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.

 

Its time to defeat the powers that be - by adopting communisim!

page: 19
50
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Also, I would guess that the drop in standard of living has a lot to do with over taxation and the fact that the Communist Chinese are more supportive of capitalism then their Western counterparts. But before you say see i am right communism is better, remember you said China is not a true communist country.

Plus you factor in those Japanese working machines and the fact that they usually make better products then that has to count for some of the decline in living standards.




posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


Even if I accepted your hypothesis which I don't - how do you then explain the greater ownership of the worlds wealth by the 10% of the worlds population?



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   
If we are going to try a new form of government, I would vote for "True Anarchy" before "True Communism".



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by count66
 


Ok the thing is you dont have to borrow money to start a business. If you put a business plan together that is viable and you put together a good team you can find investors who will exchange a share of their money for a share of your business.

The reason governments or banks can not loan money for close to 0% interest is because there is a cost to making loans. You have to pay staff to make loans and collectors to collect when they dont pay. Sometimes they never get their money back and this interest rate helps to cover that expense. Also, their is risk in loaning money and they deserve to be rewarded for taking that risk.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by thrustbucket
 


Why true anarchy?



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by count66
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


Even if I accepted your hypothesis which I don't - how do you then explain the greater ownership of the worlds wealth by the 10% of the worlds population?


Well I would explain it as that group of people have contributed more to society than the rest of us. They have invested in companies that create jobs, then have saved there money and invested it so other people could start businesses, etc. As a result for making good investments they have acquired more wealth. At the same time the rest of us have been standing in line to buy that big, shiny, new lcd tv with our credit card.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by seanyboy
 


Hey I love that idea. Sorry it wont happen.





posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


I would totally disagree - it goes back to the playing field being more equal for some than others - people who have the wealth can therefore buy and take over new companies increasing their ownership.

Take the Rothschilds and Rockerfellers - do you think it was the status in life that the current generation were born into that allowed them to increase their wealth of do you honestly believe that if they had been born to a poor family in India that they would have achieved the same levels of success



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Ok one last point before I have to call it a night.

If you look back to the times before the mid - late 70's in America, our grandparents saved their money. They rarely borrowed anything. Maybe for a house and maybe for a ONE car that they kept until it died. They bought a house they could afford to put at least 20% down on. They ate at home most of the time. They bought some clothes that they wore for years at a time. Then in the mid 70's there were designer clothes for the average person. So now people by new clothes every season, many times on credit. People eat out several times a week, many times on credit. People put their kids in day care, many times on credit. This is why wealth is getting pushed up to the rich, because very few people really save much at all. They choose not to save, because they want everything right now.

Also, in the early 70's prices for oil sky rocketed which moved much of that wealth to the oil producing nations.

All of these things, and the chinese success, and the over taxation, and japanese quality is what leads to a decline in standard of living for the Western World.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


But why shouldn't people be entitled to these luxuries? - the wealth if evenly distributed could allow this to happen for everyone.

Anyways - like you I have to call it a night.

Thanks for the debate.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by count66
 


I agree that if you are born to a wealthy family, making more money is easier than someone born to a poor family. I dont think some dude born in India in the 50's is going to be as likely to find wealth as a Rockafeller. For lots of reasons. One they were born in India.

But it also doesnt mean you cant build wealth if you were born from average circumstances. Bill Gates built wealth. His dad was a doctor, but he certainly wasnt a Rockafellar, maybe upper middle class at best. Same for Warren Buffet.

Microsoft was built with no debt. At one time they actually had close to 60 billion in cash. To this day I belive they still have no debt.

The other thing is you are discounting the sacrifices and contributions that the Rockafellar ancestors made to become that wealthy. Their childrens, childrens, children are benefitting from their good decisions. This is as it should be.

And Thank you for the debate as well. You are a very smart dude. We just look at things a bit different.

[edit on 3-4-2009 by justsomeboreddude]



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Hmm...what best form of government? What a conundrum. On one hand, the only way for things to really function smoothly is when consciousness works as a collective (ie, bee hive, ant colonies etc.). However, we are all so afraid of being part of a collective and cherish our independence that we are ready to die for it. But then...everyone doing their own thing and chasing their own egos (capitalism?) simply DOSEN'T work in the long run! Can you imagine how well an ant colony would function if each ant did it's own thing? Not!! That's why the world and environment are so ruined today.

What we need is a form of socialist government orchestrated by those who have deep spiritual (not religious!) and intellectual values. Can this happen in the light of the human psychological equation? I dunno.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by count66
reply to post by thrustbucket
 


Why true anarchy?


Because:


Freedom and Liberty, to me > enforced safety, oversight, enforced fairness and control.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by count66
I hope that things work out for you when you do.

Unfortunately though you will find that to get anywhere you will first have to get into vast amounts of debt to finance your undertaking - a lot of your earnings will then go towards the financing of this debt.



Nah... Art requires little more than a pencil and paper...
And it just so happens that I posses both.
I guess I'm ahead of the game?


There are companies out there that seek talent.
Talent doesn't require money or debt, just a lot of hard work.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


While I can appreciate your intellectual exercise of discussing the pros and cons of living under communism, I wonder if you have ever even traveled to a former communist country? I spent almost three years traveling what was the former USSR, and I can tell you from personal experience that the ravages suffered by former communist is beyond American comprehension. There is no more anti-communist then those who have suffered through the long night of Marxism; it saps the human soul and kills the spark of creativity of those who are chained by its false utopian hopes and equally false promise of the end of the problems that plague humanity.

It must be remembered that the only difference between socialist and communist are that communist use guns, and often. The terror of the “midnight knock on the door” and the grieving of the families of the ‘disappeared’ are not the exception in such societies as “absolute power corrupts absolutely”; when the ‘state’ is supreme and human life has no value other than as it is valued by the state, a quick death is the preferable end.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by SGTChas
 


Why have most of these countries living standards dropped lower than when they were under their old autocratic socialist states if it was so terrible?

Also, why have most of these eastern European governments voted their former rulers back into power - check out who most of the governing parties in these countries are and I think you will be surprised.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 08:17 PM
link   
I believe you can change the system to whatever you like and it still wont change a thing. It's not the system that needs changing its the people in charge, no system will ever work/be fair if the same people are in charge
-Don't hate the player, hate the GAME- Triple H ;P



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 08:34 PM
link   
I think the downfall of capitalism, socialism, and communism is created by corruption and greed.

With capitalism the companies and banks can become corrupted by a few. Socialism only works when the government has the best interests of the people in mind. But even then, those in government need to know how businesses operate in a successful economy. Strict regulation is needed to make sure that companies are cooperating, not competing. Communism doesn't work because one party will lead to dictatorship or an oligarchy. Just look at Cuba and China for example.

I've recently read about a theory of government called Communalism (not to be confused/compared with communism), where there is communal ownership of goods and property. These communes are organized into some kind of independent state/province. The national government, with limited power, is a confederation of these communes. Maybe in this form of government there would be little corruption because every citizen has a stake in the property and goods of the community. Since the national government has limited power in a confederation it shouldn't be able to become authoritarian.

It would be great to live in a society of cooperation with a government that doesn't get in the way instead of corrupt private companies, government that infringes on rights, and dictatorship!

Communalism = Democracy




Edited to clarify: Communalism has a different definition in India. I'm talking about the government theory only, which is unrelated..


[edit on 4/3/2009 by Orion52]

[edit on 4/3/2009 by Orion52]

[edit on 4/3/2009 by Orion52]



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by SGTChas
reply to post by John Matrix
 


While I can appreciate your intellectual exercise of discussing the pros and cons of living under communism, I wonder if you have ever even traveled to a former communist country? I spent almost three years traveling what was the former USSR, and I can tell you from personal experience that the ravages suffered by former communist is beyond American comprehension. There is no more anti-communist then those who have suffered through the long night of Marxism; it saps the human soul and kills the spark of creativity of those who are chained by its false utopian hopes and equally false promise of the end of the problems that plague humanity.

It must be remembered that the only difference between socialist and communist are that communist use guns, and often. The terror of the “midnight knock on the door” and the grieving of the families of the ‘disappeared’ are not the exception in such societies as “absolute power corrupts absolutely”; when the ‘state’ is supreme and human life has no value other than as it is valued by the state, a quick death is the preferable end.



as it has already been said in this thread stalinism is what destroyed true communism in russia they actually had it working until stalin showed up and turned it into what he thought was the best way which obviously was wrong because he once again tried to turn it into a profitable business venture instead mankinds salvation.

True communism states that there are no states only people working together to coexist with the planet and due to advancing tech one day we will coexist with the very frontiers that have mystified us to this day which is space of course. back on topic communism is a great way to raise the standard of living for all its just the uber rich will either have to be willing to equalize their wealth or give it up in its entirety because true communism has no monetary system just a simple understanding that the resources we have are for everyone and anybody has access to them as long as it is within reason and they are willing to share their resources. they dont need a price tag stamped on them just because we say so



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   
I could buy that communism, true communism, is perhaps most equitable form of economic governance. There has been one, and only one, successful attempt at true communism. The first century Christian church was communism in its purest, simplest form. It was overseen (not run nor ruled) by a group of men who understood the concept, believed in it passionately as something bigger than and beyond their own selves, and protected its integrity with a firey zeal.

A good read of the first few chapters of the Book of Acts will show you this.



new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join