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.

 

Socialism is selfish.

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by MAINTAL
 


And that post didn't contribute anything.

Can you put some effort into elucidating the point?




posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by MAINTAL
 


No I didn't. He said forced. It wouldn't be forced, it would be voted in (if it were to happen anytime soon - and I doubt it will).

If it gets voted in, that's the will of the people, and if he doesn't agree, he can always move to avoid the new administration.

By the way, changing the tax bracket is not socialism, nor is it "theft". Again, if that's theft, Bush has been stealing hundreds of millions from every day Americans.



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


I dare you to try to find a post of MAINTAL's where he added decent input to anything. I bet you can't find one post where he cited a valid source - if any source at all.



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by MAINTAL
 


No I didn't. He said forced. It wouldn't be forced, it would be voted in (if it were to happen anytime soon - and I doubt it will).

If it gets voted in, that's the will of the people, and if he doesn't agree, he can always move to avoid the new administration.

By the way, changing the tax bracket is not socialism, nor is it "theft". Again, if that's theft, Bush has been stealing hundreds of millions from every day Americans.


Yes you did Mick READ THE POST! Oh and By the way, just because YOU think it will be voted in, doesn't mean we didn't just do that on Nov 4th and I don't think Obama cares one way or the other because he has always been a liar and a charlaton. He lies so much it is hard to keep count.



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by MAINTAL
 


Yeah, don't bother to cite a source or prove your claim. Just run your mouth, people will believe you.



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Irish M1ck
 





It wouldn't be forced. If it did occur in this country it would be because the people voted for it. But considering the socialist party only got a few thousand votes, I don't think that'll be happening any time soon.


Yes, it would be forced on me, because bills & laws are passed all the time that I personally don't get a say so on, they are buried deep in some other bill and are passed as a sacrifice to get something else done. Laws are enacted to make people adhere to something under the threat of penalty. If I am going to have to siphon off part of my hard earned wages to someone else, it only seems fair that I get a say so in where, how and why it is spent.



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Servigistics
 


Guess you have an issue with living in a Republic then. I'd take that complain to your state senator then.



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Irish M1ck


Yeah, don't bother to cite a source or prove your claim. Just run your mouth, people will believe you.


I have the last eight years of Bush to prove my claim Mick and if Obama has an agenda to move us into a collective nation with the house and senate the way it is now,, I don't see much that can stop him.

I won't cite things that are self evident or should be Mick. Sometimes truth needs no defense.



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by Servigistics
 


Guess you have an issue with living in a Republic then. I'd take that complain to your state senator then.


See this is what I am talking about Mick, I told you you misunderstood and when he comes here to post that in fact YOU DID misunderstand and they elaborate, to clarify, what do YOU do? You got to make some snide remark again when what the poster is saying is TRUE and that is how many laws get passed with all kinds of pork laced earmarks buried deep within it.

Other parts of his post addresses why it is a mistake to call this current form of Government a "republic" or even Capitalism for tha matter.



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Irish M1ck

By the way, changing the tax bracket is not socialism, nor is it "theft". Again, if that's theft, Bush has been stealing hundreds of millions from every day Americans.


Not sure what you mean about the tax bracket and yeah Bush has pretty much raped many of us, you got no argument with me there.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by MAINTAL
 


That's what he is doing, he is changing tax brackets. This page will change when Obama implements his new tax plan:

Tax Brackets

It is something that is done under virtually all new presidents and it isn't indicative of socialism or stealing.



posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Actually no. Socialism asks you to be a better person and to care about your fellow man. It's not just about you.

[edit on 21-11-2008 by LittlePinky82]



posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by MurderCityDevil
reply to post by truthquest
 


you have much to learn grass hopper

much to learn

go read some upton sinclair or actually research socialism and not communism and fascism

there can be alot of factions to socialism

[edit on 6-11-2008 by MurderCityDevil]


Actually you should read some communism. Communism is socialism.



posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dermo

Originally posted by truthquest
Socialism involves taking someone's money without their permission. Taking without asking is an act of selfishness. Taking without asking is an act of greed. Therefore, socialism is selfish.


TBH, i don't know how you could even use the word 'selfish' in that sentence

It should read "Socialism is social-ish"

Socialism is not selfish.. just unfair to those who work harder than most.



.



You're kidding right? And what you have now is fair?



posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
extraordinarily sloppy logic based on blatant ignorance of the facts. Very juvenile in fact.

This is the intro to my thread "What is Socialism"

www.abovetopsecret.com...



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 which represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls 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.

Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split on how a socialist economy should be established between the reformists and the revolutionaries. Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies combined with tax-funded welfare programs; Libertarian socialism (which includes Socialist Anarchism and Libertarian Marxism) rejects state control and ownership of the economy altogether and advocates direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers' councils and workplace democracy.

In the 1970s and the 1980s, Yugoslavian, Hungarian, Polish and Chinese Communists instituted various forms of market socialism combining co-operative and State ownership models with the free market exchange. This is unlike the earlier theoretical market socialist proposal put forth by Oskar Lange in that it allows market forces, rather than central planners to guide production and exchange. Anarcho-syndicalists, Luxemburgists (such as those in the Socialist Party USA) and some elements of the United States New Left favor decentralized collective ownership in the form of cooperatives or workers' councils.


With these verifying links:

en.wikipedia.org...
www.worldsocialism.org...
www.google.com...:Socialism&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
www.wisegeek.com...
www.socialistaction.org...

If you read those you will know more than you did when you posted this thread.


[edit on 6-11-2008 by grover]


If you want facts about socialism and communism go to www.cpusa.org... Check out their info and their media section as well for info.



posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
reply to post by peskyhumans
 


I was addressing the poster of this thread.

Go back and read what I wrote and btw Marx was hired to write the Communist manifesto as a side job... he did not agree with them however.

[edit on 6-11-2008 by grover]


You're kidding right? Have you ever read other Marx writings and speeches? LOL at you.
Go to marxist.org and read his other writings and speeches. Give me a break.



posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by LittlePinky82
 


Correct. Communism is socialism, not the other way around. And there are many other forms of socialism, and capitalism is one of the other possibilities. In fact, we have been using many social reform policies for a while.

[edit on 21-11-2008 by Irish M1ck]



posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Divinorumus
reply to post by truthquest
 


Ah, don't let these people get you down, truthquest. Regardless how anyone wants to define socialism, simple fact is it's immoral. Period. I define socialism as slavery! "Leave me and my apple trees alone, commies, and I won't have to fill your hides with lead." Dang pinkos.


Immoral? Have you ever experienced socialism? If you haven't how can you claim it's immoral? And each person has their own definition of what moral is so that's a ridiculous argument. It's the same thing when rightwing Christian's try to use the whole moral argument against things they don't like whether abortion or gay marriage.



posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthquest

Originally posted by Niall197
It's not selfish to work for a world without crime & poverty. It's not selfish to want better for your own children than you had for yourself. It's not selfish to wish to live a happy and fulfilled life, free from want & debt.

Free market capitalism can't deliver that.

It just can't.

If the OP had his way we'd be back in the dark ages.

[edit on 6/11/08 by Niall197]


Niall197, the vast majority of capitalists believe that socialism does not work for a world without crime & proverty.

The majority of capitalists believe that capitalism works toward a world without crime & poverty.

The majority of capitalists believe that capitalism provides a better world for your own children than you had for yourself.

The majority of capitalists believe that capitalism provides a method to live a happy and fulfilled life, free from want & debt.

So in that respect capitalists and socialists would be equally selfish.

However, socialism adds the element of taking without asking, which is fundamentally selfish regardless of its intention.


What do you think capitalism does? You think that's fair? Wars are started because of it every day. When was the last time socialism started a war?



posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by peskyhumans
 


I get all that.

What is not mentioned though when comparing those countries to America is like trying to compare apples and oranges.

All those countries produce a lot of their goods, in most cases they drill for their own oil, and the kicker they all have populations under 100 million, they also have the highest tax rates in the world.

All those programs are not free. Who pays for them? We the tax payer pays for them. Then the system is going to be over burdened with people and cost way more than what the are predicting.

Take for example Hawaii they had universal health care for 7 months they had to scrap the program because they are being taxed for it so they are going to use it.

What I'm trying to get at is that the middle class is going to get taxed to death because all that money has to come from somewhere.


Not if you nationalize corporations like the oil companies like Venezuela is doing. They're using those profits to pay for the social programs. If we do that here we can use the money to pay off our national debt, infrastructure and then after that do social programs. And hon we pay for things now. That's what taxes are all about. It's a part of living in a society. Find me any country that doesn't pay taxes.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join