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.

 

The term "Socialist"...

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Is it me or is it used WAY WAY too much on this site? Saying the United States is being Socialist? Obama being a Socialist? The bailout is Socialist? Do any of you even know what Socialism is?

Obama is not a Socialist, at all. The bailout is NOT an example of Socialism and this nation is nowhere near Socialist.

Get a clue people (libertarians)




posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 06:48 PM
link   
To help clarify what you mean.....



Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society. Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution, it being the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth into a small section of society who control capital, and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.

Source


Emphasis (bold) is mine.....and I am sorry, but it seems like more and more in government today (and a lot of them are Democrats) are advocating socialist tendencies.

JMO....

[edit on 10/13/2008 by skeptic1]



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   
In the above definition, I can't find anything that links socialism with Obama. He's a capitalist. I'm only mentioning his name because I hate it when "socialist" it tossed around as a buzzword in order to cause Pavlovian reaction in certain voters.



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I never said anything about Obama; I was just pointing out that more and more elected officials in DC are espousing ideas and rhetoric that lean more towards socialism than capitalism.



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Socialism-"The stage of society,in Marxist doctrine comming between the Capitalist stage and the communist stage which private ownership of the means of production and distribution has been eliminated" This definition taken from Webesters dictionary.
Now the banks "produce" credit and "distribute" cash.When the federal government takes control of banking institutions,and the priviatization is taken away or set aside.What would you call it? Free enterprise?
Redistribution of wealth is also a Marxist/Socialist tennant.Is that just Robin Hood syndrom?Taxing the wealthy and handing it to the poor?Or is it a means of breaking the spirit of the working public?



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by QuetzalcoatlAlien
 


I agree that the term is used very loosely here on the boards an its merely used as a way to smear and slander in this case Obama.

The phrase that would apply to many of Obama ideas are regulation, deregulation or government intervetion.

What it is even more perplexing is that many McCain supporters call Obama a socialist for his views on heathcare and taxes and I ask myself, since when raising taxes has been a sign of socialism? You raise taxes or lower taxes depending on what the candidates views on where tax policy should be headed, you might disagree with the policy but that doesn't make it a socialist policy.

The point is that here on ATS it is just used for those that just want to smear, slander and instill fear to others...kind of like "you are with the ones that love capitalism or your are with the socialists", I have heard that before, that fear tactic.

And as far as the bailout is concern as long as the taxpayers in somehow allowed to benefit from the ownership stakes and loans given to these companies I just see it as government intervation not socialism but if for some reason this companies are allowed to profit beyond recon at the expense of the taxpayers with the taxpayers holding to the bad end of the deal the I would called it the socializing of losses of private institutions. Kind of like the socialism that is practice in many other countries but inversed. We dont take good companies and nationalize them we rather take bad companies and put them on the government balance sheet.

Good thread! S&F!

[edit on 13-10-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 13-10-2008 by Bunch]



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   
I keep seeing "Socialism" being thrown around.

When Corporate Power And Government Combine It Is Called Fascism. ! ! !



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


I'll have to agree with you, I don't think people actually understand what socialism actually is. As in it being the precursor to communism, such as said in your post.

Socialism/Communism, is a failed economic philosophy that has already been tried and has failed miserably every time. There is no way to effectively practice Marx's ideology, because everybody is different and different things make people tick and people are all raised differently. Also, Marx's ideologies have never been put into place they way he would have wanted them to be.

That is why the theory of a free-market has worked so well, even though a free-market hasn't ever been in place that follows what Adam Smith would have intended for it to do what has been put in place has worked very very well, in fact it has worked so well China is now practicing a pseudo capitalist structure.

A free-market works so well because it promotes the freedom of individuality. The only thing needed for a true free-market economy to work is proper education.

Much of the failure that we see today is because of ethics. A lot of people have this unsustainable urge to try to shape the way people live and think according to their ideology, instead of just keeping it to themselves and going on about there business.

knowledge is the answer to everything and its greatest enemy is ignorance, and ignorance is a far more powerful force than knowledge because the people just simply don't know any better.



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by daddyroo45
 


Obama's tax policies are not about redistribution of wealth, they are about fairness and stimulating the economy.

For 8 years we have heard how giving tax cuts to the rich and to the big corporations would create jobs, would keep jobs here, would give us a booming economy and all other nice things and it didn't materialize. Bush policies are what is known as trickle down economics and has been prove to be a fallacy, is the fallacy that the oligarchy sells to the masses in order to keep them at bay.

The reality is that under the current tax policies, jobs losses have raise to levels not seen the last depression. And thats coming from a previous 8 years where Clinton raise taxes to the big corporations, and this country higher earners and we saw one the biggest boom in the economy and jobs that this country has saw in its history.

Its all about policies and facts, not slander, smear and fear tactics

[edit on 13-10-2008 by Bunch]



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Indeed OP.

Ive also always thought it strange when NWO nuts bang on about socialism. I cant see either Rockerfeller, Rothschild or their reptillian overlords being much up for redistribution of wealth and a more egalitarian society. But then again we should always bear in mind the principles of IngSoc, as with other wolfs in sheeps clothing.

Erm, not really sure theres any point to this post. Move along...



[edit on 13-10-2008 by Man_Versus_AntiMan]



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Socialism: is an evil political philosophy hell bent on destroying society. It cares nothing about people, it kicks puppies, and eats babies.

Don't get me started on Communism or Anarchism!!!

Definition #2

Socialism: is exactly the same as communism and anarchism. They are the exact same thing. They suck, and are anti-American.

Lucid,
Capitalist Pig





[edit on 13-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 


Outstanding post!

The flaw in capitalism is the same that you would find in socialism and communism.

They are all design to be executed and implemented by the human race, and we as a race have not develop yet the necessary understanding to implement these concepts, that's why in theory they ALL sound formidable but we still can't implement them to their true intent.

(Putting my tin foil hat on)

I will bet that what ever extraterrestial species if they are out there and have lived for million of years would had to overcome this same barriers in order to advance as a race becasue I believe that under this current systems of government that exist in this world we can advance more than 500 years without exterminating ourselves, or the few with the power only surviving.

[edit on 13-10-2008 by Bunch]



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 07:33 PM
link   
In attempt to explain things a little better seeing how socialism is the precursor to communism, here are the 10 planks to communism, taken from wikipedia ( en.wikipedia.org... )

10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

Now that has been laid out hopefully that will clear all the confusion.

Now here is an article analyzing supply side economics.

www.econlib.org...

*edit* To include a link to this thread that got posted about a half hour before mine didn't see it until now.

Also thanks Bunch!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 13-10-2008 by Hastobemoretolife]

[edit on 13-10-2008 by Hastobemoretolife]



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 07:56 PM
link   
What I see is a massive conspiracy of failure within the school system to educate people on what words mean.

Whatever you want to call it, the government's of the world stepping in and taking ownership of stock of banks they choose to save while just taking over and closing bad banks; IS NOT capitalism.

Whatever you want to call it, having the US Government save an insurance company while taking warrants and staking an equity ownership of that company; IS NOT capitalism.

Whatever you want to call it, having the US Government treasury take conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which in essence, makes the US Treasury the largest mortgage holder in the world using US tax dollars for the purchase; IS NOT capitalism.

The US Government has not been practicing capitalistic practices for the last month or so with large communistic expenditures.

All in all, I think the Chinese have it just about right, right now.



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by hinky
 


And thats the other point that gets me all confused when McCain supporters refer to Obama as socialist.

They forget that this current administration is the one that is intervening in the "free-market" and capitalism that they all love, they forget that is McCain who is advocating for more government intervention to the tune of 300 BILLION if he becomes president. ll this is happening on the conservative side.

I guess is the conservative who really need to have a serious and in depth look of those they select to lead their party, because those leaders are really out of touch with the views of the ones that selected them.



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Please people Marxism is not Socialism. Socialism was around long before Marx hijacked it and created his version based on an authoritative form of dictatorial control.

Socialism in its original true form is 'the workers control of the means of production'. No state is necessary, unless you're a Marxist, most socialists are not.

So put away your Marx quotes and your communist manifesto, true socialists are not fooled by statist agendas cloaked in false hope for the working classes.


Marx had an idea from the confusion of his head
Then there were a thousand more waiting to be led
The books are sold, the quotes are bought
You learn them well and then you're caught
Anothers left, anothers right
Anothers peace, anothers fight...
Who do you see? Who do you watch?
Who's your leader? Which is your flock?...Crass


You'll never be free if your ideas are not your own. If you allow your thinking to be led by others; whether that be Marx, Adams, Jesus, or your present dictator.
You'll never be free while your labour is exploited by the slave wage system. Labour is the backbone of any economy and without it the economy is bound to fail, look at it now. What will all you money men do when you have no money left to play with?

The only people who benefit from the capitalist system are exploiters.
But we're conditioned to believe that our only options in life are to exploit, or be exploited. Socialism teaches cooperation instead of competition.

Most people today have two choices, a life of boring, soul stealing labour, or a life of boring, soul stealing welfare. If they’re lucky…(btw ATSers you’re not most people)

Edit; typoooo

[edit on 10/13/2008 by ANOK]



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by hinky
What I see is a massive conspiracy of failure within the school system to educate people on what words mean...
...The US Government has not been practicing capitalistic practices for the last month or so with large communistic expenditures


Yeah, I can see what you mean.

That word you're looking for there is nationalistic.

Nationalisation; the transfer of private ownership to public, or state ownership, in whole or in part.

Nothing at all to do with Socialism, Communism. Buddhism, China and the price of tea there...

[edit on 10/13/2008 by ANOK]



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I didn't have the brain energy to muster a quality post. Thanks for posting some serious thought


To the OP I would like to thank you for creating this thread. Socialism and Communism and Anarchism are all too often used as umbrella terms, and seldom used in a way that actually represents their respective philosophies. So the more we actually discuss them the better we will be at denying ignorance.

[edit on 13-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


So question for you and Anok,

What kind of socio economic structure you guys think would be better for humanity if it were implemented in its true form, right to its principles, capitalism, socialism, communism, combination of, or some other?

I'm just curious,

I for one come to think that if they where apply to its principles, capitalism is the last one I would choose.



posted on Oct, 13 2008 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I have to disagree with you. What you just stated will lead to the extinction of the Human race.

A free-market will run free no regulations or rules. The only thing that will dictate that is the people. Profit, cool things, and the advancement of humans are the motivation facts for people to succeed.

Some people think Socialism is a great idea and others think capitalism is a great idea. I think the Free Market is a great Idea.

No matter which way you look at it there is going to be one singular idea that the world will revolve around and that will be which economic system do we implement.

The free-market, imho, is the best and greatest and the one that will work. The reason why is because the market will dictate what needs to be done. The free-market weeds out the bad ideas and only leaves the best ideas.

The next step in human evolution is consciousness. Eventually people will wake up and realize that we do not need anybody telling us what to do or how to govern us. The best way for us as a human race to survive and grow is to have a system that is sub consciously run by all Humans.

That would be the free market. The free market promotes the individual and the group as a whole. Socialism promotes just the group. The means of production owned by all the people will never work. People are individuals and not everybody is going to get along. That is just the way it is. Disagreements and arguments are good for humanity because it challenges the mind and forces people to think and be more creative.

We are humans and we are all different more importantly we are individuals that make up a group. Socialism in any form will never work. Whether it is the archaic version before Marx got a hold of it the version that Marx states.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join