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.

 

All middle class!!!

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK Well the evil side of me says YES let them live in poverty, and let them experience what their system did to millions of people through history. Let them go live in mud huts in Africa, while their houses are given to the starving millions. (isn't that Jesus' plan, earth inherited by the meek?)

Uhu... that's basically the opposite of what I want. What I want is a safety net for those in trouble, that everyone can get on with their lives.

So many successful people? At the expense of billions more 'unsuccessful people'? I guess you see life as winners and losers?

No, I see life as what we do when we're here. Some people fare better than others because of their skills, or basically luck in many cases. My solution takes luck as the lesser of these two things, and keeps skill as the most important factor for human achievement.

But the practical side of me says, let them keep what they have because once the workers gain control of their own lives they will not allow themselves to be exploited anymore.

That's not pragmatism, that's Marxist determinism.

You have to realise this system is not necessary because there are enough resources in the world for us ALL to be 'successful', or at least live happy comfortable lives. Resources are kept artificially scarce, so they make money on the market.

Also so that we don't use the potential of the earth too quickly and go out in a blaze of glory. Have everyone eating very well, living in nice housing and kicking back in front of the TV and the world will run out of fertile land and metals pretty sharpish.

Our natural tendency to compete is exploited to pit us against each other for financial survival, and ultimately our physical survival. Our energies could be better served making the world a safe clean place to live. Not fighting endless wars to create new markets to keep the legal gambling going. Yes capitalism is legal gambling, and the capitalists now have almost all of you addicted.

And no system can suppress human nature. Fascism tried in the past, starting with the Hittites, right up to Mussolini and his ilk to control human nature, the human body, and failed. Your version of socialism will do the same.

What do you mean mediocre society?

A society in which your skills are no more rewarded than those of others even when they're far superior.

The perpetual struggle for wealth is helping NO ONE. It erodes our true Human abilities, our strength, our uniqueness, our ability to adapt, our intelligence.

Quite the opposite. It rewards those things in spades. If I am better than most people at something, I gain from it. Some people are good at plastering, I am not, I hire them, they gain from their skills. That simple.

The system turns people into a population of mass produced products.

Not really. It makes people competitive at the expense of frivolity.

You have to realise that MONEY is not what should make the world go around.

It doesn't. The human need for limited resources does, and money is simply the means to that ends.

As consumers we're doing extremely well, as people we suck! And we get worse with each passing year.

That's a bold statement. People and the societies they live in have always been striving for fulfilment in whatever form it takes them, and you need resources to do that.

Huh? The working class are the back-bone of any society.

No, they used to be the backbone of western society. Now that we can, we do skill-based jobs, and the rest of the world mindlessly produces for us.

I knew it. Your language gives you away.

How so? I just sound well-educated, as I am.

Terribly sorry to cut some chaff off and all, but there's a character limit I was going over.




posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Huh? The working class are the back-bone of any society.

No, they used to be the backbone of western society. Now that we can, we do skill-based jobs, and the rest of the world mindlessly produces for us.

I knew it. Your language gives you away.

How so? I just sound well-educated, as I am.

Terribly sorry to cut some chaff off and all, but there's a character limit I was going over.


Thanks for a laugh, lower,middle, upper - working class indeed.

Anyone who considers themselves to be of any class is deluded and certainly not well educated. People are individuals, they're circumstances differ person to person. Someone can be a pauper oneday and a richman the next thanks to lotto. Manners - all people can use these, a poor person can be well mannered or even rude or arrogant - the same with anyother person, despite there financial situation.

Oh that chaff remark was so ironic - this was in the news today. Guess you are in favour of sites like these? Even your name apparently denotes a class:

news.bbc.co.uk...

I take it you did mean Chav? This is what somesites link Chav's with:

en.wikipedia.org...

news.bbc.co.uk...

www.boredandlazy.co.uk...

www.chavtowns.co.uk...

Personally, i don't like the term and do not like to put people into social classes.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by HillbillyHippie
All middle class should mount a campaign known as "Freedom over Socialism" NOW! They should push to place it on televisions, radios, talk shows, bulletins on car windows, and encourage the use of window chalk on rear car windows. Mount a campaign NOW before it is too late!

The middle class (who have the money) should create websites about this campaign and spread it around like wildfire. Do it NOW before it is too late!

I am lower middle class to upper lower class and can not do this, but I AGREE WITH YOU! FREEDOM OVER SOCIALISM! Go NOW before it is too late!!!!!!!!

Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 27-1-2009 by Gemwolf]


So just to clarify what your saying. You want the people with money who would benefit from socialist according to historical models to spend their money so that people who have no money can then stay in the same situation they currently are before the socialism happens?

If this is something you believe in shouldn't you and your peers be the ones to try and perpetuate the movement? I won't even go into the true definitions of what others have already pointed out and just take what I think you mean by stopping socialism. Don't you find it kind of funny that your saying that you would like the majority to help you with something because you don't have the means to and that's pretty much what the public idea of socialism is?



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   
While socialism is a wonderful concept in theory, I do not believe that it could ever be implemented in the United States in this day and age. If at some point in the future the country fragmented, or a disaster\war were to eliminate large segments of the population; i.e. the very rich, the welfare class, and the power hungry among others the survivors MAY be able to create a successful socialist society.
Let's look at three main principles of socialism and why I believe they would cause the failure of a socialist system in present day America

1. Socialism means voluntary labor.
In my opinion that would mean "the few support the many". We have large segments of our society who are able bodied and will not work now. Under a true socialist regime they would not be required to or encouraged to work, therefore would only be a drain on society. The time when the majority of people worked because it is the right thing to do has long past.

2. Socialism means free access to the goods produced by society.
Free access to anything you want or need without the requirement that you contribute to the production of any goods would lead to people realizing that if they so chose they could stay home, watch Judge Judy or Jerry Springer and still have anything their neighbors and countrymen had made\grown. As more people saw that some did nothing while they still worked, the workers over time would question why they work when they could have what they want and not contribute. Eventually there would be far too few people working to support those who would not.

3. Socialism means a wageless, moneyless society.
In a wageless, moneyless society there is no motivation to better yourself. there would be no doctors, engineers, rocket scientists, and so on. Anyone can do manual labor, or learn to farm or raise cattle. Not that there is anything wrong with those careers, I own a small remodeling company and several of my neighbors are ranchers. Why would anyone decide to go into a field that required them to be more than average if there is no reward? There must be some reward for those who further themselves for the betterment of the whole.

Having said all this, would I support a true socialist society? Possibly if it were small enough and the people were committed to making it work. I do not see this ever happening here, because there are not enough of us left with the work ethic and backbone to make it successful. I only pray that when massive change comes to America we do not become a third world country but go back to the roots of our Constitution.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jBrereton
Uhu... that's basically the opposite of what I want. What I want is a safety net for those in trouble, that everyone can get on with their lives.


But you're still thinking that you'll need a 'safety net', socialism IS the safety net. You only need a safety net now because capitalism has a tendency to fail, on the local and international level, every day.


No, I see life as what we do when we're here. Some people fare better than others because of their skills, or basically luck in many cases.


That's true, but we're not talking about them. We're talking about the 2% that owns 50% of the worlds wealth. Wealth created from YOUR labour, wealth that could have stayed where it was created, not taken away and hoarded by a minority. Socialism allows you to keep the wealth you create, not just an hourly wage that doesn't change regardless of how much you produce and what that product sells for.


My solution takes luck as the lesser of these two things, and keeps skill as the most important factor for human achievement.


You're right, but don't you think you should keep what you created with your achievements? How many people create new ways of doing things in the workplace, everyday, that only the owner benefits from? Do your wages reflect the companies profits?


That's not pragmatism, that's Marxist determinism.


Nope, Marx was an authoritarian, any similarity is nothing but coincidence...



Also so that we don't use the potential of the earth too quickly and go out in a blaze of glory. Have everyone eating very well, living in nice housing and kicking back in front of the TV and the world will run out of fertile land and metals pretty sharpish.


And that would be the fault of the system or the people in that system?

Capitalism allows people to do exactly what you claim socialism will. AND what you say will happen IS happening right now.

People didn't die off from doing nothing before capitalism, so you really have nothing to base your hypothesis on. But I have a precedence to base my belief that we do not need government and we don't need capitalism, and we won't just become like idiot children who can't take responsibility for our own lives.

The Spanish Revolution…


First and foremost, the workers' movement in Spain gives us a real idea of how an alternative society could operate. Despite the war conditions and the climate of fear and internal division that faced this movement, it made enormous strides. From an economic and social point of view the collectives were a success, their eventual fate sealed not by any productive or economic limitations but rather by the wider war and defeat suffered at Franco's hands.


It’s a good read but long….flag.blackened.net...



And no system can suppress human nature.


Who’s suppressing anything? What I mean is capitalism perpetuates that trait. In other words it’s unnatural. Socialism neither perpetuates, nor suppresses Human nature to coerce them into doing what they do not desire.

Fascism did do that yes, that’s why we are anti-fascist.


A society in which your skills are no more rewarded than those of others even when they're far superior.


Why would your skills not be rewarded? Personal skills and creativity will be encouraged, and you will have the freedom to pursue them. Money is not the only reward. But that’s not the point, the capitalist classes did not get their wealth from theirs skills. Their wealth was created years ago by the sweat of working class people. In America a huge amount of the wealth still enjoyed in the south was created by slaves working the plantations. If this system really supported skills millions of slaves would be millionaires.

Not going to bother with rest I’ll just be repeating myself. Almost all of your arguments are based on a misconception of what socialism is, and even how capitalism is destroying society, not improving it.

Look around you; do you really think things are getting better? Where is it getting better? Are there more rich people? The divide between rich and poor is getting wider, if what you say is true it should be getting narrower.
Yes people are getting richer, but it's the same few freakin people.

Capitalism looks great in your heads, but when you pull those heads clear of your polyps you’ll see capitalism fails someone on a daily basis…it fails 30,000 children, who die unnecessarily, every day. It has no place in the community.




top topics
 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join