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.

 

Why do socialists want to take away the right to own private property?

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Just today a socialist took a $1.50 from me to fill up a cup from a fountain that everyone was using!!!


I know Obama is going to take my house and give it to a person who doesn't work!




posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   
the red´s are coming the red´s are coming !!!
look at what the nazis did to the jews !!!

seriously ,

the Us have had 2 presidents that have blood lines to a fellow who funded adolf hitlers rise to power
the current president speaks openly about inforcing Civil armies and police groups much like thouse of pre WW2 in germany

yet you smile and happily with open arms take em in ,

Michael Moore played a mind game and used the word "social"healthcare instead of public health care ,

the list can go on

what boggles me most is that you have an actualt democratic party, i thougth you had a democracy where all voices could be heard.


to me it seams that in the US you have been played the RED card and the NAZI card so many times youve been blinded by the reality of your own
countrys state , youve been living in a national socialistic (nazi) country for a longer time then youve might have grasped,

the 5th reich



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Why are you people not considering the other sides?

More government regulation isn't a good thing and people on the left do want to take away rights to private property. There are articles about it. I can't believe the ignorance in this thread...



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
Why are you people not considering the other sides?

More government regulation isn't a good thing and people on the left do want to take away rights to private property. There are articles about it. I can't believe the ignorance in this thread...


Show me.

Show me where "people on the left" want to take away private property. Show me the articles.

You simply don't understand the difference between privatized industry and private property. They're two totally different things. Read ANOK's posts he explains it all very clearly.

I can't believe the ignorance in your post.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 





PS: Owning land is stupid anyway, it belongs to all of us.


Fine then YOU can pay my property taxes, and mortgage and Oh yes, get you butt out here and help me clear the brush and blackberries and Vampire vines...



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


Well, you asked why socialists wanted to get rid of private property, so of course people are trying to explain socialism to you.

Have you read the posts by ANOK carefully? and especially the really interesting debate between ANOK and TheRedneck? That's as good an outline of a standard socialist take on the property concept as you're likely to get.

I linked in my post to the Socialist Labor Party; their website also might give some better insight on how socialists understand the world than, for instance, the "Ayn Rand Lexicon"


For classic Socialist texts on the matter, try The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels, or the essay that you link to a source about in your next post: Proudhon's "What is Property?"

But try to read them with an open mind.

And why do you assume that government intervention is always a bad thing? Do you think we should do away with all labor laws and return to a world where children are routinely sent to factories at age six or eight?

edit: adding a little taste of the Communist Manifesto:

Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriations.


[edit on 3/14/2009 by americandingbat]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
I can do that:


Thanks, one at a time then.


Originally posted by Frankidealist35
blogs.discovermagazine.com...


Did you read this one at all? They're concerned about the environmental implications of repeated private space flights. It has absolutely nothing to do with private property.

Although I will admit I disagree with Socialist Worker Online on this one.


Originally posted by Frankidealist35
www.franzlee.org...





Finally, it follows, that in feudal and bourgeois society, the State became a necessity, that in socialism it will become obsolete. Not Marxism is obsolete, the State and private property of the means of production have become hopelessly archaic; they spell apocalyptic doom, that is, global fascist barbarism.


I'm just going to go ahead and assume you didn't read this one either.


Originally posted by Frankidealist35
aynrandlexicon.com...





Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.


This is the dumbest definition of Socialism I think I've ever read. And Ayn Rand is a moron. Go play Bioshock.


Originally posted by Frankidealist35
www.economictheories.org...





Criticism Of Private Property and Socialism





And so a criticism of socialism helps Proudhon to define the positive basis of his own system. The terms of the social problem as it presents itself to him can now be clearly followed. On the one hand there is the suppression of the unearned income derived from property—a revenue which is in direct opposition to the principle of reciprocal service. On the other hand, property itself must be preserved, liberty of work and right of exchange must be secured. In other words, the fundamental attribute of property must be removed without damaging the institution of property itself or endangering the principle of liberty.


Wow, you didn't read that one either. You're 1 for 4, and the one that counts is basically a joke source.

Anyway, good luck with your war on the Socialists. Maybe someday you'll look back in your own thread, read some posts, and figure out what Socialism actually is. Until then, have fun banging your head against the wall.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   
OP i gotta say you are a bit ignorant. First off you cut everyone who believe in socialism over the same side, and then you show off your missing knowledge of socialism.

I suggest you read about socialism instead of inventing your own idea of what it is.
en.wikipedia.org...

ps.

US is not going socialism, it is going nationalism in my opinion.

Best regards.

Loke.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Loke.
 


No. Socialists don't believe in private property. They think wealth is the source of all evil and that property is stealing. How do you think I'm misguided?



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by drwizardphd
 


Anyhow, socialists want people to get a value of the work they produce. Otherwise they think that property is stealing... but in their world... there would be no real way to measure how much work someone did. Without money and without classes there would not be division of labor and no one would be able to really see how good an economy is doing... and exchange would be impossible and basically a socialism economy would be a barter system economy.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by mopusvindictus
 





Right about now, I'm glad i'm an Avid spelunker... maybe I can sit this one out, it's going to be bad


WOW are you a member of a REAL underground organization like the NSS? My hubby had a lot of fun with that when filling out a secret clearance form for the military. "Do you belong to any underground organizations..." So he listed them
Me I like to yoyo

I am afraid I have to agree with you. Them good old boys in my neck of the woods are ALL related and belong to the local hunt club. I hear gunshots at least several times a week since there are to target practice areas near me. Thank goodness they are laid back and friendly since we are Yanks in Rebel territory. I feel a heck of a lot safer here than in a Northern city.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 





It is a fact that Humans are naturally altruistic.


You must be very young or sheltered to believe that! After having my own brother try to kill me on three separate occasions and do away with at least seven relatives (after signing wills in his favor) I beg to differ with you.

Some humans are altruistic and some humans are predators. Guess who wins? Oh and my brother is the president of a corporation and has never seen the inside of a prison cell and never will. Power and money do a wonderful job of burying the skeletons.

I have offered a hand to over a dozen people in need. Every single one of them has taken a LARGE chunk out of my hand. So you can keep your altruism and socialism. I much prefer true capitalism with minor checks to keep the predators in hand.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Humans are naturally altruistic. We act selfish and and hostile to each other because of our upbringing and limited understanding of our actual identity and how life should be IMO. But that's another topic.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Loke makes a good point (as somewhat evidenced by my debate with ANOK)... just what is Socialism?

It's a term that is tossed around like 'Liberal', or 'Progressive', or 'Left-Wing'. My thanks to ANOK for helping me to understand a bit more about Socialism as a defined societal structure.

I am a believer that the best system overall for a society, and the system that humans tend to gravitate toward naturally, is Capitalism. I define such as an economic system where a person's value to society is based on the amount of money they accumulate and are therefore able to use to make their lives easier. Everything is up for sale at some price, be it labor, raw materials, land, food, or luxury items. Each person is responsible for their own success or failure in life.

I have to add here that the United States does not practice pure Capitalism. Pure Capitalism has many faults and shortcomings. Individuals who are unlucky enough to experience problems, even though these problems may be through no fault of their own, may find themselves unable to take advantage of the rewards Capitalism offers. Those who are able to take full advantage of the system find themselves in a position to literally be God-like figures for those whom they employ, due to their control of the system. And of course, there is the problem with monopolies able to exist unchecked and the fact that lies and greed are rewarded, while honesty and integrity oft are punished.

Instead of Capitalism, we practice a perverted version of such. Monopolies should be regulated (although the regulations against them have been relaxed in recent years), a social safety net should be in place (although our present social safety net - Medicaid, Welfare, Food Stamps - has been perverted into a control mechanism for the poor populace), and fraud regulations must be in place and enforced (while our system fails to do so in many cases; do the names Enron or Bernie Madoff ring a bell?). Aside form this, there should be no other regulations form governmental authority; these only serve to give those who are already successful (and therefore need no assistance) an unfair advantage while they discourage smaller commercial attempts (who need protection instead of restrictions). So I do not see our present problems as a necessary outcome of Capitalism, but rather the result of improper and fraudulent actions taken by our leaders in order to further their own agendas at the expense of everyone else. But in general terms, we do live under a Capitalistic system.

I see Socialism as an economic system where goods and services are shared among the members of society. ANON mentioned the inability to own land that one is not using or to own factories, for instance. I suppose, for lack of better words to describe my understanding of the system, it would be akin to that practiced in the (fictional) world of Star Trek. Each individual would be free to pursue their life goals, and society would benefit from whatever fruits their labor produced equally. (If any of this is still incorrect, someone feel free to enlighten me.)

The real problem, as I see it, is not inherent to Socialism, but stems from any attempt to integrate it into a Capitalistic society, even one as obviously twisted as ours. Capitalism plays on greed and competition; Socialism plays on compassion and teamwork. The two are simply incompatible.

I really wish we had a frontier available to us, as people did a few hundred years ago. I would like to see a country started from scratch under true Socialistic principles, just to see how it would work out. As it is, however, I see no way a Capitalistic society can transform into a Socialistic one without destroying society in the process.

TheRedneck


[edit on 3/14/2009 by TheRedneck]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85
If we can't own anything, then what motivates us to work harder?
Won't we just get lazy and less productive and then be more dependent????Uh oh maybe i just figured it out.


You're missing the point. You will be able to own things, your own personal property.

What you will not be able to do is monopolies industry, machinery, land, labour etc., in order to coerce others into working for you for an hourly wage.

Instead the company you work for, assuming you work, will be owned by you and your fellow employees (coops/collectives). So instead of the results of your labour going to a private individual, it will be yours directly and proportionate to your efforts. The only people that should have a problem with this is private owners, we as the majority workers will benefit immensely. You will lose nothing and gain plenty.

The fact that your labour will be directly connected to your income, as apposed to it being at the whim of the owner, is more motivation than hoping for a pay raise isn't it? Imagine what a highly motivated work force can accomplish? Money alone is not a good motivator, it certainly coerces us to get more due to economic slavery, but it doesn't motivate change for the better, only for more profits, or a better TV.

We might be getting financially 'wealthier' but at what expense? Just look at history and see how society has become generic and dull. What's happened to the great artists and minds of our past? They've been bought out, commercialised, turned into products with the least effort for the most profit. The state is pushing us further and further into a box. We are becoming easier and easier to control.

Anyway sorry I'm blathering...

Money is the new Nuremberg.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Loke makes a good point (as somewhat evidenced by my debate with ANOK)... just what is Socialism?


Exactly. And not all socialists feel the same way about almost anything.


It's a term that is tossed around like 'Liberal', or 'Progressive', or 'Left-Wing'.


and by the other end of things, "fascist", "neocon" and "right-wing".


My thanks to ANOK for helping me to understand a bit more about Socialism as a defined societal structure.


Definitely two thumbs up for ANOK's contributions to this thread. A really impressively accessible primer on socialism for ATSers.


I see Socialism as an economic system where goods and services are shared among the members of society. ANON mentioned the inability to own land that one is not using or to own factories, for instance. I suppose, for lack of better words to describe my understanding of the system, it would be akin to that practiced in the (fictional) world of Star Trek. Each individual would be free to pursue their life goals, and society would benefit from whatever fruits their labor produced equally. (If any of this is still incorrect, someone feel free to enlighten me.)


I'm not a Star Trek watcher, but it seems to me that I've actually seen this connection made before; Star Trek "society" as an example of Socialism.

Depending on the particular branch of socialism, rewards to the individual laborer will be more or less equal, versus more or less proportionate to some measure of quantity of labor. I think this is where it starts getting philosophically a bit more difficult because you start getting into the idea that man is what he does; that our concept of labor as something separate from the person and that can be measured in an abstract form is artificial.

So, in socialist thought the problem that Frankidealist poses about how to "measure" labor if you don't have money or privatized property doesn't really make sense. You do what you can, and you get what you need. But because there is no capitalist class siphoning off the extra production into profit, production will satisfy needs.


The real problem, as I see it, is not inherent to Socialism, but stems from any attempt to integrate it into a Capitalistic society, even one as obviously twisted as ours. Capitalism plays on greed and competition; Socialism plays on compassion and teamwork. The two are simply incompatible.


This may be true. Certainly our media focus on trauma doesn't help anything. For instance, in a crisis two trends usually emerge: one which takes advantage of the situation to set aside stores for the future, and one which pools stores to maximize group survival. We saw it for example during Katrina. Guess which side got the media time?


I really wish we had a frontier available to us, as people did a few hundred years ago. I would like to see a country started from scratch under true Socialistic principles, just to see how it would work out. As it is, however, I see no way a Capitalistic society can transform into a Socialistic one without destroying society in the process.


Nor did Marx, at least at first. That's why he believed that there would be a socialist revolution to develop out of the stresses of capitalist society. The countries that have actually tried to implement socialism have mostly tried to leap straight from a feudal, agrarian economy into a communist society. Without much success.

Who knows, maybe Star Trek will be the reality for our grandchildren.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat

I think you just confused me again.



Depending on the particular branch of socialism, rewards to the individual laborer will be more or less equal, versus more or less proportionate to some measure of quantity of labor. I think this is where it starts getting philosophically a bit more difficult because you start getting into the idea that man is what he does; that our concept of labor as something separate from the person and that can be measured in an abstract form is artificial.

So, in socialist thought the problem that Frankidealist poses about how to "measure" labor if you don't have money or privatized property doesn't really make sense. You do what you can, and you get what you need. But because there is no capitalist class siphoning off the extra production into profit, production will satisfy needs.


I bolded two sentences in the above quote because they are the source of my confusion. It sounds like you are stating, in slightly differe4nt wording, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". Now while that sounds like a wonderful thing, it is, as I understand it, the basis for Communism. Are you implying that Communism and Socialism are equal, or perhaps that one is a version of the other?

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


This is so funny it's tragic to us Europeans we discuss Americans in general, and then one of us says something like 'yeah and what is it with Americans and socialism why do they consistently not understand what it is and that it can when done properly be a good thing'

Its a shame some Americans just look really stupid when they equate socialism with a totalitarian dictatorship and hold onto the distortions they've been fed.

Are Americans brainwashed against socialism or something?



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 10:55 PM
link   
I agree with the right to buy and own land. but it seems like a scam to me. when you buy the house it's still owned by the bank for the 30 some odd years it takes to pay it off.

What bothers me are those who think that just because they own land they own everything around that land. For instance the crazy person who doesn't want anybody parking their car infront of their house. Not to take a lunch break, not to read a book.

I live in LA and there are a lot of rich people who own private roads in the hills. but there is one stretch of road between Sunset Plaza Rd. and Lookout Mt. Same street the name changes halfway over the hill it travels up and over. it's a passage from one side of the city to the other. In this stretch of road, the home owners have erected multiple security cameras, and massive signs saying private road, no through traffic. (basically we'll try and harass you if you drive around up here) I though it was fishy. Called the city to find out if the road during that stretch of house addresses was privately owned or a public city road. turns out it's a fully public city street. No parking restrictions, except for blocking driveways, can even park over night. The cameras. put up illegally on city property with out he city's knowledge or approval. Been a while since I brought this up with the city. Still see the sign there, but now knowing that it's illegally there and that the home owners in the neighborhood are full of it I hope one of them starts something with me. THe road is not in a high traffic area. there are no hoodlums etc... but it's a nice place to jog, as the views are really nice.

See this sort a thing a lot around LA and it annoys me. A fence around your house and a no trespassing sign is one thing and totally OK> placing signs all over the public street proclaiming it a private street, putting up surveillance cameras on poles in public for private use, threatening to bring the authorities down on people just driving through because they want to keep their neighborhood exclusive that's too much. I cant stand those types.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join