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.
I agree but would like to change/tinker with your comment.
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.
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?
What about the other countries I asked about? Give me some more of your "facts".
TextI have yet to see a socialist in this thread admit to being thoroughly debunked.
TextNorway finances itself by having only a few Million inhabitats while producing Billions of Barrels of oil each year.
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?
Originally posted by mnmcandiez
The USA is crony capitalism bordering on crossing over to fascismedit on 2/1/2012 by mnmcandiez because: (no reason given)
The Norwegian economy is generally characterized as a mixed economy - a capitalist market economy with a clear component of state influence.
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.
Originally posted by theubermensch
I am yet to see a socialist thoroughly debunked.
Originally posted by ollncasino
The USSR practised socialism (according to the USSR) and it failed.
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.
Somebody always goes hungry
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.
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.
Originally posted by ANOK
The Soviet Union Versus Socialism Noam Chomsky
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
Originally posted by maestromason
Capitalism works just fine.
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.
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?
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.