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 Socialism Fails

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
One can argue that the sense of entitlement to a job was the diabolical handiwork of hardcore socialists, in and outside of the U.S. government.


I'm sorry but "pursuit of happiness" can't happen if you have nothing to eat. So this demonstrates my point -- if following the orthodox capitalism path requires people to starve, there are some who say that this is OK. A kind of religion, isn't it. Does capitalism exist for society, or is the society just fodder for capitalism?




posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Do you know what does involve those things?

Fascism.


Whoooah, you're getting your 'isms mixed up. Fascism does not preclude capitalist or socialist economic structures and has generally been based on a financial infrastructure of both. Fascism does not dictate how economics should be 'run' per se, it only tends to attempt to define who it should apply to.

The examples you give are not indicative of a fascist state as such.

Being entirely objective (if people can do that when the "F" word is mentioned in politics), in many respects benign fascism provides a very successful model for a balanced society using a combination of capitalism and socialist principles, however, humans are not capable of implementing that system and so it inevitably fails.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
One can argue that the sense of entitlement to a job was the diabolical handiwork of hardcore socialists, in and outside of the U.S. government.


I'm sorry but "pursuit of happiness" can't happen if you have nothing to eat. So this demonstrates my point -- if following the orthodox capitalism path requires people to starve, there are some who say that this is OK. A kind of religion, isn't it. Does capitalism exist for society, or is the society just fodder for capitalism?


Thats why its called the "pursuit of happiness" its not given to you, you need to find it. we are not a pure capitalist markert and have not been for 50 years. when goverment runs 40% of the market you will not thrive.

Amarica was started on pure capitalism. thats why we became a world power so fast! now that is fading because of goverment intervention.

Sorry for spelling. im the worlds worst speller



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 





I'm sorry but "pursuit of happiness" can't happen if you have nothing to eat.


Then eat something for Christs sakes!




So this demonstrates my point -- if following the orthodox capitalism path requires people to starve, there are some who say that this is OK.


You forgot the mention the ogres under to the bridge that will gobble you up if you attempt to cross that bridge, and oh those rascally leprechauns who will magically trick you into starvation. Who but a Marxist would argue that following the orthodoxy of capitalism requires starvation? Who but a Marxist would argue that the masses are helpless little lambs incapable of caring for themselves?




A kind of religion, isn't it.


Marxism? You bet it is.




Does capitalism exist for society, or is the society just fodder for capitalism?


No one exists for society! Society is nothing more than a name we give the collection of people who gather in it. Only a collectivist would argue that the individual is subject to a faceless, heartless society and that all who live in a society must necessarily surrender their individuality and self worth in order to acquiesce to what the "enlightened few" command.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Feanorr
so what, if someone can't afford healthcare, etc, they should just die? if someone can't find work, they should just starve?

getting rid of all socialism is lunacy.


Yes, they should.

It isnt the responsibility of others to support them.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by Reaper24]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I think that you're being unfair to buddhasystem, since the poster was sinply making a point concerning the previous posts which implied that the 'collective' we call society should in no way be a normalising platform for the equality of life opportunities.

I agree with buddhasystem, after all, whether we like it or not, we do live in a 'collective', i.e. society, and without normalising attributes we may as well chuck everything out of the window that compromises individuality - including the laws that stop the strong from murdering the weak.

Any society must have normalising attributes that define an infrastructure for cooperation. I do not believe that 'social welfare' should be deemed as an ideological stance, it simply makes sense from a cooperative equality perspective.

The key is not the concept itself but the method used to implement it and this is what the real debate should be about. Who should qualify for 'social welfare'? In the wider sense, who should hold the most power, those with an excess of money or those with a social conscience?

These are matters that have been debated for millennia, since the dawn of mankind. Once of the issues is how to balance the micro and the macro? Who should contribute? Does contribution equal authority?

It is rather disingenuous to suggest that concern for the elderly who cannot afford to eat properly is indicative of a Marxist agenda...



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   
As long as we still have MONEY, PROPERTY, BORDERS, people will try to pay LESS for MORE.

In such a world, capitalism, socialism, communism will end in total chaos.
Right now the earth is ruled by the persons who control the money: FED, JEWS, THE HAPPY FEW.

The illustrated class test, wasn't complete BECAUSE people knew that this couldn't be taken onwards into real life. As after finishing that school, the test would stop. Back to reality of current life.

However, if children from birth onwards are educated in an environment, where is no money, no property, no borders, AND they are educated that they have individual capabilities, that they are proud of to use in favour of the collective efforts of mankind. In exchange for this contribution all beings on Earth will have access to a decent life, and food, equal to all others. The rewarding of extra ordinary efforts or contribution, isn't money, but GREAT recognition by the world.

Due to competition, with results is me making more money, people aren't teaching mankind all the things they should know of. That's why we have secret societies, like free-masonery etc.... , that go out of their way to keep the knowledge inside their groups.

What are we taught about our spirit, the functioning of our brain, the esoteric part of life? We are just kept in the dark, and only the logical parts of our brains are developed. In the NEW WORLD each individual person is educated by mankind, not only parents, but by mankind collectively, to get the best out of each of them. Each child runs through programs to share all wisdom. Etc... I think you got the flavour of my thoughts in this respect.

From experience, I can tell you that salary is the worst motivator of all, as it leads to discomfort with others, doing better or worse, but still are getting more.

This world without money, property, borders, where mankind is ONE, will not happen in this world. It might have a chance after total collapse of all of our current systems, and final realization that that would be the last thing we can return to.

Will see what our near future brings us.....




[edit on 12-7-2010 by GeosAlien]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by SugarCube
 





I agree with buddhasystem, after all, whether we like it or not, we do live in a 'collective', i.e. society, and without normalising attributes we may as well chuck everything out of the window that compromises individuality - including the laws that stop the strong from murdering the weak.


Laws no more stop the strong from murdering the weak than they do from stopping the weak from murdering the strong. The law of gravity does not stop people from falling. Laws do not work in a positive sense, they work in the negative sense, and laws regarding human civilization or society only work and can be applied in the absence of justice, and all that can be done is force used against those who committed a crime, in an attempt to put justice back in.




Any society must have normalising attributes that define an infrastructure for cooperation. I do not believe that 'social welfare' should be deemed as an ideological stance, it simply makes sense from a cooperative equality perspective.


Co-operation needs no normalization, and is between the parties co-operating. Who are you to tell others how it is they should co-operate, and what makes you think that sort of attitude is co-operation? If social welfare is not to be deemed as an ideological stance then it needs no defense. The minute you impose equality on co-operation you have necessarily taken social welfare out of the field of co-operation and into the field of ideology.

Equality under the law can only work when what is being legislated is law. The ideology of equality you are advocating has little to do with equality under the law and instead is simply a financial paradigm where every person has the same amount of wealth. However, you fail to explain how it is this wealth will be created, and how it is everyone will maintain such wealth. Some people save money, others squander it. Would you, in your co-operative society of forced equality, criminalize the squandering of wealth? Just where will you draw the line?




The key is not the concept itself but the method used to implement it and this is what the real debate should be about. Who should qualify for 'social welfare'? In the wider sense, who should hold the most power, those with an excess of money or those with a social conscience?


Of course you would argue that the key is not in the conceptualization of co-operation, but in its implementation. The conceptualization of co-operation, when left in its conceptual form allows all people to decide for themselves what is and what is not co-operation, and who it is they would co-operate with, but the moment implementation becomes the "normalizing" rule, then co-operation becomes regulation, and regulation requires regulators. Regulators require an authority that places them above equality. So much for equality.




These are matters that have been debated for millennia, since the dawn of mankind. Once of the issues is how to balance the micro and the macro? Who should contribute? Does contribution equal authority?



Of course socialism has been debated for a millennium, for that is the only place for socialism; in debate. In the world of practicality socialism can not work without regulators imposing their regulations.




It is rather disingenuous to suggest that concern for the elderly who cannot afford to eat properly is indicative of a Marxist agenda...


It is rather disingenuous to suggest that your concern for the elderly and how they eat is evident since all you are advocating is a system of forced taxation and imposition. Mother Theresa you ain't. It is rather disingenuous to assume that I, and others who advocate free market systems, do not spend time looking after the elderly we know. It is flat out insulting in fact. You can pat yourself on the back all you want for your disingenuous charity, but the fact is that private charities still do exist, and that these charities need your help. Not government assistance, your individual help. That is co-operation at its finest, when you as an individual do what you can to help other individuals. To seek a method in where you do not have to be charitable by imposing regulations on everyone is not charitable, and certainly not moral, it is what it is, and that is plunder.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Man Jean your on a roll
everyone of your posts is awsome



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   
I don't think the OP highlights the problem with socialism - it highlights the problem with humans. Humans aren't willing to help each other out. Those students could have all gotten together in study groups, helped the struggling keep up, and they would have averaged much higher. The smarter students would have helped the weaker students, and the weaker students would have taken responsibility and instead of going out and partying.

So, the problem here, and especially in this thread, is that many people seem to be of the mindset that everyone should support themselves and that no one should take responsibility for anyone else. Okay, if you think that, you can stop driving on your government roads, drinking your clean government-regulated water, using your government police/firefighter/hospital systems, etc, and instead you can go and live in a tiny cabin with your own generator and don't even bother coming to society to shop for groceries by driving to town on the government road, not crashing because of those government stoplights, buying food that is regulated by your government so that it's clean... it's not like society should support you.

My point is that everyone here is so quick to say "THIS IS WHY SOCIALISM WILL NEVER WORK. The human race is just too greedy to make this happen." Well, I'm not too greedy for this to happen. And if I was in that Economics class, I would have led us to a collective A. The problem isn't socialism - the problem is YOU.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Gosh, you are feeling obtuse this evening...


Laws no more stop the strong from murdering the weak than they do from stopping the weak from murdering the strong. The law of gravity does not stop people from falling. Laws do not work in a positive sense, they work in the negative sense, and laws regarding human civilization or society only work and can be applied in the absence of justice, and all that can be done is force used against those who committed a crime, in an attempt to put justice back in.


It was clearly implied that without a 'society' per se, there is no requirement for normalising attributes and I used the extreme example of 'law' to illustrate the point. In the broadest sense, laws define a behavioural model acceptable to society, between individual citizens, also with the state and regardless of whether they are implemented as prohibitive or permissive.

Of course, laws do not stop people from doing something, they simply provide a (hopefully!) clearly definition of acceptable behaviour. As for justice, that is an entirely subjective concept; the law tells you which roads to use to get somewhere but justice is an ambiguous reference to the distance... "Is it far?" says the townie, "Oh yeah, quite a long way..." replies the farmer. OK, but who is it 'far' for? A person flying a plane or a person walking on crutches? On that topic, crimes have no definition unless within the context of the law. The concept of 'natural law' is only a product of society since by definition is applies to concepts that are generally accepted as ubiquitous and not specific to an individual's interpretation.

All of that said, I am not sure what your point was since my original contention still stands: laws are a function of society and without recognition of the existence of society embodied in a formal structure then no laws are appropriate - not even natural law which becomes part of the whim of individual human nature.


Co-operation needs no normalization, and is between the parties co-operating. Who are you to tell others how it is they should co-operate, and what makes you think that sort of attitude is co-operation? If social welfare is not to be deemed as an ideological stance then it needs no defense. The minute you impose equality on co-operation you have necessarily taken social welfare out of the field of co-operation and into the field of ideology.


Co-operation is only achievable through normalisation, although granted, the micro does not necessarily relate to the macro. A simple example, if really want a dozen eggs and the farmer wants my expensive wristwatch in payment, as long as we agree that it is a fair exchange then everybody is happy - we have normalised the worth of our goods.

Now, of course, we must make a differentiation between the micro and the macro and especially in terms of pan-society transactions, whether they be in terms of the provision of services and goods by either the state or the citizen. Since we are in a society and since it is acceptable to suggest that laws exist as a function of that society, so natural law also applies. Natural law for human beings (and even some of the animal kingdom) indicates a support for the defence of the weak. I would suggest that an elderly citizen with no realistic method of accruing goods or monies for transaction should be classified as 'weak'. Natural law in this context suggests that we should help that person. Can we reply on charity or should society step in some way? Clearly, the rule of law favours a clearly defined structure and since charity is not definable per se, it makes sense for society to define and maintain an infrastructure for helping the weak.


Equality under the law can only work when what is being legislated is law. The ideology of equality you are advocating has little to do with equality under the law and instead is simply a financial paradigm where every person has the same amount of wealth. However, you fail to explain how it is this wealth will be created, and how it is everyone will maintain such wealth. Some people save money, others squander it. Would you, in your co-operative society of forced equality, criminalize the squandering of wealth? Just where will you draw the line?


You read an awful lot of information into my previous post that simply was not there. I do not advocate 'equality of wealth' at all, quite the opposite within reasonable boundaries. As such I hardly need to defend a position that I do not advocate.


Of course you would argue that the key is not in the conceptualization of co-operation, but in its implementation. The conceptualization of co-operation, when left in its conceptual form allows all people to decide for themselves what is and what is not co-operation, and who it is they would co-operate with, but the moment implementation becomes the "normalizing" rule, then co-operation becomes regulation, and regulation requires regulators. Regulators require an authority that places them above equality. So much for equality.


Again, you've injected much more than I actually wrote and have made many, incorrect, assumptions. Why does authority place regulators above equality? That is an odd statement. The rule of appropriate law is the authority to which everybody must adhere. That is a concept but agreed, in implementation people will abuse that system, however, the abuse of that system should also be defined, either by prohibition or permission. Would you prefer anarchy and the rule of natural law and all of its interpretations?


Of course socialism has been debated for a millennium, for that is the only place for socialism; in debate. In the world of practicality socialism can not work without regulators imposing their regulations.


I agree to an extent, I am not a socialist although I recognise the benefit to society of some social principles - as you would expect since 'social' pertains to 'society'. In truth, capitalism cannot work either without clear regulations. As I indicated earlier, society itself may only be maintained at a macro level via the use of clearly defined laws not subject to the whim of authority.


It is rather disingenuous to suggest that your concern for the elderly and how they eat is evident since all you are advocating is a system of forced taxation and imposition. Mother Theresa you ain't. It is rather disingenuous to assume that I, and others who advocate free market systems, do not spend time looking after the elderly we know. It is flat out insulting in fact. You can pat yourself on the back all you want for your disingenuous charity, but the fact is that private charities still do exist, and that these charities need your help. Not government assistance, your individual help. That is co-operation at its finest, when you as an individual do what you can to help other individuals. To seek a method in where you do not have to be charitable by imposing regulations on everyone is not charitable, and certainly not moral, it is what it is, and that is plunder.


Do you want a police force? A fire service? Who pays for that? I suppose that you do not require an army? Should it all be charitable? Should only those that can pay for these services be afforded their protection? Who said anything about a lack of charity? What if charity runs dry during a dip in the free market? Who helps then? I understand and agree with the desire to limit taxation and regulation, but that does not preclude the provision of an infrastructure that supports social programmes for a basic level of sustenance for the needy in society if not other appropriate forms of relief (e.g. state work to earn benefits)

It is the definitions of 'basic levels' and 'needy' that require evaluation clarification, not the concept itself - implementation rather than concept!



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by spacekc929
 





Humans aren't willing to help each other out.


Stories of people helping other people


I couldn't believe it – it was so easy to do – to stop and let a few cars into the traffic in front...but no one seemed to do that. Well, that was probably because it was the 5pm rush home from work. When I finally got up to the line of traffic, I stopped and let the line of eight or so cars in front of me. And on the whole way home, if I saw someone trying to get into the traffic flow, I would stop if it was safe to do so and let them into the traffic.


See full story here.


The other day I went to the laundromat to do my laundry, and it occurred to me that instead of having a cup of coffee, I could buy three more tubs of washing powder and share them with those who might need them. I bought the tubs, and placed them near the entrance, with a SMILE card on each one of them. I hope this little gesture made some people smile!


See full story here.


After the race I went back over and sat in the grass next to him, that got me more than a few odd looks from other runners. During our conversation I gave him the cash I had. He didn't want to accept it, but I told him I wanted him to have it and that it may get him a little something extra during the day. He then said, "This has been so nice. Thank you. I haven't really talked to anybody in a real long time."


See full story here.

Here are some more links on stories of people helping other people.

www.ehow.com...

today.msnbc.msn.com...

africastories.usaid.gov...

www.care2.com...

www.rd.com...

These are just a few of the 139,000,000 links that appear when you Google "stories of people helping others".

On a personal note, I have had the profound privilege of making some wonderful friends in this site. A few months back I was chatting with another member on Skype, and she asked me how my new business was going. I wound up confessing that business had been bad and I was stressed out about paying the rent, of which I had fallen behind on. She and I have never met personally, only know each other from this site, but had become fast friends. She wound up sending money to pay my rent, and actually sent me enough to to eat as well. I did not ask for this help, she simply just did it. I am forever humbled by her kindness.

Business is still sketchy for me in this current economy, but I still have a business because people do help other people. They absolutely, unquestionably and irrefutably do.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   
I almost forgot something...


Would you, in your co-operative society of forced equality, criminalize the squandering of wealth? Just where will you draw the line?


You may recall the recent banking crisis which in effect represented a 'squandering of wealth' (since most Western countries operate a fiduciary system and use fiat currency). The money never existed and yet was 'spent', in loans, in credit, in debt. That 'virtual' 'promisory' wealth impacted real wealth - look around, I'm sure you can see people losing their jobs and businesses going down the toilet.

Should the bank/bankers be criminalised? Is it criminal that, if by an action of intent, such devastation is caused to people's lives?

Of course, by my own statements, crimes are only defined by contradiction of law and I guess we do not have laws to stop individuals operating in the free market economy from billowing toxic debt across the globe.

I certainly draw a line there...



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Socialism wins when governments want it too, America has a long history of socialism.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Okay, so you've shown me stories where people help each other out. So explain to me why the economics class failed. Why didn't the stronger students help the weaker students, and why didn't the weaker students take responsibility? Hm? Why else does socialism fail? In this example, the 'leader' wasn't even a fascist. He was their teacher, and they brought the destruction on themselves by being selfish and trying to get a 'free ride' instead of working together to solve their problem. THAT is why they failed... not because socialism in itself is corrupt, but because people are selfish and won't help each other out.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



I'm sorry but "pursuit of happiness" can't happen if you have nothing to eat.


Then eat something for Christs sakes!


Did you care to read? Did you miss the part "if you have nothing to eat"?



Who but a Marxist would argue that following the orthodoxy of capitalism requires starvation? Who but a Marxist would argue that the masses are helpless little lambs incapable of caring for themselves?


You are being facetious or naive or both here. If a factory closes and 5,000 people are out of work, and nothing is done at all (because God forbid we intervene with natural capitalist purity of things (no welfare, no other forms of assistance), rest assured these people will actually starve. There are people here on ATS who aren't remotely "helpless little lambs" - they are the opposite, industrious hard workers -- and yet their livelihood was compromised by influx of cheap labor from Mexico. The government didn't "intervene" to prevent this from happening. If a factory shuts down because production was moved to Bangladesh, it's an absolute equivalent of same. How is it people's fault to find themselves unemployed in this situation? What's so "Marxist" to say that it's not right?





Does capitalism exist for society, or is the society just fodder for capitalism?


No one exists for society! Society is nothing more than a name we give the collection of people who gather in it.


Oh boy. You don't put any value at all on "we, the People"? You read it as "we, a bunch of dudes and dudettes"?


Only a collectivist would argue that the individual is subject to a faceless, heartless society and that all who live in a society must necessarily surrender their individuality and self worth in order to acquiesce to what the "enlightened few" command.



Did anybody in this thread argue that? Your Reductio ad Absurdum trick didn't work well at all. Just as you failed with Reductio as Hitlerum in the first paragraph "Only Marxist would argue that people must starve blah blah blah"

[edit on 12-7-2010 by buddhasystem]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Everything taken to the extreme will fail, you climb up to fall off the cliff.
It just does not work, mixed socialism with capitalism so it can be in the middle.
It's the safest thing, sometimes things must stay in the middle for the sake of us all. A little bit of capitalism, a little bit of socialism and there it is.

Socialism to the other limits = communism, total control in a visible way.

Capitalism to the other limits = imperialism with corporations running the show, total control in a hidden way.

Anyway ...there is no way for beauty, you get control freaks running the show, it's either a one man thing like a dictator or on the other side as in we are many and we control you. A mixed sistem where there is room for something more than the extreme.
Capitalism and Socialism has each good points of view but must be limited in argument. This is not the intention as it would all be good for us.

The objective is control thinking you are free.
puppets and the puppet masters.

Not working at all will bring the system down but civilisation with it along the way. I thought monkeys got out of the forest a long time ago, seems not and the bad part is they are running the show.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


Capitalism taken to the extreme is anarchy.

Corporations would not be able to run peoples lives like they do now because they would be disarmed.

Right now, corporations use the government as their enforcement arm.

Get rid of government, you get rid of the corporate corruption and evil.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Thanks OP, that was a fun story.

I too believe Socialism alone cannot work. I go more along the lines that, it appears to be human nature to be greedy, and think of oneself and ones family only. We seem to allow a little altruism outside of this, but it is very much "pack/tribe politics", if they live too far away, or look too different, or act too different we don't want to know.

So my view, is that while that is the current human condition, that is what we should try and exploit in our structures such as politics/economics.

I think that so far, capitalism appears to be the system that has worked best.

To me, that doesn't mean ultra-capitalism, succeed or die style, but a system that is predominantly Capitalist, just with some small elements of socialism and regulation at the very top and bottom, to help the genuinely weak, ill, or those unable to find a job through no fault of their own, and to stop the people at the top accumulating everything causing terrible imbalance.

So, for those at the very bottom, I do believe in some welfare, but it has to be minimal, roof and food only, so there is still a strong incentive to do better. It must be structured so that accepting a minimum wage job will mean a better standard of living than the dole.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
killinghope.org...

There is an article by William Blum exploring briefly the history of socialism, its impact and interpretation.

To be honest the sheer amount of #ing ignorance in this thread about what socialism actualy is a joke.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join