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.


I want socialism.

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 08:55 PM
reply to post by CrowServo

Response to Paragraph 1:

Your call for sweeping reforms is troubling. The problem with social programs is not a matter of money, but a matter of principle and authority. There a members of this nation who feel that it is wrong for the state to drain their resources for the “betterment” of mankind. There might be people who feel some intrinsic debt to all other citizens, but this viewpoint is not held by everyone. A more important issue though is the aspect of authority. After you give the state powers they can never be taken away (without much time, energy, and sometimes violence). To say that the nation is slow is a little arrogant. I see the nation as being the last best chance for true freedom, due in part to this “sluggishness.”

Response to Paragraph 2:

It is also possible for these progressive alternatives to fail because they simply don't work or cost too much in wealth and liberty.

Response to Paragraph 3:

This is odd. I agree that we should move toward a more peaceful and fair society, but my path to it is vastly different. I do not view actions, governments, or movements with the lens of “progressive” or “conservative” ideals. The best way to look at these factors is whether or not they limit individual freedom or not.

Response to Paragraph 4:

I agree that the working men and women are not looking for a handout. They are looking for economic responsibility from the state. A great way to do this is to limit or abolish a fiat monetary policy. This way the money that a person earns can buy them more. This is fair and will increase their standards of living. You say that the government has a responsibility to provide all of these goods and services, from where do you find this authority? The Constitution was made (one of the reasons at least) to restrict the power of the Federal Government. Why was this? History dictates that all large and centralized governments (Rome, British Empire, Nazi Germany, USSR, Unconstitutional USA, to name a few) do not work for the betterment of the populace. Corrupt men will always seize power from the peaceful and somewhat pacifistic egalitarian system you describe to work towards their own goals. A case then can be made that the more you restrict centralized governments, the less likely tyrants are to come to power.

Response to Paragraph 5:

Again I take issue with this. I agree that we don't have a “free market.” What we are seeing is not the results of capitalism, but a mix of corporatism and stateism. The one monopoly and “Wall Street Cheat Codes” can only come about using the state as a tool of these “tycoons”. Lobbyists have turned the Congress and Executive branch from the interests of the American people to the interests of a few multinational corporations. This happened because government (especially Federal) had powers enough to let these corporations get away with murder. Unconstitutional legislation was passed, people were bribed, and news was buried. If the government was restricted, big business would not be so concerned with corrupting them because it is not worth their dollar. If government merely enforced the sensible and honest laws concerning private property and fairness in economics we wouldn't be in the position we are in. To do what you say, and give a corrupt state even more power, will only work to defeat any possible fairness and equality in all aspects of life (economic, social, civil, and so on).

I used to believe exactly the opinions you stated. I wanted to help the hard working and honest individual by sacking all those who harmed them. I used to say that we needed a powerful government to enforce the betterment of man. I changed my mind when I researched and figured out who was behind the pain of the working class, the all powerful centralized government.

posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 09:01 PM
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife

I am going to try to address your post roughly paragraph by paragraph to better organize the discussion:

I consider all forms of conservatism to spring from the same source: Fear. The "pure" conservatism of Edmund Burke, or the perverted neoconservatism of Bush and Co. - it is all based on fear, on trying to protect the status quo, property, tradition, etc.

I do not believe the CRA is to blame for the current economic situation. Any measure that tries to get banks to invest in the community is good in principle, so long as all parties cooperate.

My focus is on British history, but yes, I am aware of this, and I think it was a terrible mistake. It gave corporations far too much flexibility and power.

Regulations are the only protections people have against the excesses inevitable in a corporate capitalist system. If the corporations were able to responsibly self-regulate, they would not have a problem, but profit motives are corrupting. Deregulation is clearly a large part of the current crisis.

People complain about the tax system, yes, and it does have problems. But the idea of taxation in general is necessary in a monetary economy. People complaining about taxes in general are who I was talking about.

I doubt even Adam Smith could have foreseen this current situation, and he was arguing from an 18th/19th century perspective at any rate. He was commenting on what he saw as the emerging trends in the growth of the industrial economy. But that was one phase in history - it is over now. Capitalism was itself an evolutionary step, and one which are outgrowing. Smith and his intellectual contemporaries had a rather dim view of humanity, in that they felt humans were motivated out of self-interest primarily, and yet they felt these same humans responsible enough to run a working economy. There is a disconnect there.

Others in this thread have named great benefits associated with progressive economic policies. What direction do you see the world economy going in? Who is leading, and what are its effects? Which is causing the supposed problems, the world economy or the individual countries?

I think your "facts of life" are rather pessimistic. Progressivism is optimistic in nature. Why should we accept that some will be rich and some will be poor? It need not be that way, and one way to change it is socialist policies. You seem to hold a dim view of humanity's capacity to overcome selfishness.

I still don't see how capitalism works and progressive socialism does not.

Marxism is separate from socialism or the flavor of socialism practiced in European countries. He was one socialist thinker among many. Critics of Marx often point out that human nature does not allow for socialism/communism, but I would argue that that is an assumption based on a paradigm that can change as humanity evolves beyond selfishness.

Again, deregulation is what we have had, as I think most economists would tell you. Capitalism, I maintain, is designed to fail. Here is what happens: A multitude of companies form and compete against each other. Some are driven out of business, and the strong survive. They become stronger and stronger until nobody can compete with them. They merge with other companies that specialize in different products until eventually there is one corporation which owns everything. That is...unless there are strong regulations or a different economic model. Nothing will stop them otherwise, which is why a very small number of corporations run the show.

Europe is still doing better than we are, and at the same time has been damaged by our recession. Quality of life is still better.

Ultimately, we are all one, so the community does matter.

posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 09:24 PM
reply to post by NettleTea

I will respond to your post point by point as well:


I realize that not all agree that the betterment of all is worth losing some of their own money. However, I term that selfishness. I do not value money, and I am by no means rich (and I am by no means rich because money is meaningless to me beyond what I have to use it for to obtain what I need in the current system). I am not for a powerful state, (ultimately) but I feel a state run on a completely different model than the US currently has is what is needed. Provided the state is not filled with as many pathways to corruption as the current system, I see no problem with it having the basic power to be able to provide minimum necessities for living a healthy life to its people. I see socialism as a transition stage in the evolution of human community. I see it followed by Communism and finally "enlightened" anarchy. Eventually we will need no state, but until then, socialism is preferable. Give the state the power to help people only. Then it does not need to be taken away (and violence is never necessary).


Progressivism is all about liberty. It is about moving towards an egalitarian society in which we are all free and not at the mercy of oppressive elites. Money, again, is meaningless. If all are on board, (which will take time and enlightenment) it works. It may take a VERY long time, however. But every bit we do now to hurry things along is worth doing.


Again, I feel progressivism equates to freedom. And I believe that progressive and conservative ideas simply arise from the basic human dichotomy of love and fear. The "lens" is absolutely artificial, but so is human society and civilization itself.


I will say that I think the Constitution was a horribly flawed document which essentially is about protecting the property of the elites. That being said, the historical examples (of which I am well aware as I hold a degree in European history) of powerful states leading to corruption simply demonstrates my central point that conservatism leads to stagnation which leads to corruption and eventual collapse. Progressivism is all about change and growth. My view of humanity does not tell me that there will always be "corrupt men" to "seize power." Does it happen? Absolutely. But it need not always be so. I hold a long view - it may take centuries or even millennia for people to overcome selfishness and corruption, but I believe it will happen.


Of course we have a corrupt and ineffective government which allows the corruption of Wall Street to continue, and this is precisely why we need drastic change. A large government is only bad when said government is corrupt. Eliminate potential channels for corruption and wait for people to evolve their consciousness, and you will no longer have these problems.

posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 09:33 PM
Yep, in Europe we mostly have social democracies. They still have free markets, but are more regulated. Every democracy already has social elements, like social securities.

That's not socialist. And it works. You can still make as much money as you want, you can still own as much as you want etc.

After much research, I came to the conclusion that the parliamentary social democracies in Europe are the best working applicable (in practice) form of democracies. In presidential democracies the power isn't fair balanced. You can see it in the US, where the Republicans had ~47% of the vote, and yet "the winner takes it all".

We already have a parliamentary social democracy here, and it works fine (+4 parties in the parliament from left to liberal to right, leading coalitions of two parties - it's hard to make it over 50% to an absolute majority, working health care and other social securites, free education), but when we look at the Scandinavian countries, they have it a lot better there and their educational system for example works way better. They also have lesser jobless rates.

And I don't have the feeling I have to share anything, or don't live in a democracy.

posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 09:51 PM
reply to post by CrowServo

A few points. You say that “conservatism” is based on fear. I disagree, but that is just an argument over semantics. “Progressivism” does not have a monopoly on love and equality.

The real issue is that you yourself state there is the possibility of corruption by the state no matter the setup. You say that an entirely new governmental system counter that of the US needs to be crafted. I would ask you what is this system? I can think of no better a nation than a republic with a restricted Federal government and a comparatively more powerful State government. No system can be impervious to evil men.

You also say that it will take a very long time to produce this system. These two points in mind, I find it very irresponsible to call for “socialism”.

Human nature + System prone to corruption + Extended period of time = Instant Tyranny

Human nature + Restricted or small government + Extended period of time = Liberty with Longevity

Whether or not the ideals of “progressivism” are better than the ideals of “conservatism” is not the crux of the issue. To be idealistic and optimistic about society is nice on paper, but it is incredibly irresponsible and dangerous when you start throwing more power to the state. If you put your trust in the state, and sacrifice liberty for security, you could get people killed very quickly.

posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 09:59 PM
Communism isn't a bad thing. It just isn't something I want or want to see. I believe it makes people happy in life. Why to be sad if you are going to get richer and happier? Why ng. It just isn't something I want or want to see. I believe it makes people happy in life. Why to be sad if you are going to get richer and happier? Why to be poor? Would you still have dummy people in a socialist society? No. I like the way it makes the people free upon the our rogue government rather than the other way around. Welcome back the USSR!to be poor? Would you still have dummy people in a socialist society? No. I like the way it makes the people free upon the our rogue government rather than the other way around. Welcome back the USSR!

posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 10:02 PM

Originally posted by SiONiX
After much research, I came to the conclusion that the parliamentary social democracies in Europe are the best working applicable (in practice) form of democracies. In presidential democracies the power isn't fair balanced. You can see it in the US, where the Republicans had ~47% of the vote, and yet "the winner takes it all".

I have to point out that the United States is not a democracy, but more a republic. There are some pretty big differences between the two, so that is not a true comparison.

posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 10:04 PM
reply to post by CrowServo

No, ultimately we are all individuals first and a group second. Humans are not conjoined. I don't need you to survive, I'm perfectly capable of surviving out in the wilderness on my own.

The best way to describe this is that some people like action movies some don't some like horror some don't. In your world everybody has to like the same things and that isn't going to happen.

Also the another thing is that almost all of the European countries produce and manufacture their own goods when American is the worlds largest importer.

What you want is a large powerful central government. That is what we have now and you hate it.

Less government the happier people are.

And yes the CRA is the culprit of this mess and it forced banks to work with people that were high risk debtors that they knew weren't going to be able to pay their debts. Key word in there is forced before banks didn't lend to these people because they knew they knew this is what would happen.

posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 12:32 AM
how about a world that realized this

wouldn't that be a dream.. *sigh

3rd LIIIINE!!!

[edit on 11/19/08 by MoothyKnight]

posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 12:50 AM
It's just patently false that the wealth of any society is some individual's " my money".
Besides the fact that there are just as many people in this Country(U.S.) who pay taxes and WANT, security nets, and enough of the basics for all our citizens; there is the fact that there are very few individuals in this Country who pays enough taxes in their lifetime to cover the cost of even a hundred feet of roadway.

Most of our taxes, we get back at the end of the year. Combine that alongside the millions of people who engage in tax dodges and a thousand other different schemes to avoid paying, nobody is really paying anything in this Country for what we get.

Despite all the cries of "my taxes , my money!" nobody is really paying any taxes in this Country(U.S.), the money is just twirling around in a circle,from our pockets, to the government's pockets and back to ours. That's why the National debt is so high. We don't pay for anything.

Individuals are just working for benefits to themselves when they pay taxes, yet so many want to try to hold influence a million miles beyond what they contribute.

It's the entire society who pays for infrastructure and safety nets and most of that is paid for by big business--not taxpayers. For all it's history, big business in the U.S. got most of their wealth from the real working class in this Country, and the world--either through slavery, exploitation, or outright robbery.

Millions of people in this Country who don't have jobs now, paid into those highways, hospitals, institutions and electric cables etc; when they did have jobs. The infrastructure of this Country wasn't built yesterday.

A lot of old people in the U.S., live worse than stray dogs because the cost of medicine is so high. In my opinion they spent a lifetime paying for the right to get everything they need, and most of what they want for free. Their suicide rate is the highest in the Country, but because so many people in this Nation can't see anything but race, and their own navel, we let millions of our old people live out their waning years in pure mental torment. Some people in this country hear the word social and immediately see black in their minds. Meanwhile tens of millions of people of all races, old, young, infants, disabled, Veterans--overwhelmingly white--are living as stressful and hard as the poor in some "third world" Nations.

If people want to think that mine is all mine, in a society, then they should stop using the roads; they should stop using anything that was paid for and built by all of us, and never leave the cul de sac in their suburbs and neighborhoods. They should build a walmart, McDonalds, gas station, hospital, police station and hardware store at six points and just drive around on that circle.

Their little pittance in the collective pot don't give them the right to dictate the policy for all of us.

Despite all the propaganda coming from our "fellow" citizens to the rest of the world, millions of Black Americans work and pay into this society and millions more--retired like me-- or unemployed now, have paid for decades and have contributed for a lot longer than a lot of these "all mines" have. And for every Black American behind the eight ball, there are three other Americans composed of all ethnics, behind the nine. Add to them the 50 percent or more of Americans who don't mind their taxes being used like all the other civilized Nations; there you have the majority of taxpayers paying into the system.

Lots of guys like me, has literally worked like a mule in our lives. I've actually built all those things that the "All mines" benefit from; that they will never pay the true value of, and never got rich, or even well-off from my hard work. Besides my income tax refund at the end of the year and what I paid for years into, I never got a dime from this Government or this society and don't expect to. But it doesn't make me froth at the mouth to think that somebody who might not have worked as hard as I did, might be getting what he or she needs to live like a valued person. I don't care if they have never worked. I know it's not really costing me anything if somebody gets free, or low rent in a land of a million abandoned structurals--or a 50 dollar book of food stamps to buy food in a land where a million tons of perfectly good food is thrown out everyday.

Millions of apartments and dwellings lie vacant in this Country because of this need by some to punish people for economic failures that more often than not were beyond their control. Nobody is benefiting from empty housing, but what's most important to some--over even the ability to pay the rent-- is the need to punish people for a bad credit report.
That's why the government got into the realestate business in the first place. Too many people who hate to see others get back up when they fall down, or to get anything at all. Mind you these are not the people who own the properties, these are just desk jockies excersicing their little personal vendettas and who are just one paycheck from being in the same position themselves. But people can never visually put themselves in the shoes of others no matter how close in size their feet are.

If the government hadn't used the law, and forced all the Midwives, Rootswomen and Herbalists out of business, poor people wouldn't need to depend on the medical system near as much. The less blessed in this Country had complete health care at one time, and it was a hell of a lot better than what passes for care now; where you're more likely to leave the hospital sicker than you were when you went in there. Not to mention the cost.

There's a reason why European Nations, Canada and homogenous "first world" societies like Japan and China have no problem with "socialist" policies.

If the U.S., had those Nation's population makeup, it wouldn't have such a big problem with "socialism either. We saw with the recent trillion dollar bailout how much the "all mines" hate socialism when socialism is used to help the institutions that hold THEIR wealth. And after this coming depression, we are going to see more of how much the "all mines" hate socialism. When they become hungry and jobless, that's when all the rules, convictions and sacrosanct legends change. In the meanwhile other people suffer for want of a pittance.

posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 01:58 AM
We need a completely democratic socialist system with trade unions, and no government

[edit on 19-11-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 02:03 AM

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
We need a completely democratic socialist system with trade unions, and no government

[edit on 19-11-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

Anarchy! ME TOO. Sericously me too. I would love it.

I want a Zapatista style government.

posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 02:07 AM
reply to post by lucidclouds


Although I am quite hesitant to support that kind of transition. Armed revolutions have a good chance of merely transferring the power. I believe if the system is good, and you educate the people about it, they will want it, and that in itself will be the revolution

posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 02:19 AM

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by lucidclouds


Although I am quite hesitant to support that kind of transition. Armed revolutions have a good chance of merely transferring the power. I believe if the system is good, and you educate the people about it, they will want it, and that in itself will be the revolution

Mankind can't do anything to change this way, IMO. But in a lot of instances voting never changes anything.

posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 02:37 AM
reply to post by lucidclouds

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -- John F. Kennedy

I hope for the former. Either way, progress is progressive

posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 02:59 AM

Originally posted by mary noory
Communism isn't a bad thing.

You lie.

Communism is the Worst thing.

posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 03:01 AM

Originally posted by jam321
It is right around the corner.

Socialism isn't a bad thing. It just isn't something I want or want to see. I believe it makes people less productive in life. Why work hard if you are still going to get an equal share? Why study? Would you still have rich people in a socialist society? I also don't like the way it makes the people dependent upon the government rather than the other way around.

Equal share? That's communism NOT socialism. Are you a US citizen by any chance they usually get the two very confused.

posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 03:17 AM
Some socialist thinkers use 'socialism' and 'communism' synonymously. I think more accurate to say that communism falls under the socialism branch.

Generally speaking though, on an economical level they certainly share much in common. But I am not really sure how you are meaning with 'equal share'.. Equal in that the wealth/production is distributed equally according to need? According to the workers output? Or just a flat out equal distribution? Something else?

[edit on 19-11-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 03:57 AM
One Word..PROFIT..As long as there is money involved, socialism will never prosper. If you want a free nation, a nation without poverty, a nation without greed, and a nation truly dependant on itself and its own clean resources,
then you are looking at a total change in the way our govt works. Our monitary system is the only thing stopping us from making that possible.
everything this world revolves around, is money. Money is a form of paid slavery, with interest. Back in the day, slavery was paid by giving the people shelter and food for trade. Today, slavery is run differently, people get paid to be sheltered and being able to eat. It is a form of slavery ran by Money. Without money, no matter what govt you are running in, you have no way to survive. The only way to free people from poverty and a true way of life, is to get rid of the monitary system altogether, for it is ultimately doomed, and there is no possible way of "balancing the budget".
Every dollar printed, costs (around $20) to make, because of loans from the federal bank, to our govt(which is made to pay back with bonds and interest). Home loans, car loans, ect ect.. is money that is being given out, that doesnt even exist in the first place. Its money made out of thin air.
The banking system runs all of the worlds governments, the governments dont run the nations, the banks do! So the more that we accumulate from these banks, the more we get in debt, because we never had the money in the first place. If every American paid off thier debt, and all of the debt owed in the united states was paid off, our country would only be left with $1(and thats being generous). So until we have the monitary system going, the more greed there is going to be within our nation. You have to think of socialism like this (Robbing from the rich to give to yourselves) Its not the govt doing this to you, its the financial institutions doing this to you. You think its just the govt that causes most of the conflict in the world, when really its the Federal reserves that leaves the govt. with no choice but to rob from other nations in order to make their own nation survive. Which leads to World hunger, starvation, murder, crimes, and poverty. America is a great nation, but it has darker sides than any other nation on the planet. Eventually, we are going to fall victim to our own
ignorance of how things really work, and its already happening(just look at our institutions today). We have accumulated over $10 trillion dollars indebt, not to mention the other trillions of dollars that are about to be spent. TRILLIONS of dollars, that came out of thin air with nothing to back it up with. All of that money you make every week from work, is money being paid to you that is already owed to somebody else, it holds no value.
We are amongst the greatest depression man has ever seen, and as we keep consuming goods of products that are owned by the banks(news stations, oil companies, tv stations ect) we will never get out of it.
The only way for a better life, is to get rid of the monitary system, and developing a system available for all people, and that is a Resource Based Economy. No Money, No politicians, no bankers, no crime, nothing but a free high standard living for everyone. And I am going to leaveit at that.
Thank you.
(if you dont agree with this post, then please, say something, because nothing ever gets done if people dont ask questions. We will always be stuck in the same culture based off of old beliefs, old ideas, and an old understanding of how things really ought to work)

posted on Nov, 19 2008 @ 04:00 AM

Gordon Brown? He just walked right in....literally a dictator no approvement from the people he now has rule better than if any stranger walked in and took office with no say from the public.

[edit on 18-11-2008 by Solomons]

No different from the vice president taking over should the president resign.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in