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.
Originally posted by zappafan1
REPLY: You have misconstrued what the teacher did. He was giving his students an example of Socialism, IE: the redistribution of grades.
Capitalism, when implemented with minimum government intrusion, works better than any other form of economic policy.
Capitalism is nothing more than the free exchange of goods and services of a free people.
40% of Americans pay no taxes whatsoever, and places a burden on the rest. In 37 years, over 40 million humans have been aborted, which means we have 40 million less taxpayers and producers of wealth (plus the deadbeats who pay no taxes. Do the math.
Originally posted by ANOK
Nope, capitalism is the 'private ownership of the means of production', it is not the only system that has free exchange of goods, socialism allows this also.
Originally posted by ANOK
Even here on ATS the winner/loser attitude is rife. People will say almost anything to 'win' a debate. Some even think if they get more stars than you they have won the debate, regardless if what they say makes sense.
Originally posted by theuhstuf
reply to post by camaro68ss
this is old copy pasta, and originally about socialism!
www.snopes.com...
Originally posted by 547000
How would workers control the means of production? They would require setting up a bureaucracy to manage the means of production.
This bureaucracy is the state.
Socialism and communism both require a state, and not just any state--but a totalitarian state, managing resources and means of production.
No one could produce anything except when the state approves it, since no one owns the means of production.
Saying that the previous failed administrations are not pure socialism/communism is silly. How would society as a whole manage things since some things belong to society and not individuals? They would require a strong state to do so. Pure Communism and Communism Lite (Socialism) can only work in a small system, like a family or a village. The government cannot step down, because the government is there to manage resources and/or production for society as a whole.
Originally posted by 547000
Okay, so how would society control all that belongs to society in the first place?
Suppose society owned a thousand businesses. These don't belong to any individual but belong to society. How would society, consisting of maybe a million individual, different people, collectively control it? I can see how this might work in small communities like villages, but the bigger society gets, the harder it is to share things like that.
Originally posted by ANOK
Well they wouldn't belong to 'society', they would belong to the workers who work them.
Do you know what a collective/cooperative is?
Your thousand businesses would be owned by and ran by the people who work at them. Instead of a private owner, all the workers share equally in the running and share equally in it's profits.
This motivates workers far more than the fixed hourly wage system with all the profit going to a private owner that we have now.
The worker benefits directly from their labour.
This is nothing new, there are already many successful cooperatives in the US and around the world. It's only a matter of time before you all see the light. (except you probably won't call it socialism, you'll make up an American term and pretend you all thought of it haha.)
I'm surprised you have to ask such a basic question though. If you don't already know the basics of socialism then how can you claim it doesn't work, or that capitalism is better?
Originally posted by 547000
First I've ever heard of it.
How would the workers decide who to hire and who to fire if it's owned by all of them? And does a janitor or gardener really deserve to make the same profits as a experimental physicist or a doctor? Granted, I think managers are monkeys in business suits, but they still have to do a good job or the owner fires them.
When it comes to doctors, it’s commonly assumed that they are guided primarily by financial considerations when they decide where, when, and how to practice. Therefore, so the theory goes, doctors won’t co-operate or change their behaviour unless they believe there is a financial incentive for them to do so.
The evidence casts significant doubt on this assumption. Doctors are not purely “economic creatures,” and while money is important to them, it is only one of many factors that influences their behaviour.
Originally posted by endisnighe
Sorry, the government does not like capitalism, they love socialism, cronyism, corporatism and COMMUNISM.
Just as the indoctrinated FOOLS cannot help to embrace. For they know not their ignorance, for one cannot lead a MULE to water but to show the MULE the water.
If you know not the MULE reference, google it.