It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Please explain Socialism to an idiot.

page: 10
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 08:52 PM

Originally posted by red 5
Would someone please explain what it means to be a socialist to me?

Here I think this will explain it. You always want to make sure that you are the guy holding the gun to someone elses head.

[edit on 2-11-2008 by In nothing we trust]

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 09:55 PM
reply to post by LogicalExplanation

Tell that to all the homeless and unemployed people in this country holding on by a shoe string and have you ever checked out Norway or Sweden or other socialist countries at least there when you become sick you won't have to sell your home or beg for money at the local 7-11 store to pay for your hospital bills.

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 10:21 PM
It seems that people are overlooking the fact that the Federal Government ALREADY steals from you in the form of an income tax that isn't legal in the first place.
If someone already mentioned this, I'm sorry for repeating it, as I've only read through the first page and I really don't intend to read the rest of this thread because I'm of the opinion that all of this "he's a socialist" bull is nothing more than Corporate America turning its propaganda against you in an effort to preempt any move Obama might actually make in that direction. As Benevolent Heretic (I think it was BH) has already pointed out, Obama is in favor of Free Marketed economy.

Not only that, but the US already has a litany of socialist programs in place to go along WITH their blatant robbery of their people in the form of an unapropriated tax on labor (which was expressively forbidden during the drafting of our constitution, for good reason I might add.)

I nerely expressed thoughts that our nation was moving much closer to a fascist state, rather than a socialist one, but I forgot about the Bailout. haha.
So, it doesn't really matter who you put in place when it comes to this issue, both of these baffoons have already VOTED for Socialism. In retrospect, I suppose that Obama IS a Socialist, but so is McCain.

I'm not so sure that there is necessarily anything wrong with a government that adopts SOME socialist ideals. Like the OP suggested, look at the morale of the citizens of Denmark, or, as the other poster is speaking about, the morale of the Canadians.

For me, I'm more concerned with the fact that the "haves" HAVE damn near everything. Actually, you can hand a good deal of the blame of our corporate welfare, semi-fascist state on the Republicans and their history of deregulation. Deregulation by the FCC is the EXACT reason we are even having this discussion. By allowing a few people buy up all of the media outlets, they don't hold one another accountable any longer and they make you THINK that Obama is a socialist, which of course brings the minds of the sheeple to the Iron Curtain, Cold War mentality.

The fundamental problem with the idea of everyone having an equal voice is the fact that the people with more money can, unless regulated, BUY more influence with their voice (the greenback) than any ONE HUNDRED of us peons can muster together... Easily. And now, we have it set up so that a small portion of these corporate demons have bought so much that they literally run the country. From my perspective, I would rather live in a responsibly ran socialist system than a corporate wellfare slave state, but that's just me. Get rid of the media monopoly, the energy monopoly and the ability for people to lobby on Capital Hill and we're getting somewhere. While we're at it, go ahead and remove the electoral voting system and repeal the entire Tax Code system, which is a complete sham by the way as it flies in the face of our judicial system 180degrees out of phase with that which it was intended.
Until those last four things are taken care of, we are barking up the wrong tree with our bullsnap labels we are spoonfed in an attempt to actually apologize for the people that have created this jacked up system in the first place.

I'll end my ramblings now. haha

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 10:49 PM
reply to post by LogicalExplanation

Successful people like to think they deserve their wealth because of superior ability and hard work. While these may be factors in their success, the reality is: success depends on a host of factors, outside the control of any one individual. In large part, success comes down to good fortune or luck. There are plenty of brilliant, hard working people in this world that don't achieve great success.

E.g., if you had a small business that needed a bank loan in the recession of 91-92 or in the past few months, your company would have gone out of business. The same business started a few years ago however, would have found capital readily available and might have grown rapidly--everything else being the same. Success often comes down to who you know, or what industry you decided go into as a young person (e.g., Wall Street vs Technology vs Medicine). In many organizations, success depends hugely on whether your boss takes a liking to you. If you went to Harvard or Yale, your opportunities will be higher than those who could only afford a public university. You also might have been successful but for the presence of one other individual, who otherwise bested you. His or her persence might have changed your fortunes from superstar to nobody (as in Sports where 1/100th of a second can make all the difference between storied Gold and Silver nobody). A Tech business started in the '90s and sold for $100s of millions might fetch nothing today. Success is determined by so many unpredictable factors outside of one's control.

When people do find success and make great wealth, their good fortune is rarely replicated in their offspring. Their offspring might get big jobs with big titles by virtue of their wealth and power--and they might even do well at those jobs, but it is unlikely they would ever have risen to those positions were they not born to wealth. They certainly don't 'deserve' it (e.g., Paris Hilton).

So the argument that successful people deserve it only goes so far. Sure you deserve to win the lottery--if you are lucky enough to do so--and we'd like you to try.

Society however should give everyone the opportunity to succeed. It must prevent wealth from concentrating into a few families that control everything and pull all the strings. To maintain a healthy competition, it needs to take estates apart over a few generations.

Certain basics are essential to ensure competition, e.g., everyone should have the right to healthcare, an education, protection from crime...

The tax system must be fair. The current system is not. The middle class pays a greater share of their income in taxes than the wealthy. Even with a 39% tax rate, they will continue to do so (because of tax shelters and capital gains which are taxed at a much lower rate). Warren Buffett pointed out that he paid only 17% tax on his $46million income, while the secretaries in his office pool were paying as much as 30% tax on their incomes. The current tax system is basicly welfare for the rich.

This nation has a lot of self-deluded people who are so unbelievably greedy that they would deny healthcare to small children so they can concentrate more of the wealth for themselves. The Canadian, French, English or Denmark systems are much appealing to me than our own.

The middle class today is drowning in debt, with next to no savings. This situation is bad for them but is not good for the rich either, because it is inherently unstable. I doubt the American people will permit the complete transformation of society into a wealthy nobility that rules a poor uneducated peasant class.

We do need a change. We need leadership that creates a more level playing field and minimally provides the basics to people so they can thrive and aspire to the proverbial brass ring.

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 10:54 PM
in western countries we have many concepts of socialism intergrated into our capitalist societies (england, Canada, Australia to name a few) to provide a safety net for people, capitalism isnt perfect and its very easy for those who have little to no advantages in life to fall betweenthe cracks so we provide things like education, health care, unemployment benefits.

however you still have the option of educating your kids in a private school going to a private hospital where you will pay for these services.

many people dont use any of the services, some people can at times use more than their fair share but the system is there to help everybody who needs it.

socialism isnt evil, it isnt stealing from the rich to give to the poor, everybody contributes because its nice to know there there is that safety net if things go wrong.

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 12:59 AM

Originally posted by malcr
What an entertaining thread. All those (US) contributors who hate socialism but haven't a clue what it means. Brilliant. I noticed the usual brain dead statements have appeared about stealing from the rich, taxes is stealing etc etc. Only in America is such nonsense spoken with such passion. I wonder where it comes from?

No, the belief that taxes is not theft is delusional. It is such a simple concept and all you really have to do is consult your dictionary. Stealing is taking without asking. Taxes is taking without asking. If stealing is taking without asking and taxes is taking without asking, then taxes are the same thing as stealing. Its sad that only people who live in the US are capable of having that particular common sense. It originates from our fierce sense of independence and property ownership that our nation was once founded on. Perhaps that is one of the reasons the US was so successful?

I know socialism at least as well, if not better than you. I know socialism is the process of stealing from the rich to give to the poor. Granted there is always a stated excuse like a medical treatment or something similar, but that merely is the reasoning behind the fact. There are exceptions where you are stealing from the middle class, or even other poor people to give to the poor.

Personally I don't understand why people want to make socialism something more complex than it is. Perhaps people like you are actually responsible for the failure of socialism. Because if you just look at things for the simple things they are, rather than trying to see something extra that just is not there, you are a part of why the laws have so much extra that just does not need to be there. Simply steal from the rich and give to the poor using a more simplified system. It really would work far better than anyone could imagine I would bet. But instead we pretend that socialism is something where you spend endless billions on a complex range of ridiculous and unconsitutional (in the US) social monster programs defined by millions upon millions of legaleze jargon resulting in billions upon billions of unjustified government expenses flushed down the toiled to crunch all the pointless numbers.

I think that socialism is a great idea in theory. My basis for support is that while taxes is stealing, the idea of property is just a contrived notion any ways and so you are not committing a fundamental harm by stealing. So in other words stealing is perfectly right when it is for the greater good. Maybe if people understood that we could actually build a socialist system that works. It seems to work in maybe two countries and fail miserably in the remaining 100+ ones, particularly France that I know of.

Even though have so completely deluded your self into thinking that when *certain people* take your money without asking then it isn't stealing, surely you can at least see that it is bullying at the very least? What happens when you chose not to pay your earned money to the government and just say no? What happens when you say... well since this is my money I'm just not going to give it to you? Either jail-time or they just simply steal your property using a police force. So I call that stealing and at the very least you should acknowledge it is bullying?

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 03:56 PM

Originally posted by truthquest

How you can be disgusted when half the people on this thread seem to agree with your view that some socialism is good is beyond my comprehension. What do you expect, for everyone to agree and like socialism?

I find your viewpoint that a certain type of religion, philosophy, etc cannot be considered the best to be totally baffling. Surely a certain religion is best, a certain political party is best, and a certain economic policy regarding socialism/capitalism is best.

[edit on 2-11-2008 by truthquest]

[edit on 2-11-2008 by truthquest]

I am disgusted by the people who use the word "Socialism" as a scare tactic. I am overwhelmed with joy when I read what some have to say and it turns out to be genuine critical thinking and not so much media programming that the majority of Americans have accepted. My disgust lies with those who use scare tactics to control the populace and those who are controlled by the scare tactics. I do not expect everyone to say they want or prefer Socialism. I expect intelligent people to stand up and scoff at anyone who proposes Socialism is the evil sent to wipe out us democracy, freedom lovin' Americans!

Your second argument is hardly worth debating, but I'll show you why. Can you define best? And while we're at it, best for who? I am not talking about opinions. I am not talking about favorites. I am talking about the absolute. The BEST solution. The one solution that someone has come up with that dwarfs all others, shows that the others are inherently and undeniably WRONG. What is the BEST philosophy? Why so? What are the qualifications you have, or any else has for that matter, to say you know with complete certainty that the Bible trumps the Koran or vice versa? How many years in music school did you study before you decided Blues were better than Classical (you can use your imagination to put in any musical style)? What were the factors? What defines BEST music? Which political party is best? Best for who? You, me, or those already in power? Does there have to be one? Couldn't we just ignore labels, take the best ideas, and combine them to make a functioning ideology? Things are hardly as black and white as they appear in textbooks but I'm sure you know that. America has this built in superiority complex that seems to pass down to most if its citizens. My rant about things not being the best was really a weak attempt at trying to make the statement that all this America is number 1, everything we do is number 1 attitude is seriously flawed and it's one of the largest factors we're the way we are today. It depends on context, it depends on the person, it depends on the situation: best is extremely relative. Labels are bad...mkay? You don't read about "Socialism" or "Capitalism" in a book and say oh man, Capitalism is best, let's pick that one! It's a mix, it's a combination. Because they each have their advantages and flaws. One is not best. You can say this about pretty much anything in the world...

I am just sharing my opinions and observations, and I'm aware you're doing the same. And I hold it in strong opinion that ideologies, art, religion, and other personal are highly philosophical and mean different things to different people, which makes hard to arrive at a unanimous decision on what is "best." Best sports team, best car (in terms of what though), best computer...material things are easy, because there is some sort of material benchmark you can use. Religion, philosophy, music, art, poetry, ideologies...these aren't so material and you're going to have a much tougher time convincing a hardcore Christian that Islam is actually the best religion or the other way around.

posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 06:01 PM

Originally posted by ImaNutter
My disgust lies with those who use scare tactics to control the populace and those who are controlled by the scare tactics. I do not expect everyone to say they want or prefer Socialism. I expect intelligent people to stand up and scoff at anyone who proposes Socialism is the evil sent to wipe out us democracy, freedom lovin' Americans!

Your second argument is hardly worth debating, but I'll show you why. Can you define best? And while we're at it, best for who? I am not talking about opinions. I am not talking about favorites. I am talking about the absolute. The BEST solution. The one solution that someone has come up with that dwarfs all others, shows that the others are inherently and undeniably WRONG. What is the BEST philosophy? Why so? What are the qualifications you have, or any else has for that matter, to say you know with complete certainty that the Bible trumps the Koran or vice versa?

I 100% agree that using "socialism" as a scare word is not right and can now at least understand the source of your anger, even if does not personally bother me much.

But as for the best, that is a simple concept to me just like socialism is. The best is ultimately the system resulting in the largest net happiness after all people are considered. I think the only reason that you don't believe in "best" is because measuring happiness is really damned hard. For example, what makes Democracy *better* than Fascism? The happiness of the people inside of it. But go and try proving it.

I'd say the sooner you realize that there is a good, better, and best for just about every category out there, the better off you'll be. That is one reason liberals are not as happy as conservatives in studies. They are stressed out because they don't think there is a right answer or best answer. Meanwhile a conservatives make their life so much simpler by deciding what is best and what is right.

Who am I to decide what is best? I'm some one with a rational mind that can weigh outcomes of different possibilities in my mind. If I estimate that one choice will result in the most happiness, I call it the best. In some cases I believe it is the best for me while not for others. In other cases I believe the choice is best for everyone who will decide on a choice. And I may be wrong because of a miscalculation, but that does not take away that there is an absolute best.

If you believe that all religions make zero change in your happiness level, then fine, you believe there is no best and nothing you ever decide matters in regards to religion. If you believe that changing you philosophy, such as switching over to racism from non-racism for example, will result in no change in happiness for you or others, then okay, by your estimate their would be no best philosophy. But in my opinion changing religions and philosophies make huge differences in a person's level of happiness. Not only that, but those changes make huge differences in the happiness of those around you. And I call those changes that make the overall happiness level increase the very most to be the very BEST.

I believe a certain religion (or lack of) will result in the most happiness for me. I believe that there is a certain religion (or lack of) that if everyone followed, would result in the largest net happiness gain. I call that religion THE BEST one. The same is true for music. Of all the tens of thousands of songs sold today, there may very well be only one would result in my mood improving the most. Or perhaps there are a group of ten that would all result in that very best improvement.

So yes, there is a best religion, best philosophy, best car to drive, and BEST anything. Sometimes the best is different for each person or even different at different times for each person. In other cases a certain choice is the best choice for all people to select. And again the only thing that makes it unclear that there is a best, is because there is often no solid evidence that one is better than another.

I want to be THE BEST person I can be by making THE RIGHT decisions. I don't want to just believe I'm right, I must BE RIGHT. I want to make THE BEST choices... the ones that are THE RIGHT ONES. And the right choice (the best choice), is the one that results in the greatest net happiness.

Do I have a superiority complex? No. Is person A better than person B? That is not a complete question! Better at what? I'm one of the BEST at certain things, and have taken steps to even prove it. However, I am not better than anyone else. That is an irritating and incomplete thing to say. I even think it is bad grammar to say such a thing because it is an incomplete sentence. If some one ever says "I may be bad but I'm better than the dog crap on your lawn." they are guaranteed wrong because that is an incomplete sentence and therefore bad grammar.

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 05:57 PM
Socialism doesn't sound so bad to me. Why does it have such a bad rep? Is it because of capitalist propaganda? If it is because of capitalist propaganda, why the need for it in the first place? If a socialist nation tries to compete against a capitalist nation, it will be destined to fail on a world market.

posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 08:52 AM
To the elitist morons who believe in the free market, which is right wing communism, anything to the left of Raygun is socialism.

Like spoiled children, the right will scream socialism until they are blue in the face when they can't get their way. The will ignore that Reagan, Bush, and Bush ran their governments much more like socialist/communist states than any democrat has ever done, with their huge military policies, and bailouts for the cleptocracy.

top topics

<< 7  8  9   >>

log in