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.

 

Call Me A Socialist And I Won't Get Mad

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
I think capitlism is an antiquated idea, fine for when there were ten million americans in 1820. but with the current population of 300 million, it's just not working. The US has a debt of 14,000,000,000 and the dollar value of those "capitalist dream" derivatives is 466,000,000,000

even buffet called those babies financial weapons of mass destruction

how can any capitalist defend that ?

I'm not aware of any socialist system having weapons of mass destruction

external link - the stockholm syndrome part 1

external link - the stockholm syndrome part 2




posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik]

That is not the definition of socialism because in socialism the government does not dictate the means of production because the means of production are owned by the people.


What you really mean is the dissolution of all private property rights.

Yea, not gonna work.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ViperChili
What you really mean is the dissolution of all private property rights.

Yea, not gonna work.


No that is not what I mean. What it means is that a company with X number of workers has to split the company profits amongst them instead of it all going to one person. Everything else would be the same. Whatever you buy with your hard earned money is yours.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


Why should the owner of a company split the profits when the owner takes all of the risk?

What about the property rights of the business owner?



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ViperChili
reply to post by daskakik
 


Why should the owner of a company split the profits when the owner takes all of the risk?

What about the property rights of the business owner?


Seems like capitalists don't like it when all they can earn is a day's pay for a day's work.

All the risk? Yeah, the guys on the shop floor getting the pink slip ain't losing anything. I have owned a couple of businesses and I have never really risked or lost much. When things start to slow down then you start laying people off. If things don't get any better you close shop, pay what/who you owe. Sell whatever you can to recoup as much of the original investment and look into something else.

Owners always gotta give the sob story even if they have a nice pile stored away. Now if you built everything on credit and never worried about paying it off, maybe even lived a little better than you should have then your out of luck, but you know who's to blame.

What I posted is a very general idea. The details would have to be worked out to have it function correctly. The business owner has all his property rights. If you open a shop and work for yourself then you don't have to split anything and everything belongs to you. How is that diminishing your property rights? If you hire someone then you would have to split profits. Maybe not 50/50 but something. Why not? They worked to create that wealth.

Actually minimum wage is similar. The difference would be that there would be that incentive for the worker since he is going to gain from better performance if/when it translates into better earnings.
edit on 28-4-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


Ï would agree with this if also the opposite was true - if company suffers loses, no pay for EVERY employer. Otherwise its unjust.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 07:38 AM
link   
Please view my OLD OLD thread on political terminology and what it actually means - Get your phrases right in Politics - Don't be a dumb-ass!

This will help the politically uneducated become educated. And the ignorant trolls turn to stone under the light of truth.

The Revenant.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


With that kind of thinking, I am not surprised your "many businesses " didn't succeed.

What motive would anyone have to start a business if they were forced to split the profits?

Didn't risk much? It is the capital of the business owner, the idea of the business owner, the credit of the business owner. Business owners take all of the risk.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
which not only increases the burden on the tax payer, but shift the power to the government, which in turn allows them to dictate the means of manufacturing and distribution to the people.That by definition is socialism.


That is not the definition of socialism because in socialism the government does not dictate the means of production because the means of production are owned by the people. What you are describing is something else.
edit on 27-4-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



um no...?


Noun:



a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.


key term: control of the means and production and distribution. Thats tyranny...period.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by ViperChili
 


The business owner usually gets most of the capital investment when he sells off the inventory, equipment and whatever he can. Add this to whatever he made during the operation and you'll see that the owner hardly ever risks or loses anything. Of course they never say this cause it would show that they are making out like bandits.

Yes my businesses closed but I never lost a dime on any of them. Did pretty good actually so in my book they did suceed. The market changed and the services were no longer sought out. It happens that is why you have to keep your eye on the market and know when it's time to cash in.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


When the company loses money employees lose their job so there is no pay. Seems fair to me.
edit on 28-4-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


It comes in different flavors and can even be mixed with capitalism keeping intact all personal property rights, free markets, etc. Just because someone defined it a hundred years ago doesn't mean it can't be redefined.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


Tell that to websters dictionary dept.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


Your right but those guys are stiffs.


Anyway, like with most things there are different modalities. For example:

Libertarian Socialism



Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism,[1][2] and sometimes left libertarianism)[3][4] is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic, stateless society without private property in the means of production.


That's very different than the images of the former USSR, North Korea, and China. Like someone posted earlier in the thread, socialism without the fascism.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
 


The business owner usually gets most of the capital investment when he sells off the inventory, equipment and whatever he can. Add this to whatever he made during the operation and you'll see that the owner hardly ever risks or loses anything. Of course they never say this cause it would show that they are making out like bandits.


Yeah not much risk there, only a stupid investor would not bail out too late to get back on track in something else. It's not that hard to make money when you have a large amount already.

Oh and, ViperChili!
I think I may had the wrong opinion about capitalism because my version is what the USA is now, and that's not capitalism and my view of "socialism" is far from fascist and doesn't dictate your life.

I guess you can say I'm taking the "losers" side has much has you go all the way for the "winners" side. I guess it depends from where you've been. I was kicked out of my family from having for the first time ever, low grades at school. I had to sleep in the streets and faked that I wasn't to get a job. I did get one pretty fast and worked at minimum wage till I got enough to rent me a place and pay for a bed. I never fell for drugs or alcohol. I've been doing better and better since!

All you say just rings to me, that you've never been there. You don't know what it's like to lose everything and the word risk just doesn't mean the same thing to you.

I understand the winners side too don't worry, they worked hard and long hours and wasted their time for it, maybe their relationships and families too. They deserve more of the share because that's what they aimed for. In life, everyone should get what they deserve!

It's just that...if the people we're really making the choices, you bet that they would tax the really successful ones. It's normal in a money system that the rich ones will be fewer then the poor ones. So if there are more "losers", then they are the ones that will make the decisions.
So the losers win? Does this sound right? Not really because there are no losers, just decisions.

edit on 28-4-2011 by User8911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


So what you propose is essentially to make standard employment illegal, and anyone who wants to work for a company will have to become a shareholder, instead of standard employment for fixed wage.

So how would the shares be split? Equally? Janitor would get the same share as company leading engineer?

Also your system requires state enforcing illegality of standard employment contracts, since if all-shareholder companies were what people voluntary want, such contracts would form even now (noone is preventing people in a company to do so now). Since they wont form spontaneously, they would require coercion to form, which requires state.

Anarchosocialism is an oxymoron. In the absence of state, private property capitalism is default, assuming standard humans and not mind controlled robots.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


It's doubtful you owned any business that closed and you didn't lose anything.

If you didn't lose money, why did they close?

Let me guess, you just got bored, or wanted to feed starving children instead of running a successful business right?



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Like I said it's just a general idea. The details would have to be worked out and this would have to take into account what parts of any other sistem that is to be incorporated. I don't mind buliding castles in the sky but I'm not going to worry about the floor tile patterns or the color of the drapes.

Sorry but even though Anarchosocialism may seem like an oxymoron, private property capitalism can't exist without a state. How do you keep someone from using your ideas without trademarks, copyright and patents. Who will issue the deeds to your real estate or titles to movable property.

The answer of course is through violence or the threat of violence and were back to coercion. Of course if seen this way it is obvious that the greater proponents of the state are capitalists. This way they can institutionalize this coercion to protect their private property.

The Anarchosocialism example is just to show that not all forms of socialism are centralized. Basically for those who start telling people who use the S word that if that is what they want then they can go to one of those fascist countries.

Let's face it the government exists and it isn't going anywhere. Even if you get rid of one form of it another form always takes it's place. There will always be some amount of coercion.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ViperChili
 


I thought I made it clear that there was no longer a strong enough demand for the services. Of course the businesses were starting to failing so I got out, sold what I could and invested in something else. Over all I made a profit so why would you say I lost something?

If the earnings start to drop why would you keep your doors open until you are in the red. That is what stubborn old folks do because they have great pride in the family store.


edit on 28-4-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


Actually SMART business people find new lines of revenue, not just close when things slow down.

Closing is the last option.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join