Calling all socialists. , page 2
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times


reply posted on 27-11-2008 @ 06:45 PM by redled
reply to post by Solomons



Try writing on forms that will earn you cash. You can write.


reply posted on 27-11-2008 @ 07:12 PM by Durkin
reply to post by -zeropoint-



If you want to speak about not being an idiot, why don't you look at history.....



reply posted on 28-11-2008 @ 08:28 AM by whoswatchinwho
reply to post by dalek



I do (live in the UK) and I am (glad), always have been a socialist, and always will be.

as for it being a politically charged word, well of course it is it's a political ideal. I don't see what's so scary about it, it's inevitable. capitalism will collapse and the only way forward is through a socialist system.


reply posted on 28-11-2008 @ 08:37 AM by badgerprints
Originally posted by mystiq
The best way to take away the stigma of "handouts" And no one could look at another with prejudice.

[edit on 27-11-2008 by mystiq]


Wrong.
My opinion is quite different from yours and I'll tell you why. I travel 300 days out of 360 and do a highly skilled job that is dangerous to boot. I don't care what you think is fair but try to take away what I work my butt off for to give to somebody else who won't work and call it 'fair'? I look at you with prejudice for even spouting that babble.

By the way, the STIGMA is for a reason. You want somebody taking what you earn from you just because they can? People shouldn't be proud of it. Some need the help and that's life. I don't begrudge the ones who need help, but most use it because they are LAZY. People like you want to support them? Go down to the pub and hand it over to the bartender you'll save a lot of paperwork and get more of your paycheck to the masses.

There is no such thing as fair. It is a legislated lie used to buy votes and support the bs idea that the politicians can run our lives for us. They can't. They're mostly rich and can't run their own lives but you want to hand everybodys paychecks to them?

Wake up.

Dalek asked if socialism is a dirty word.
Oh yes.
It is for me because I have spent all of my adult life working for what I have. I don't have a lot but what I do have is paid for. Now people tell me I could have the same thing for free if I just turned it all over to the politicians. Do you think a politician is going to see it that way?
Oh goodness no.
First, we've got to take care of the rich and influential. Like it or not they are above your socialist fairness doctrines. Then the politicians get a big piece of what they have so 'fairly' appropriated - "by his needs and for his needs you know". Then the 'special' interest gets an extra large cut. Must be unfair in somebodys favor to be fair. Then the average retired/ disabled/ circumstances warrant crowd gets a nice helping of fairness.
After all of that, the no good, job holding greedy selfish capitalist taxpayers get to fork over a paycheck and get a middle finger for their efforts. Plus they get the benefit of being laughed at for doing the work in the first place when they could sit on their bottoms and drink a few pints while watching the game. Never mind the fact that this kind of math won't add up in the end. The fact is that it is incredibly unfair for those who do get up every morning and go out there to do a job.
Oh god please, let there be a stigma.

[edit on 28-11-2008 by badgerprints]


reply posted on 7-2-2009 @ 08:32 PM by Rockpuck
reply to post by died4government



I love the general idea of Socialism, but not in a place like America.. 50 countries would pull all their resources and the consequence is many states would be left with far less then others. The states with the massive cities and higher poverty rates would suck the life out of the more rural and smaller states. Ironically, the founding fathers knew this .. if you recall the debates between small states and large states (giving birth to our Senate).

Large states wield to much power, consume to much, and drain the life out of smaller states unless kept in place.. sadly, this sort of prohibits a lot of Country wide programs like National Health Care. Now, if a portion of our National Income tax could be refunded (% per person.. like 20% of our gross National Income Tax per person is returned to the states) we could provide a socialist style government defined by each individual state.

Unfortunately as well, any increase in the tax burden will destroy our consumer driven economy.. we would need a complete overhaul.

But Socialism seems to work in smaller countries, like Britain (it has it's flaws no doubt).. but many small countries also have the population of single States in America... And just like the British don't want to pay to feed France's poor, I don't want to pay for South Carolina's, Florida's, Alabama's, New York's, California's etc etc etc poor...

But I sure wouldn't mind paying into my own states.


reply posted on 7-2-2009 @ 10:48 PM by ANOK
Originally posted by whoswatchinwho
Socialism

"An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists."

dictionary.reference.com...

Exactly what is happening just now, the banks are being nationalised, companies are being bailed out by the government, effectively being owned by us, the populace. Socialism at work.


Nationalism is NOT socialism. Whoever wrote that needs to go back to school

Socialism is the workers ownership/control of the means of production.

Nationalism is the government ownership of...

Capitalism is the private ownership of...

Socialists support social programs, under capitalism, because we KNOW that under capitalism there is ALWAYS going to be a poverty class.
Capitalism requires a poverty class, but they don't teach you that do they? You can only financialy exploit someone worse off than yourself, if we were all equally wealthy capitalism would fail. Real capitalists know this and exploit this fact.

So it's NOT socialism that creates the need for social programs, it's capitalism. So if you don't like social programs blame capitalists not socialists.

In a true socialist system, where everyone can be employed and directly benefit from their own labour, there would be NO need for socials programs, other than for the obvious people who can't work. At least until money is made completely irrelevant in a more community autonomous based system.

Nothing is free under socialism, you work your share, or you don't share in what is produced, simple. Capitalism allows people to make huge amounts of wealth off of other people without hardly lifting a finger. They just take advantage of a system designed to be taken advantage of by those with the wealth to do so. The system exploits the fact that workers have no choice but to work for someone, instead of being a part owner in their place of employment and directly benefiting from their own labour. They work hard they get more, they get lazy then they suffer.

In capitalism the hourly wage worker has no incentive to work any harder than required to not get fired. Workers who benefit directly from their labour have incentive to work harder. Simple. Except it makes no one person rich, it makes everyone fat and happy. You've been conditioned to chase carrots in the hope that one day you'll be rich, instead of creating a society where the idea of wealth is irrelevant.

[edit on 2/7/2009 by ANOK]


reply posted on 7-2-2009 @ 11:40 PM by SonOfChaos

Socialists support social programs, under capitalism, because we KNOW that under capitalism there is ALWAYS going to be a poverty class.
Capitalism requires a poverty class, but they don't teach you that do they? You can only financially exploit someone worse off than yourself, if we were all equally wealthy capitalism would fail. Real capitalists know this and exploit this fact.

That Anok, is an often missed point that pseudo economist love to ignore.


I think that what we overlook in Capitalism is the fact that private ownership is government enforced. In America we love to talk about pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps and doing it ourselves but we seem to forget that our property is entirely reliant upon government. Property grants the ability of the individual to restrict the freedoms of others for their own benefit, this can be good or bad depending upon how it is used. If you want this type of power you need to go and buy property...with government issued money, that enters the system through a process of cronyism and plutocracy. We often forget how arbitrary property and our system of wealth is, we have had the "idea" of property beaten into our heads from such a young age we forget that property does not exist in places where children are not raised to believe in it...one thing I can say for certain is our current system of wealth will not last indefinitely, change will be coming. The system is slanted towards those who already own, not those who are most skilled, this is where we fall short, as George Soros once expressed, our current system is the equivalant of selecting an olympic team based on whose great grandfather won a medal 60 years ago.

I'm developing my own economic theory right now to explain the next economic steps the country will be taking as well as a new form of socialism(a separate theory)...of course my theory is probably completely wrong and I am playing with a lot of new ideas, we will see.



reply posted on 8-2-2009 @ 04:15 AM by ANOK
Originally posted by badgerprints
This is because it caters to those who don't want to provide their own food, clothing, housing, or pay for their doctor bills.


This is simply not true. In a socialist system you the worker would own the means of production, an equal share in the company you work for. There would be no private ownership, and what is produced is equally shared between those who produce it. It's about taking the profit out of private hands, and putting in the hands of those who actually create that profit through their labour.

Under socialism you would be required to be responsible for your community, not just be a leach upon it like the capitalists.

It has nothing to do with free hand outs. As I explained in my last post, socialists support social programs, only under capitalism because it's a necessity. Capitalism creates a poverty class, and a pool of unemployed labour. Your capitalism requires this, and if people take advantage of it, how is that any worse than capitalists taking advantage of the poverty they create? Some of us are just trying to get by, some want everything you've got and more...Those with the power to do so will convince you to give what you've earned, from your labour, to them for something you really don't need. They don't care a crap about you, they just want your money, you're a cash machine. And for what?

A good example, an employee is employed to make bread. The private owner provides the supplies, the worker supplies the labour for a wage. Then the employee gives the employer back his wage to buy that loaf of bread, at a profit. Wouldn't it be more efficient if the worker just kept the loaf he made?

In large countries with big goverment it is very hard on the people that actually achieve and not so great for anybody but the politicians.


Socialism is NOT big government, that is the lie. Socialists are traditionally anti-government, and anti-state. It was Marx and Lenin etc. that tried to con people into excepting a perverted form of socialism, that was really nothing but another system allowing an elite to control everything.
No different than those that con you with capitalism. Just another set of bigots with their rifle sights on you.

Capitalism, Socialism ...........Fairy Tales.


Socialism has always been the workers opposition to capitalism. It simply puts the power in the hands of you and me, and takes it away from private individuals who use it to their own advantage, and the detriment of the majority.

You shouldn't fear socialism, but you should fear ANY government who CLAIMS to be socialist. Socialism is only what WE make it, not what someone else tries to dictate to you. Socialism is traditionally anti-authoritarian, anti-state, so a socialist government is an oxymoron.

Socialists are traditionally anti-government and anti-state. Socialism is control by the people, capitalism is control by money. So ANY system where the people have control, as apposed to government or private individuals, is basically socialism. So if you support the idea of true liberty, then you should be a socialist by default.

If you want a true non-government/authoritarian system then look into Libertarian Socialism.
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



Why my mind is closing towards Capitalism
  Posted 10 days ago with 78 member flags
Hippy Do-Gooders have Destroyed the World
  Posted 11 days ago with 23 member flags
Facts About Socialism
  Posted 3 days ago with 23 member flags
Are Liberals REALLY More Intelligent Than Conservatives?
  Posted 8 days ago with 18 member flags
Why conservatives . . . . . suck!
  Posted 0 days ago with 9 member flags
The "Occupy are Socialists," Megathread
  Posted 11 days ago with 8 member flags
Unpopular Opinions: Say NO to Human Rights
  Posted 6 days ago with 7 member flags
This is what needs to happen: REVOLUTION!
  Posted 14 days ago with 5 member flags