I have come to embrace Socialism!, page 27

Pages: << 24 25 26 27 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 23 times

reply posted on 18-10-2010 @ 05:38 PM by Wally Hope

reply to post by brutalsun

Cuba is a dictatorship.

No socialist wants to live in a dictatorship.

You have to realise ANY economic system can be a dictatorship including capitalism.

How can it be socialist when all the decisions are made by one person? Socialism is the workers control, not the control of a dictator.

You are just confusing political systems with economic systems. Socialism and communism can both be state free, as I have stated already Anarchism is traditionally socialist, see my post on this in this thread.

The MSM like to use the term 'communism' to scare the population. The US embargo has nothing to do with communism, the US trades with other so called 'communist' countries. It's more to do with rich Cubans with political clout that were thrown out of Cuba in the 50's.

In reality the US political system (or any so called democratic country) is not that different, we just get to replace our dictator every four years, but nothing really changes.

reply posted on 18-10-2010 @ 11:15 PM by trailertrash

Originally posted by Misoir
I 'dabbled' into Socialism for a while.

Let me tell you it's not as good as it sounds. How you can defend taking from Peter to give to Paul? You do know the government has nothing unless they forceably take from someone correct?

I believe strongly in looking out for your neighbor, but I don't want to recieve assistance while the guy giving me the assistance has a loaded gun to his head.
edit on 10/8/2010 by Misoir because: (no reason given)

According to this poster the government takes from Peter and gives to Paul. NO NO. That's not the way socialism works except in a conservative mind. What really happens is the government takes from them both, and everyone else, and gives back in for form of equal sharing to all. For instance, equality in health care, vacations, job security, retirements. The result is that there are a very small percentage of destitute in the country. Now wait.... A man who earns a lot through extra effort does day more in taxes but the percentage doesn't change. He still keeps much more than the ordinary guy who does just the minimum. Also everyone still has the opportunity to invest money as they choose and can afford.

As people get older they think more of high levels of security. Usually the super aggressive people are against this sort of socialism but common folk are not. Problem is that the super aggressive manage to convince the common folk that socialism will hurt them when the very opposite is true.

Personally I want a mix of both systems. Too much socialism is restrictive. Unbridled capitalism is dangerous as it tends to morph to a two class system, aristocrats and serfs.

Choice is what everyone should have and there can be no choices if only one party has it's way.

gg

reply posted on 18-10-2010 @ 11:24 PM by RUFFREADY

I've come to embrace that since my wife died of cancer ...that I am having a hell of a time taking care of this property
and one cat one dog and four turtles.

reply posted on 21-10-2010 @ 05:39 AM by drell777

i am construction worker for 20 years now . i have broken bones and went back to work . always paid my taxes . when the gov. is sending so much money in assistance to foreign aid why do you think i should'nt get some .

reply posted on 21-10-2010 @ 05:44 AM by woodwardjnr

reply to post by drell777

Unfortunately under the your current system, you wont see anything, In a socialist society you would be part owner of the company you construct for and would share the profits of the company with your fellow construction workers.

reply posted on 22-10-2010 @ 02:18 AM by KingKickass123

It freaks me the fudge out everytime I realize how warped the meaning of socialisme is in de US.
When I listen to an average American discribe socialisme, it's like listening to a discrption of Nazi Germany.
Look I know the Nazi's started out as the NSDAP, but putting socialist in your name doesn't make you a socialist.
If things would work like that, i'd change my name to Bruce Wayne.

On paper socialisme is the way to go, ON PAPER.
Well a mix between socialism and humanism would be the way to go.
The problem is us, we seem to screw it up every single time.
Power corrupts and stuff...

reply posted on 24-10-2010 @ 01:41 AM by obamuh

all anyone that is actually considering socialism needs to do is look at france RIGHT NOW. that country is on the brink, and they're only raising the retirement age to 62. socialism accustoms people to a way of life that is unsustainable. it's unsustainable because the system doesn't work, people aren't motivated, people aren't productive, because 'no matter what' they have a birthright to be pampered for life. i read some of those signs in the protests in france and i think what snotty little brats they are. our country rebelled in part against socialism and created the most prosperous federation in the history of the world. why anyone wants to go devolve back to european socialism is beyond me.

reply posted on 24-10-2010 @ 09:46 PM by fonenyc

Originally posted by ImAnAlienOnMyOwnPlanet
Now please don't attack me for presenting my testimony. You're welcome to ask questions.
As a person who is just like everybody else and not as competitive as others are. I have come upon socialism. Not as a revolution idea. But because of Jesus! Yes Jesus seems to have a lot in common with socialism. You might or might call him a socialist but I see that his actions in the Bible go hand and hand with socialism.
I was browsing the web looking for answers and I came across a neat little site explaining why Jesus was indeed a socialist.
Article
Of course that is like saying Merlin was a fan of Harry Potter. Which Harry Potter and like I stated above with Jesus and socialism. The idea of socialism came later. Which I highly doubt politics was what Jesus in the Bible did in life. That's what my cousin tells me. Maybe some of you guys can have a jab at this article and my case of why I embrace Socialism. Tell me what you think of Jesus, socialism and Jesus being a part of socialism.

Jesus was no socialist lol and I cannot believe you actually said that. Jesus was a rogue or enemy of the state and didnt fall into any certain economic plan. " Render unto Cesar what is Cesar's" if anything he agreed with the Roman version of capitalism; shouldve I mean he was a Jew and Jews created the banking system of America. Socialism can work to establish industrial structure until expansion must begin then it is capitalism and growth and more growth... the economy of God wouldnt be socialism communism but capitalism because God said heaven is freedom. Jesus a socialist? LOL

reply posted on 25-10-2010 @ 02:13 AM by Monstertako

My thoughts;
First - The idea of Jesus supporting one form of government over another cannot be corroborated in the Bible. Jesus had many opportunities to found His own system, or support the systems that existed at the time, most notably when the crowd attempted to crown Him in John 6:15. Why did He not do so, and save us from so much headache? I have two theories; one, it was not the appointed time for Him to do so, and two, He understood well the nature of mankind. If we follow Christian doctrine that sin is inherent, it would only be a matter of time (a generation or two) before someone would seize control and twist His idea (that is, if everything still held to Old Testament prophecy) for their own ends.
Two - Was Jesus a Socialist? Absolutely not, under the following modern definition. World Governments and Economies
He was a Humanist, but only to a certain extent, as He knew His time and actions on the Earth were severely limited. Neither God, nor Jesus, felt compelled to establish a form of government for the here and now, that is, during our limited existence as imperfect human beings. We're supposed to suck it in, keep worshipping God, and wait for Judgment. At that point, reference Revelation chapter 22, where God will take the throne and with the Lamb (Jesus) rule as kings forever. (I'm not liking verse 3, either, which states there will still be slaves in God's perfect kingdom, or the fact that God's authority throughout the Bible reads too much like a take-it-or-leave-it-and-die dictatorship, but maybe that's Constantine's fabrication, and if so, then what isn't?)
Three - Whether we follow Christian doctrine or not, everyone must admit (expect for a few exceptionally thick people that believe we're at the pinnacle of evolution) that human beings are imperfect and subject to varying degrees of corruption. It follows therefore that even if an idea started off with pure and lofty intentions, others would eventually come along and become seduced by the implemented idea's power and usurp it for themselves. Capitalism sounds good; you work hard, you get rewarded for this, you buy a lot of stuff, you live a happy life. In practice, a small circle of affluent people control nearly everything and a large portion of the population figuratively starves. Then there is Socialism, where you work hard, but as part of a larger family, and you share your productivity with some who try as hard as you do, and some who don't, but through your contribution to the whole, you live a happy life. In practice, again, a small circle gets to decide who gets what, and a larger portion figuratively starves. Either way, in the Darwinistic or bee colony scenarios, control and subjugation of the masses is paramount to making the actual system lumber along, and the hierarchy will go to extraordinary means to to ensure it keeps its hands on the reigns, and on our combined efforts.
My conclusion is this; without both a collective and an individual conscience, without exercising sympathy towards those suffering from disease, hunger or poverty, we will be one step closer towards being an animal, and one step farther from being at the side of God, or Creation, or whatever you believe in, and any government set up by human hands is ultimately destined for failure.

reply posted on 27-10-2010 @ 12:28 AM by randomname

there is nothing wrong with capitalism, but it should be regulated when it comes to things that serve the public interest or loop holes that damage society more than helping it. some markets should be out of bounds so people are not taken advantage by greedy individuals.

there are alot of people getting filthy rich by exploiting loopholes in their particular market while causing untold damages to the economy as a whole.

america is becoming to dependent on the stock market. soon it'll be london, where no one actually works in any meaningful way. half their workforce are locked in cubicles 8hrs a day analyzing numbers in a corporate system so complex that no one knows for sure how it even functions much less know what their job is actually accomplishing.

no one can fault someone who gets rich by playing in a fair game where the rules are the same for everyone, but when greedy people start changing the rules to favor themselves to hold and maintain wealth at the expense of others thats when the government has to step in and balance the economy.

unfortunately politicians are as crooked as many of the markets that they are supposed to be regulating.

reply posted on 1-11-2010 @ 10:51 PM by Vthesocialist

reply to post by ImAnAlienOnMyOwnPlanet

Absolutely, I completely concur that out of all of the social systems at our disposal Socialism is the one that most closely corresponds to the values of Jesus, in fact to almost every religion hold Satanism and Scientology. When the Working class realizes the power they, we, hold the Capitalist system will come to a screeching halt, followed by violence and finally a socialist democracy will be realized and therefore true equality, democracy, and peace can be possible.

reply posted on 1-11-2010 @ 11:44 PM by Vthesocialist

reply to post by randomname

The side of capitalists; those who believe society must be governed from the top down, separating society into two separate hierarchical classes; with the workers of the world below those with the wealth. Or, the side of the universal class or the true socialists, who believe that society is to be ruled by itself, democratically by the workers. Those who believe there is only one class and that democracy and freedom can only exist if there is no top down dichotomy.

Because to not choose is to submit to the prior, to accept that you are a lesser person than the wealthy who rule you, to accept the illusion of freedom cast upon you. You must choose because there will be a revolution, and because as Edmund Burke so eloquently stated, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

reply posted on 3-11-2010 @ 11:54 PM by Beevowiz

reply to post by ImAnAlienOnMyOwnPlanet

I think you may misunderstand the true teachings of Jesus. Jesus was not about a government entity taking things from one person to give it to another. What Jesus was teaching is called charity. For example, lets say you got a bonus check from work. you take half and blow it on something that you have been wanting. What do you do with the other half? I would think buy some canned food and take it to a shelter. Get a case of canned goods and hand out a few cans to each transient I see while driving.

Socialism would be, Hey you just got a bonus check, I (government entity) will take this and distribute it as I see fit.

Huge difference.

When there is forced "charity" it makes people want to hold on to anything extra they get because there is already a lot going out forcefully.

reply posted on 4-11-2010 @ 03:40 PM by Wally Hope

Originally posted by Beevowiz

I think you may misunderstand the true teachings of Jesus. Jesus was not about a government entity taking things from one person to give it to another.

I think you misunderstand what socialism is, socialism requires no government. This is why Anarchism is traditionally socialist.

Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice... Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality...Micheal Bakunin, known as the father of Anarchism

flag.blackened.net...

Socialism is simply the 'workers ownership of the means of production', in opposition to capitalism which is the 'private ownership of the means of production'. Socialism is not a political system and requires no government or state system, it just requires organized educated people.

Socialism would be, Hey you just got a bonus check, I (government entity) will take this and distribute it as I see fit.

No it wouldn't. That happens now under capitalism. Socialism requires no government.

Socialism, in it's traditional and true definition, means "the workers democratic ownership and/or control of the means of production". Such a definition implies that rather than a government bureaucracy for managing such means, there is a focus on highly democratic organisation, education and awareness, and every individual is encouraged to become an active, rather than passive participant in that which effect their lives. Only the workers themselves bear the knowledge of what their own freedom and liberty means, and only they know what is best for themselves, ultimately. Advocates of the state, be they on the left, or the right, have repeatedly defined the meaning of "socialism" to mean arbitrary rule by a set of "leaders", or a political con-game in which socialism is no more than capitalism with a few token adjustments for bearability.

flag.blackened.net...