no money for one reason: their mind. Now, that is not to say that the poor are all stupid, however something in their head keeps them down.
Well, get rid of government schools then, so that the forces of capitalism (sorry, I said the "C" word) can provide cheap and effective private schools.
I know that Americans spend something like $6000 per year, per student. I think, and I may be wrong, that the average cost of private school in the US is around $4000.
OMG, what did we do 150 years ago when there were no state sponsored schools in America?
What did George Washington, Abe Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Ben Franklin all have in common? They never stepped foot in a government school.
Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
Originally posted by cavscout
Even when we were on the street I never received help from government programs . . . Shortly after getting a place, I joined the Army. I am now out of the Army and I work on the executive protection team of one 20 richest people in the world.
Anyone besides me note a contradiction contained in those two statements?
Cavscout, the Army IS a government program. Granted, you have to work to benefit from it, but the fact remains that you pulled yourself out of a deep hole by taking advantage of government spending, which gave you a job for a while and skills you could use after you quit it.
Kudos to you for the discipline and effort required to do that, don't get me wrong. But you DIDN'T do it without government help, and that's a fact.