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 my mind is closing towards Capitalism

page: 17
92
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 



Thats a recipe for disaster because it strips away any form of merit, creative competition or rank. If I built a boat and you didnt, you'd like "the community" to own the boat whether they contributed to building it or not.
I agree but would like to change/tinker with your comment.

If I build a boat and know others want a boat why is it such a terrible thing to offer to teach someone how to build a boat at the same time as he helps you build that boat? All you ask in return is that when he builds his boat he does the same thing and probably made a friend for life. The result is everyone not only has a boat if they want one but everyone knows how to build a boat. And everyone has friends and presumably fish.

In your version you build a boat. You keep the boat and deny others the chance to do the same thing. You keep the knowledge of how and complain others could do the same thing. You are disgusted that others feel envy but you have set the scene to cause envy. You have not made one friend and probably focused hatred on yourself and made the only boat, your boat the symbol of that hatred. No one but you has fish and when you are too old to sail that boat neither will you.

Now you can label that what you want I dont give a fig about any doctrine they are all flawed. Being human and sharing knowledge instead of hoarding, denying it builds a life for all.




posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

I see, so socialist states are not allowed to have natural resources or sell them, or else they arent socialist anymore....or I guess thats where the capitalism comes in, to liberate those resources, eh?



Your responses are incoherent. What exactly are you referring to here? You posted a picture comparing Norway to NorthKorea, as a nicer looking example of socialism. I debunked the notion by explaining why Norway has more money (it has nothing to do with socialism). Then you get angry and move the goalposts to this:



What about the other countries I asked about? Give me some more of your "facts".


And if I debunk this, you are going to move the goalposts again, so whats the point? Admit to your mistake about Norway above, before we move on.

I have yet to see a socialist in this thread admit to being thoroughly debunked.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 





TextI have yet to see a socialist in this thread admit to being thoroughly debunked.


I am yet to see a socialist thoroughly debunked.




TextNorway finances itself by having only a few Million inhabitats while producing Billions of Barrels of oil each year.


That was a thorough debunking?



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by theubermensch
reply to post by Skyfloating
 





TextI have yet to see a socialist in this thread admit to being thoroughly debunked.


I am yet to see a socialist thoroughly debunked.




TextNorway finances itself by having only a few Million inhabitats while producing Billions of Barrels of oil each year.


That was a thorough debunking?


I was wondering that too...she didnt debunk me, and then claims that I "moved the goalposts" because she cant answer my questions. I guess because Finland doesnt sell its natural resources? Or something? I dont know, I guess Im just not intelligent enough to realize Ive been DEBUNKED!

Hey Skyfloating, what "mistake" did I make about Norway...that they have socialized health care and welfare? Or that they are rich, so they can afford social programs...but what about America? Arent we one of the richest countries in the world? How come its OK for Norway but not for us? You make no sense.

edit on 2-2-2012 by aching_knuckles because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   
If you want a country with more goverment control to make sure the evil capitalist don't get out of hand, I suggest you move to Cuba,China,etc.... I hear the people over there are very happy on how the wealth and medical care is getting equally distributed among the work force.

However, really make sure that is what you want because you won't have the option to leave easily once you become part of their work force that they rely on.
edit on 2-2-2012 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnmcandiez
The USA is crony capitalism bordering on crossing over to fascism
edit on 2/1/2012 by mnmcandiez because: (no reason given)


I couldn't agree more... I've heard what the United States has is really corporatism - not sure what that means but it "sounds" a little more accurate.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Stop comparing Norway, it is not socialist. It has a mixture of private ownership, capitalism, and state ownership, nationalism.

Government ownership is nationalism, not socialism.

Socialism is the workers ownership, of the means of production. Even in state-socialism the workers own the means of production. Government just takes care of the infrastructure, like it is supposed to.


The Norwegian economy is generally characterized as a mixed economy - a capitalist market economy with a clear component of state influence.

www.norway.org...

No state or government required for socialism...

flag.blackened.net...



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyNeutron
I couldn't agree more... I've heard what the United States has is really corporatism - not sure what that means but it "sounds" a little more accurate.


Corporations are simply a way for capitalists to protect their capital. They do it so that if their company goes bankrupt the owners can not be held responsible. It is also a way to float companies that are losing profit. That is why corporations are treated like people.

Anyone can incorporate. Corporatism is a tool of capitalism.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 


Neither extreme socialism or extreme capitalism work very well.

Some people trumpet a system of socialism that clearly failed in the USSR, Eastern Europe and Communist China.

Others trumpet capitalism, as understood in the USA today, where the rich have got much richer while the poor cannot find jobs to feed themselves.

Both extremes are exactly that - extremes. The ruling elite benefit while the masses lose out.

Socialists, while claiming to be fighting for the people, are not shy at quietly feathering their own nest. Capitalists on the other hand are at least upfront about being out for themselves.

It is quite frightening how many people on this thread are arguing for one extreme or the other.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by theubermensch
I am yet to see a socialist thoroughly debunked.


The USSR practised socialism (according to the USSR) and it failed.

The vast majority of people who lived under Soviet socialism were not happy with it.

Don't get me wrong, capitalism hasn't proved a resounding success either for many Russians, but that doesn't mean socialism worked - merely that both systems fail to a greater or lesser degree.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Socialism didn't fail because socialism doesn't work, it failed because of outside forces.

The worlds establishment don't want socialism, they will start world wars to stop it. They will call themselves socialist in order to garner support.

How can anyone trust what a politician tells them? Do you trust your own government that much?

Socialism was working in Spain, against the odds, for three years, and was very successful turning a country in poverty to one where everyone was fed, clothed and housed. Food production rose 50%, city infrastructure and public transportation fixed. Trams were repaired and put back into service and were free to ride.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino
The USSR practised socialism (according to the USSR) and it failed.


No they didn't. USSR was a republic, like the USA.


When the world's two great propaganda systems agree on some doctrine, it requires some intellectual effort to escape its shackles. One such doctrine is that the society created by Lenin and Trotsky and molded further by Stalin and his successors has some relation to socialism in some meaningful or historically accurate sense of this concept. In fact, if there is a relation, it is the relation of contradiction.
It is clear enough why both major propaganda systems insist upon this fantasy. Since its origins, the Soviet State has attempted to harness the energies of its own population and oppressed people elsewhere in the service of the men who took advantage of the popular ferment in Russia in 1917 to seize State power. One major ideological weapon employed to this end has been the claim that the State managers are leading their own society and the world towards the socialist ideal; an impossibility, as any socialist -- surely any serious Marxist -- should have understood at once (many did), and a lie of mammoth proportions as history has revealed since the earliest days of the Bolshevik regime. The taskmasters have attempted to gain legitimacy and support by exploiting the aura of socialist ideals and the respect that is rightly accorded them, to conceal their own ritual practice as they destroyed every vestige of socialism.


The Soviet Union Versus Socialism Noam Chomsky


edit on 2/2/2012 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 




Somebody always goes hungry


Then the solution is obvious - capitalism with welfare system (social democracy). Best of both worlds.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


We are so wrapped in this money paradigm that we cannot imagine a world without it. Like our brains are trapped in this loop that keeps saying: "no money = chaos/unnatural". Money is natural, really? Do pandas use money? Do monkeys? Polar bears? Raccoons? I don't know, about that. Ok! So the logic is we are so much smarter then those animals that we need money to enable ourselves to share and trust each other? I say, we have let a false idol rule our ways of life. We have created separation between humans because of a dollar, currency, economics, digital numbers, papers, banks, debts, segregation....

The solution is real simple. We have to be one and in harmony not because money allows it, but because we know that's the RIGHT THING TO DO! Clearly the original symbol of money is lost and cannot be sustained at this rate and size.

This is how I think and feel about it.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Socialism didn't fail because socialism doesn't work, it failed because of outside forces.

The worlds establishment don't want socialism, they will start world wars to stop it. They will call themselves socialist in order to garner support.


So socialists take no responsibility for the failure of their own chosen economic system?

No war forced the failure of Socialism in the USSR. It collaped under its own weight.

Please don't get me wrong. I presume that we both want a fairer system in which the poor can at least feed themselves..

The fact remains however that socialism failed. To blame outside forces is to merely invite repeating the same failures of the past.


Originally posted by ANOK
Socialism was working in Spain, against the odds, for three years, and was very successful turning a country in poverty to one where everyone was fed, clothed and housed. Food production rose 50%, city infrastructure and public transportation fixed. Trams were repaired and put back into service and were free to ride.


I admire your underlying motives, but Socialism failed in Spain because many Spanish people felt they were losing out rather than gaining under the socialist system.

If you can't take the people with you, then what is socialism?

A form of dictatorship based on the power of a machine gun?



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Capitalism works just fine. The only people who have any complaints about it are the non-ambitious. People who do not have a drive to succeed in life. No, I do not believe in socialism or any other type of system that involves welfare handouts to people who do not want to work for their own betterment. There are too many teat lovers milking the system as is.

Success in life is defined differently for individualistic goals attained vs. the status quo. If you are using someone else to measure your success in life then you will ALWAYS be a SECOND CLASS CITIZEN. You must gauge your personal objectives using yourself as the only metric...this is the key to success and happiness whether you are a Capitalist or anything else.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

The Soviet Union Versus Socialism Noam Chomsky



No offence, but Noam Chomsky is an English teacher.

A PhD in English teaching but none the less no more educated to discuss economic matters than, well, an English teacher.

Adam Smith and even Friedman are much more fertile grounds on how to make an economic system work. Not a fairer system, merely one that works.


EDIT:- We ned to be careful here as you appear to be using an American definition of Socialism while I am using a European one...




edit on 2-2-2012 by ollncasino because: clarify



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by petrus4
 


I am not saying it is ok for there being people going hungry, but in socialism/communism the MAJORITY goes hungry and are poor.


What are you basing that claim on?

During the Spanish revolution production increased as much as 50% in some areas.


Production greatly increased. Technicians and agronomists helped the peasants to make better use of the land. Scientific methods were introduced and in some areas yields increased by as much as 50%. Food was handed over to the supply committees who looked after distribution in the urban areas.


libcom.org...

And that was done during a civil war with Hitler dropping bombs on them.


As I have said, and proved several times the reason why there is so much poverty and suffering in countries like the Republic of the United States is because Americans allowed "progressives/leftwingers" to implement their ideas.


Rubbish. Capitalists simply refuse to accept lower profits and a more fair system of wealth distribution.
Greedy capitalists are now exploiting other workers in countries they have less restriction in. Where they use child labour and pay workers extremely low wages for long work hours in bad conditions. The cycle of capitalist exploitation.


Whoever controls the economy of a nation, controls that nation, and leftwingers/progressive democrats gave power over the economy of the Republic of the United States to the rich bankers and they created a central bank.


There are no left wingers in government, only different degrees of right wing. Capitalists control the economy.
It's ridiculous to blame the left.


Central banks, and centralization/consolidaiton of power is part of socialism and communism.


No it isn't. Socialism puts the power into the hands of the workers to control their own destiny. It takes the control away from the minority capitalists who exploit the majority.


In communism the 5th plank out of 10 is the creation of a central bank.


Marx was just one way of implementing state-socialism. I don't agree with it all, and neither do a lot of socialists.
Anyway that was only supposed to be a temporary arrangement, in order to for production to increase to the point that money became irrelevant, and goods could be free distributed, a stepping stone to communism.


In socialism/communism cooperative enterprises/corporations are allowed to control the nation.

It is because of socialist/communist ideas that the Republic of the United States, and in fact the world is in so much s#it.


There are no corporations in socialism. Corporations and the state working together to control is fascism.

The world is in such crap is because capitalism creates artificial scarcity. It has nothing to do with socialism, other than workers rightly demanding better pay and conditions.

Are you another poster who wants to go back to having child labour, low wages, long hours, dangerous working conditions?

If you base your opinion on so called communist countries you will be lost from the beginning.


edit on 2/2/2012 by ANOK because: typo



Its funny how people really seem to have lost track of what the ideologies initially entailed. This guys arguments are a complete distortion. The original meaning of words have somehow begun to take the opposite meaning or something. This really makes communicating difficult.

There is absolutely no left in current politics, especially Americans politics. Only degrees of right wing as you said. Capitalism controls the economy. How interesting to see how successful the propaganda has been in convincing people that socialism is destroying the nation. In actuality America is a fascist regime. Corporations and government are working together under the same banner.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by maestromason
Capitalism works just fine.


It does?

Outsourcing illustrates the laws of capitalist exploitation

Maybe for you but not for millions of others...



The only reason the US is not like that is because of worker organizations.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 


My main problem with socialism is that it requires the empowerment of a concentrated and powerful oligarch. So instead of the sociopaths fighting for their 'piece of the pie' they end up fighting for the whole pie already decorated and packaged. If and when they gain control of that 'pie' they end up with massive power and ownership. And the populace is left with no legal remedy or recourse.

Also a couple of other points:



Somebody always goes hungry; and Capitalist advocates are ok with that. We still end up with a homeless problem. We still end up with Africa being essentially nothing but a giant pile of AIDS infested, rotting corpses.


Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't someone always go hungry under socialism as well? I wasn't aware that there was a system that was able (or maybe willing) to feed all of the populace.



In other words, I'm not a fan of the, "I took whatever job I could find, regardless of how much it sucks, so those filthy hippie vermin should damn well do the same," argument. I don't think it benefits either the individual person or society as a whole. I've read a lot of stories online recently about Americans with PhDs or Master's degrees, working as janitors or at McDonald's. Is your country really benefiting from having its' intelligence wasted like that?


Just want to point out that when self sufficiency is outlawed (as it is in the US) and all that is left are jobs and franchises then you live in a socialist society.

One can argue that capitalism is the cause of Americas current state of affairs to a point. But we are no longer a capitalist society in the slightest and therefore it isn't accurate to continue to blame capitalism. If we are going to blame the overriding system as the problem then we need to realize that the overriding system is socialistic.




I'm tired of living in a society which treats any human beings like disposable garbage; and I'm especially tired of hearing people who advocate Capitalism, saying that such a situation is perfectly fine, and even express contempt towards the people in said situations.


I am 100% with you here! I think the only system I could support at this point is one whose purpose is to work to strengthen the individual. To ensure that each individual has the means and ability to be and remain self sufficient.

However it is my understanding of socialism that it is the individual who must work to strengthen the system, which in turn, hopefully, provides for the individual. There is no self sufficiency there is only reliance and a weak individual.



new topics

top topics



 
92
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join