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.

 

Whats wrong with Communism/socialism?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Really whats wrong with these two different forms of government. Hugo Chavez sure is making Socialism work for his country.

This is why i think the American Government is trying hard to make the American People hate him. From Pat Robertson to the President our leaders, on both sides of the political spectrum, are telling us that Hugo Chavez is a monster and that he is using that dirty word (communism or socialism) to control his poor powerless peoples.

I think that Socialism works and that the grand conspriacy by both Governments and Corporations(these two might just be the same thing) is to continue making people believe that socialism/communism could never work. Corporations are soo close to making the American People thier slaves that it just really makes me wonder when they come out sooo strongly against on pittly ole nation(not to talk bad at all about Venezuela). Which brings me back to my question, "Whats wrong with Communism/socialism?"

I fail to see whats wrong with Universal Health Care...Propotional Taxation...Fair and equal compensation for work done. If you dont work( not cant) you dont eat.

What i do see wrong is with Capitalism(which the chinese have shown doesnt require democracy) you have coporate fat cats who control supply and demand artifically. You have an ELECTED body who has raised thier respective pay checks 6 times since 1996...which just so happens to the last time the FEDERAL(Big difference between federal state and local minimumwages) minimum wage was raised.

I see millions of poor and homeless all across the GREATEST Country in the world


I see HUGE wastes of materials that arent infintite. Go into a walmart or kmart...and look at the hundreds upon hundreds of items that will never be sold.

Go to the HELLACIOUS landfills that pockmark our nation.

Watch tv and be told that you have thirty different diseases and how the only way you will ever get this beatiful woman is to buy our product. Or how you arent really a woman unless you where this kind of perfume....or you will never feel like this unless you buy this. The horrors of free-market-captialism have been visited upon by our grandparents and thier grandparents....why must we continue on with thier failed system...its out country too..

So once again...whats really wrong with Communism or Socialism...

The only thing i see as wrong with them is that they mean profit shortfalls and less money for joe Blow CEO

El senor pom pom rides again




posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 12:34 AM
link   
I think you're right. Whenever I think about the perfect form of government I always think of socialism.


I think America would be better with social classes. I think America would be better with some enforced minimum standard of living. Guaranteed jobs. Free education. Free healthcare and insurance.

The amount of money you make is determined by your hard word and contribution to society. You work your way up the social classes throughout your life.

Capitalism is faulted because not everyone can monopolize or capitalize on a fast food business, a banking company, an insurance company, etc. There just isnt enough money or supply and demand. There are alot of people and we need some organization in supplying jobs, making sure people have the opportunity to progress themselves, and providing ourselves the things we need.

I think in the next 100 years I think we will start to see some real problems with capitalism and will end up as some kind of democratic socialist country in the end.



[edit on 6-4-2006 by ImplementOfWar]



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 01:51 AM
link   
The most ideal society can embody many forms of govt. they cannot hold to any one or else they limit themselves to growth. A speck of Capitalism must be thrown it to allow business to flourish, but also Communism and Socialism to hold down the corporations or eliminate them so they wont do what they are doing now. Then throw in a dash of democracy and voila you have a govt. that allows freedom, prosperity, not having to worry a whole lot about corporations taking over, but also be able to do what you want in govt and not worry about not being heard.
No government survives that takes on only one type, nazi's took on facism alone and died, russia took on oligarchy (russia was never communist) and fell, america took on capitalism then started to collapse then switched quickly to a rather odd mix of fascism/oligarchy/monarchy (in some ways)/unnamed for now.
The problem is implementation as far as getting a govt that is for THE PEOPLE not for MONEY or POWER as is going on now.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 02:37 AM
link   
Yep, I've often said, every area has a type of government that will work for them at that time. There is no such thing as the "right" government.

Sure, the best government for the US is a 4 year elect democracy.

Best one for canada is a parlimentary democracy.

Best for cuba is a socialist system.

Alot of people in the western world seem to think that democracy is the answer to everything... then again, most people in the western world have a VERY binary view of life: Good versus Evil, Right versus Wrong, Black or White, With us or against us.

Truth is the world is a hell of alot more complicated than that... which is why alot of europe and the eastern world views us westerners as ignorant, or simply stupid... because alot of us actually are.

Fortunately, theres just enough of the intelligent ones to keep the countries together.

Aside: If anyone ever tells me "Either your with me, or your against me"... guess what... if you cant accept the fact that I'm nutral... then yeah, you just gained one more enemy.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 02:48 AM
link   
Why don't we ask most of the people in Cuba if they like communism?

In a word communism is no good because it has never worked. That is the problem.

Why it hasn't worked is more difficult to determine and depends on who answers the question.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Nah, never one for socialism. So what if someone has more money than you?

Ideally, if you earn it honestly, it's yours--you shouldn't HAVE to "spread the wealth" around. That's nothing short of theft IMO.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Our own capitalist nations are run by international banking concerns who exert massive power, over and above our own elected leaders.
If a country has rich natural reserves of oil or minerals then it's only fair that the lions share of the money earned from the sale of that asset should benefit the people, not line the pockets of some foreign bankers or big corporate interests. That's real socialism at work.
Of course, by denying the big bankers and corporations something they covet then you are immediately a threat to them and to the whole system.
If others see how it can be done then power and control might be lost.

A socialist system does not mean having to give up personal wealth to the state but does mean that unfairly or fraudulently made fortunes might be more at risk. It all comes down to exploitation really and we are all victims of the big banking cartels.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Well to my knowledge, true capitalism has never existed in the US; however our greatest period of growth occurred during the most "capitalist time."

Modern Democrats (see: socialists) dont seem to understand that the corporations they speak of did not arise from capitalism. Our system is a strange that resembles fascism where instead of the government owning the corporations, the corporations own the government. You dont have to like it, and you shouldn’t, but don’t slander capitalism by blaming our system on it.

Capitalism is freedom to keep the things you own. Socialism is government enforced slavery to everyone who makes less money than you. Communism is slavery, period. What is the word for our form of government? Corruption.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   
oh, BTW, you put this in the wrong forum. This should be in PTS, there is no conspiracy here.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   
capitalism as we have seen is far too exploitive, we need to find the balance between capitalism and socialism. personaly i believe we should be moving mor to the socialism side, but that is personal opinion, with a little common sense.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 12:46 PM
link   
communism/socialism doesn't work because it's at odds with the primal instict of man to compete with each other to provide the most wealth for himself and his family. Communism and socialism take this away from him.

[edit on 4/6/2006 by djohnsto77]



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Very simply put, if you enjoy owning a home, a car or a business, you dont want Communism.

A bit of socialism is good, but it may be difficult not to cross that fine line.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 03:11 PM
link   
I believe it would be wrong to assume that communism or socialism will protect or solve any problems that any society has. I think there is a conspiracy in believing that any of these forms of GOP is bulletproof . A form of GOP that represent the majority and promotes the pursue of happiness sounds perfect to me.

Due to the fact that imperialism and capitalism have been linked historically, people tend to demonize the latter for its association with the former; but that is a fallacy in itself for it is not capitalism that is evil but rather some human elements in the system. capitalism in its ideal state would reward anyone with marketable skills and talents.
with a good government in place not directing the economy, but rather enforcing the laws against economic abuses, capitalism works optimally when coupled with some socialistic ideas. Norway and Sweden have succeeded in demonstrating just that. One often underappreciated advantage of capitalism is that it creates an atmosphere for explosive creativity an individual is more likely to work long hours in lonely lab to find a cure for cancer if he/she is going to be recognized through a Nobel prize than if his/her government were to demand that he/she do so for the sake of the world! given the fact that the human tendency is to be self-interested rather than altruistic, an economic system that rewards individual rather group efforts is more likely to make breakthroughs, and consequently advance humanity.
democracy?
it is a problem because people tend to believe that it is a fit-all type of shoe.
democracy would not generally do well in a poor corrupted country. contrary to popular misconception, democracy did not create European development; in fact it is rather the reverse that is true. Wealth acquisition trough mercantilism and colonialism allowed the emergence of an educated middle class in Europe( known collectively as bourgeois), and with education had come "challenging the statusquo".
with a very corrupted and uneducated country, democracy may work to preserve the very same things that kept the majority in impoverished conditions in the first place. A rich corrupted candidate can bribe elections officials, and the electorate. Have not realized that many poor countries had overwhelmingly elected drug-traffickers. Certain cartels in Columbia would occupy an entire town with the will of the locals. Look at slavery, it was a democratic institution in the south. was it right? of course not. History has demonstrated that "public clamor" is readily corrupted by ignorance and coercion one does not to go further than medieval Europe and contemporary Africa to realize the truthfulness of that statement.

In our current system it seems that people are as ignorant as them or more patient than much. Do 100% of the people have to be against the policies of the current GOP . For the Adm. to at least make some changes in its staff. The way it works right know we have to make sure that our democracy does not allow any president to take office and do as he pleases regardless of the opinion of the majority.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 08:11 PM
link   
I defintally appreciate everyone who responded on this thread. All of the replies wether I agreed with them or not were for the most part well thought out and thought provoking and for that I thank all of you.

That being said I still think that thier is a case ot be made for a pure socialist government.

On a side note i only threw communism in because it seemed neccesary to explore more then one Political Ideology that is diametrically opposed to Capitalism and Free Market Econonmy.

I think that the biggest misconception in regards to Socialism is that it means you dont own anything. Under an IDEAL( I realize this is highly unlikely, but i will use it as a point of conjecture.) Socialist system the government controls only BUISNESS insuring that buisness is allowed to both thrive and remain in check. The individual is still compensated fairly and appropratley. A semblance of a Free Market econonmy is still allowed but with more Government oversight of the Buisness and less government oversight of the Individual. Higher Taxes on Big Buisness with a cap on Profits and a Cap on prices. So that higher taxes for big buisness cannot be simply passed on to the consumer.

Once again this is only something that would work in an ideal situation and i believe that this is feasible. It requires that many of us reframe our exsiting paradigms in regards to what is and what isnt right.

I honestly believe that for our society and species to move forward on the evolutionary tree we must take a more proactive role in insuring that there is an equality of life. Not taking money from those who trully worked and earned it...but rather insuring that Corporate Fat Cats like the Rockefellars, Bushs, Kennedy's, Chryslers,and so on and so forth are legally prohibited from gauging the consumer.

El senor pom pom rides again



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 03:59 PM
link   
the only way that a socialist state would work was if the rest of the surrounding countries also turned socialist. basically the world would have to turn socialist, but that would never happen and plus humans are greedy, just down-right plain greedy. we like stuff.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 04:31 PM
link   


the only way that a socialist state would work was if the rest of the surrounding countries also turned socialist. basically the world would have to turn socialist, but that would never happen and plus humans are greedy, just down-right plain greedy. we like stuff.

And it's that reason that Venezuela is doing so well, alot of S. America is turning Socialist.


Also, Cuba is not a communist country, it is more Fascist Marxist country.

There has actually never been a communist country, Russia was Marxist, than turned Lennonist.

China is Maoist.


I personally think Socialism is a good thing, and advocate/promote it.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 05:41 AM
link   
Economic freedom and economic model is directly tied to property rights, from which all rights are derived.

Socialism creates a less free people than Capitalism. It has never, and will never compete with reasonable Capitalism over time.

Socialism is simply an extention of Communism, which is loathsome in my book as it removes far more rights than most other forms of government. The main one is property rights.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Socialism creates a less free people than Capitalism. It has never, and will never compete with reasonable Capitalism over time.

Socialism is simply an extention of Communism, which is loathsome in my book as it removes far more rights than most other forms of government. The main one is property rights.


So people in the UK are less free then the US, i don't believe thats true. We have the exact same rights when it comes to money and property as most other countries.

The perks we do get is, free health care at the point of need, everyone has the right to a guaranteed minimum income (e.g. benefits, sickness pay and pensions).

I admit were not a complete Socialist nation, but we seem to have a nice balance between the two. Also no i do not consider my country to be anything like a Communist nation.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by picklewalsh
So people in the UK are less free then the US, i don't believe thats true. We have the exact same rights when it comes to money and property as most other countries.


Yes and no. The American system allows for far more freedom than the English model does, inherantly, but we have marginally less socialism in our system making us roughly the same.

Our economic freedom is roughly the same as yours, and I consider ours to be terrible, so take that for what it's worth.

I don't dig a king anyway.


Originally posted by picklewalsh"The perks we do get is, free health care at the point of need, everyone has the right to a guaranteed minimum income (e.g. benefits, sickness pay and pensions)."


Somehow these don't seem like perks to me, mainly because someone always has to pay. Universal healthcare is a real tragity of do-goodiness, and last time I checked, your country is doing what all Universal healthcare countries do in the end.

Limit access to healthcare as a means of controlling cost. Thanks, but you can keep it.


Originally posted by picklewalshI admit were not a complete Socialist nation, but we seem to have a nice balance between the two. Also no i do not consider my country to be anything like a Communist nation.


Well you and I differ in our interpretations of Communism. Personally, I tend to go with the Ten Planks as a rule of thumb.

Currently we employ ten out of ten. Our taxes are far too high, government is too big and intrusive, compitition is limited due to the acidic small business environment leading to monopolies and higher cost of goods/more and more "fees".

Before government education, we had the best education in the world by far. Now we kids coming out worse than when they went in. The public school system needs to be eliminated.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   
You’ve heard it that “figures don’t lie but liars figure?” What works for country X may not work for country Y. And etc.

Let’s compare socialist countries - health care-wise - and look at the outcomes. Infant mortality is a gross measure of the health of childbearing women and infants under age 1. Longevity is a gross measure of how healthy the society is overall, how long can a person survive in that place? GDP. How much do you have to spend? People say America spends the most on health care. I’ve heard 14% and I recently heard an MD say 18%. Germany was second, at 9%. I don’t know where to look to compare various countries.

Capitalist US: i/m, 6.43, long. 77.85; GDP, $42,000.
Socialist Cuba: i/m, 6.22, long. 77.41; GDP, $3,300
Socialist Italy: i/m 5.83, long. 79.81; GDP, $28,400
Socialist France: i/m, 4.21, long. 79.73; GDP, $30,000
Socialist Germany: i/m, 4.12, long. 78.8; GDP, $29,800

IF the US spends 14% of GDP on health care, that is $5,880 per person, per year.

The GDP for all of Cuba is barely $3,300 per person, per year.

That's just a bit over half what we spend on doctors alone. Yet, Cuba - as poor as it is - and no thanks to the US - has a lower infant mortality than the rich US of A, and only 22 weeks shorter life expectancy. Hmm? Either the Cubans are doing something right or we are doing something hugely wrong. Maybe we ought to send a mission to Cuba to see how they get such good results with so little money?

Note the other socialized medicine countries all have better health outcomes, than the capitalist "free market" US of A the ‘rich nan wins’ health care. Why is that? Are they all smarter than we are smart? Hmm?
All numbers from the CIA World Factbook.



[edit on 5/4/2006 by donwhite]







 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join