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.


A quick view of Socialism....

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 07:27 AM
Read about the first socializm, which funny, has only two main points: 1) the workers should control the means of production and 2) there should be none or a very limited central power and everything should be controlled by the local authorities.

Is socialism shouted by Lenin or Marx anywhere close to that? They destroyed the original idea and now everything "socialistic" is considered bad.

yes - there should a socialistic order everywhere on the planet.
no - that does not mean everyone shold earn the same amount of money, have the same amount of things and so on.

I see agents of capitalism everywhere, knowing virtually *nothing* about socialism and what it is actually.

Such discussion brings no food for my brain. Have fun in capitalistic society where you are subject to your "hierarchy" that rules the free market. Or pehaps one believes that ordinary people have anything to say in that matter?

Life is fun

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 07:46 AM
reply to post by getreadyalready

Friend, a bit of advice:

1. Stay out of 'political ideology' discussions until you actually understand political ideology.

2. Things you read in chain emails are 99% of the time going to be factually inaccurate or outright fabricated. In this case, they are likely both.

Example one seems like a 1950's view of communism.

Example two is, hilariously enough, an example of bad capitalism.

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 10:28 AM

Originally posted by drwizardphd
reply to post by getreadyalready

Friend, a bit of advice:

1. Stay out of 'political ideology' discussions until you actually understand political ideology.

2. Things you read in chain emails are 99% of the time going to be factually inaccurate or outright fabricated. In this case, they are likely both.

Example one seems like a 1950's view of communism.

Example two is, hilariously enough, an example of bad capitalism.

I agree about your view of chain emails.....but I think you misread the two stories.

Example #1 (Although I should have edited out the Obama part) is just a thought experiment. I don't know if it is real or if the professor exists, but the thought experiment works!!
-->What is the incentive for the few nerds in the class to do their normal work load if they are going to get the same average grade?
-->What incentive is their for the lazy part of the class to do anything more than usual?
-->The middle (bell curve) people are the ones normally carrying the load, but surely several of them will slip a little knowing that their grade will be averaged with the rest of the class, however it is doubtful any of this "middle" crowd will step up to replace the nerds.........SO
The average is skewed dramatically downward without the upper 3% pulling the load, and with the middle 80% slacking off a little!

Now, Example #2
Sure, it starts off as Capitalism, right up to the point where the Government steps in and bails out the Bankers!! Sure, the woman's idea was faulty, but Natural Consequences caught up to her! Sure, the investors in the bonds did not do their due diligence when investing, but Natural Consequences caught up to them. BUT......the bankers, the middle men, that had no vested interest on either end, and created the whole mess by extending credit to unqualified borrowers, and selling "junk" to their investors, skated through without consequence thanks to a generous bail out!! Now, in addition to being held unaccountable, the bail out money can sit in their "reserve" and the government went the extra mile and started paying interest (unprecedented) on that "reserve!"

So, now the bankers have no incentive to stimulate the economy and save the suppliers and the retirees, because they can draw interest on billions of dollars in reserve, that never belonged to them in the first place!!!

[edit on 6-11-2009 by getreadyalready]

posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 11:29 PM
These stories remind me of a game we play in a game theory class used in economics. Assume you have 2 countries that can collude on oil production. They will compete for 10 iterations. If both put forth high output then they both get a payoff of say 4 billion dollars. If both do low output then both get a payoff of 10 billion dollars(since supply is less price compensates and they increase profit margins). If either defect, then they are paid off 15 billion while the one that did not defect is paid off 1 billion. Now, both firms know that in turn 9 they should have a high output regardless of any agreement in order to capture the 15 billion. Unfortunately, firm A knows firm B will do that, and firm B knows firm A will do that, so both decide they should do that in turn 8, but then they both realize that the other will do it in turn 8 so decide to do it in turn 7. This continues until both do high output from the very beginning since they know if they don't they will receive a payoff of 1 at some point. They can produce 0 which means the other will receive the entire market as well, but this only matters when we talk about socialism.

Comparing this to capitalism we can see that competition is good for us all, since prices will inevitably be lower because of the increased supply. Comparing it to Socialism, if both countries were socialist then the actual producers have no incentive to produce anything, low or high, regardless of agreements since if there is no favor to be offered then the payoff to the employee is the same with sales as without, and thus prices are very high because of very low supply.

Socialism is only 1 step from barter. They may have currency but it has little power since everyone has the same amount of it and very few can offer much more. Favors are the currency that matters and thus socialism fails to grow economies.

I think the grades example is excellent since if you are the nerd then the extra work doesn't matter so you don't work harder. Now, just letting every student do the exact effort level to get them the average grade we see a progression to F. Since Poor and average students don't change behavior, but the nerds reduce effort to average then the average on the next exam drops. Now the average and nerds worked harder than the grade they earned, thus they adjust while the poor students remain poor. Therefore, on the 3rd exam the average drops again.

I say, excellent examples and people need to remember these are laymen examples, and of course they leave out details! These are thought experiments, although the game above can be proven mathematically and I could show you mathematically how the grades work too.

No reason to quibble on a good example, regardless of where it came from.

posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 01:04 AM
What sort of economic system exists when the State seizes one's personal property and does with it what it pleases (eg crushing cars, seizing assets from suspected 'criminals' well before any conviction is recorded)?

What sort of economic system exists when the State takes total ownership of one's children?

What sort of economic system exists when the State bails out Corporations who otherwise would have failed?

What sort of economic system exists when the State forces vaccination on children who attend state schools?

What sort of economic system exists when the State disallows peaceful protests and uses force to arrest or heard people into 'free speech' zones.

What sort of economic system exists when the majority (as little as 51%) controls the minority (up to, in theory 49%) in a so-called democracy, which has been rammed down our throats for years ?

(Democracy leads to mobocracy, which history shows leads to socialsm and communism. The founding fathers were ademant that the US would not be a democracy but a constitutional republic as they knew all too well the consequences of democracy)

Is that Capitalism? Socialism? Or something else?

posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 07:34 AM
reply to post by cams

Your example is Tyranny!! And you are correct that it currently exists, but it is so so so so so difficult to nail down, because the tyrants are nameless, faceless, corporations and political parties! The "tyrant" is a system that allows this to happen, and can be exploited by lawyers and politicians, and even by well-meaning law enforcement or prosecutors!

A Great lawyer can argue either side of an issue and win!! That is a dam shame! A Great lawyer may argue for your rights, prove the Constitution was violated, and get you some cash (All Great), and then the next case, he may manipulate a jury, bury a prosecutor, and use loopholes to get a criminal back on the street!

On the other hand, a Great Prosecutor may manipulate a jury, argue the "letter of the law" and take all personal feelings and common sense out of a defense and bury a criminal (Great) unless, that criminal was accused of a minor crime, and the law has run away with itself, and the original check and balance was a "jury of your peers" to input common sense into a scenario!

So, the examples you provide are sad proof that we currently live in a tyrant state, but the tyrant is a system of litigious liability and fear, and everone is only trying to outmanuever the system!

There is no evil face (Hitleresque) to remove from power? So, what do we do? We caricaturize Obama, or Bush, or anyone else stupid enough to try and lead or change things! We follow the lead set by attention seeking media whores, and we throw as much s*** at our leaders as we can, and see what sticks? We divide ourselves into "for" or "against" people or ideas that should not be so divisive?

Our society is a brand new animal...........let's call it litigious, media run, political folly, tyrannical, government guided capitalism?

Sound good?

[edit on 9-11-2009 by getreadyalready]

posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 02:25 PM

Originally posted by memarf1
They will compete for 10 iterations.

great, if you assume there is a pre-determined number of cycles and there in no communication between companies, then competition works for the consumer. the actual way it works out is that companies collude in order to maximise profit for both by restricting supply. there is also a mechanism to restrict control of a product to a single company through patent and copyright law.

in reality, direct competition in business is rare at the supply level which severely restricts the benefit to the consumer.

as regard the stupid myth that there is no imperative to exceed in socialism, it comes from the prestige and peer recognition which is the actual benefit incurred in capitalism.

beyond the basic support level, people want money for the prestige that goes with it. they want a nice car, a big TV, nice clothes, jewelery, haircuts, it all is just for the prestige and the peer recognition.

money's just paper, the prestige is what people work for.

[edit on 9/11/09 by pieman]

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in