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: 41
92
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tea4One
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I was talking about Marx & Engels hating religion not Jews. I know the Nazi's hated the Jews with a passion.


Ahhh yes, my apology.




posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   
I have to say I agree with you hands down as it is clearly evident that the economic paradigm that is place is not benefiting the entire human race. I say it is about time we brought about a new system which is truly concerned with the every single person's well being.

We have good news though, since there are few brilliant ideas floating around, namely the Resource Based Economy, which I'm sure many of you have already heard about. I'm not here trying to propagate or sell people an idea, but being a common man and seeing the state this world is in right now, I cant help but entertain this idea until it is replaced by a better one. The fact is there will never be a utopian society, because the very notion of it represents stagnation and we being intelligent beings, are meant to evolve.

What we do not realize is the importance of not having a fixed world view. If we are even the least bit concerned for our survival as a species we cannot afford to sit down with few beliefs thinking they are they ultimate ones, for after all ideologies are projection of the human mind. Sooner of later they go obsolete.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by LifeSpeaker
 

In my opinion, the reason there will never be a utopian society is simply because mankind is (obviously) driven entirely by it's animal instincts for social status and power, thus there will always be social classes and power structures. Violence is a natural part of our collective tempermant as a species. In reality, we are much closer to the Klingons than to the Federation.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Words don't matter. Capitalism, Democracy, Freedom, Republican, Democrat, etc. Words to mislead. They don't represent anything in the context that they're used. Propaganda.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
You can claim all the BS you want to claim, in the end Cuba has been communist since the castro revolution, China has been communist, but still call themselves as socialists, the U.S.S.R. has been communist, and several other nations which have become dictatorships have all embraced socialism/communism...

If it quacks like a duck, swims like a duck and looks like a duck it must be a duck...

But if it doesn't quack like socialism, swim like socialism or look like socialism than it can't be socialism even if that is what you want to call it.



And in fact the United States has been slowly turned into a socialist state... From having a central bank, to centralization of power, and bigger government, it all points to the fact that the United States has been ravaged by leftwingers, and transformed into something it was never meant to be...

No it hasn't, it has become fascist. It has merged big businesses with the state.

In the real world things seldom turn out how they were meant to be.



You should heed your own words sometimes, such as your first statement in this post...

In Facism the state/corporation owns all the means of production, has all the power, and at it's core is the central bank...

ALL of the above are tenets of SOCIALISM, not rightwing...

Actaully they are tenents of both socialism (leftwing) and fascism (rightwing). I guess this is what confuses you.


You want to talk about "state capitalism"?...


The term State capitalism has various meanings, but is usually described as commercial (profit-seeking) economic activity undertaken by the state with management of the productive forces in a capitalist manner, even if the state is nominally socialist.[1] State capitalism is usually characterized by the dominance or existence of a significant number of state-owned business enterprises. Examples of state capitalism include Corporatized government agencies (agencies organized along corporate and business management practices) and states that own controlling shares of publicly-listed corporations, effectively acting as a large capitalist and shareholder itself.
...

en.wikipedia.org...

In state capitalism state-owned business enterprises are in power, or the state owns the major corporations...


Your quote starts off with "State capitalism has various meanings" then you get fixated on one. There are other models, like Mussolini's that allow private corporations but these have to answer to the state just like in the US.


And what does that sound like?...
en.wikipedia.org...


So you use big text to mark your flavor but leave

There are many variations of socialism and as such there is no single definition encapsulating all of socialism.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets versus planning, how management is to be organized within economic enterprises, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.

in regular text. I'm surpised you left it in at all. While they may share certain tenents (centralized planning) they differ on others which makes them different.

edit on 3-2-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
That is a dramatic oversimplification. Also, what is the point of society if not to look out for each other?


Feeling that others "are not there for you" is part of the Infantilism I referred to. It comes from having been traumatized by cruel or cold parents in childhood. The infantilized person projects his parents behavior to the whole world, including successful people, corporations, rich people and capitalists.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by LifeSpeaker
I have to say I agree with you hands down as it is clearly evident that the economic paradigm that is place is not benefiting the entire human race. I say it is about time we brought about a new system which is truly concerned with the every single person's well being.


This is called Totalitarianism because it intends to change the destiny of ALL people, rather than having each person be responsible for their own destiny.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   
At the risk of 'passing water' in the proverbial wind, I'll try again. Skyfloating could you please answer the questions I put to you in my previous post, I think I have done so respectfully which is probably my mistake since in order to get noticed in the debate one has to verge on a personal attack!

I will make another point about your unfairness from your last post - you are suggesting that infantilism only comes from those with a problem with successful people etc. I think that anybody is capable of being infantile and that traumatisation of one kind or another is not limited to those that have a problem with the current system.

Speaking of those traumtised by previous experience of a communist dictator ElectricUniverse if you have any time away from point scoring, I'd like to ask you if you could contrast the Cuban experience of Communism with that of the Socialist Federal Republic of Jugoslavija? I ask because you have made a numbe of blanket statements about Communism which do not cover the Yugoslav experience. As I stated in my previous post, the successor countries of the former Yugoslavia (excepting Slovenia) which today are supposed democracies are still worse off than they were under Tito's Communism. Serbia, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro and Kosovo are if anything more riddled with corruption than they ever were under the Communists. How does that tally with your opinion?

Thanks...



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Feeling that others "are not there for you" is part of the Infantilism I referred to. It comes from having been traumatized by cruel or cold parents in childhood. The infantilized person projects his parents behavior to the whole world, including successful people, corporations, rich people and capitalists.


Society is about people helping each other out yes or no?

I'm not talking about an individual person hating or envying those that are successful. I'm speaking in broad general terms.

If the answer is yes then why would a society not listen to the complaints, even if they are infantile.

If the answer is no then why be surprised when large segments of the population become anti-social.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by freethinker123
I will make another point about your unfairness from your last post - you are suggesting that infantilism only comes from those with a problem with successful people etc. I think that anybody is capable of being infantile and that traumatisation of one kind or another is not limited to those that have a problem with the current system.


Good point. Wanting all the toys for yourself and not wanting to share is also infantile.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   


This is called Totalitarianism because it intends to change the destiny of ALL people, rather than having each person be responsible for their own destiny.
Would you please care to point out which system you are referring to as Totalitarianism? The one in place or the conceptual idea I'm in favor of? I'd rather not comment until then.
edit on 3-2-2012 by LifeSpeaker because: For better understanding and a more productive debate



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by dadgad

Originally posted by JimmyNeutron
reply to post by ANOK
 


Oh no... I've read the whole thread and have been following along. Those of you promoting socialism keep beating the same statements to death. I mean really? Is Spain the only shining light of "true" socialism you can hold up?

I've listened to your assertions regarding Wall Street financing the Soviet Union, Spain scaring the crap out of the elitists, and how wonderful it would be to have the collective own the means of production.

It's not that I can't envision what you are talking about - it's just that your logic and estimation of human character are sadly lacking.


Then you still have not understood anything. I will continue repeating myself until it becomes clear.


This sounds very much like the definition of insanity - doing (saying) the same thing over and over, expecting a different result each time.



What has happened here is a massive distortion of the actual original meaning of words. This is not funny at all. Electricuniverse is a total mess, everything she believes are distorted conclusions based on falsifications of the very words. So I will keep beating the same drum. There is no other way.
People enter this topic without reading what has been said before and repeat the same arguments based on the same mistakes that others made before, so I have to repeat. I don't mind. This is fun.


Hmmm... Sounds like a very closed mind to me. I won't convince you about the evils and idiocy of socialism - and you won't convince me that real capitalism is straight from the pit of hell. Capitalism isn't perfect and it doesn't claim to be, but it rewards according to ability. Socialism, over time, will sink to the lowest common denominator. Each person has their own agenda, stated or not, and disagreements about what the collective should be doing will ALWAYS arise. Without a designated adult in the room (CEO if you will) and an incentive or motivation to pull in the same direction at the expense of their own agenda, the socialist collective WILL dissolve or at least break down. Capitalism enables me, as an individual, to pursue what motivates me by offering an ideological agnostic medium (money) separate from the collective. i.e. I don't have to drink the Kool Aid!

In other words, the greed inherent in human nature motivates me to subjugate my individual tastes & desires to a larger enterprise. Greed will ALWAYS undermine and destroy your utopian socialist dream and devolve it into either Fascism or Communism. EVERY SINGLE TIME!!!!

You are at best naive to think otherwise.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Originally posted by L00kingGlass
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." -Thatcher


Also... Social Democracies like you see in Canada, France, Germany, and Scandinavia are actually very prosperous and afford their populations some very decent benefits:



Have you been following the news???

Canada, while slightly behind the United States in deficit spending, still is deficit spending at an unsustainable rate... Cost of living still consumes the majority of the masses incomes. AND even if you STEAL all the money of the wealthy at once, it would not be adequate to cover the deficit for a single year. Canada has promised more than it can pay.

France is bankrupt! It has promised more than it can pay.

The only Scandinavian country where a modified form of socialism works is Norway. Why would that be? Perhaps having ownership over one of the largest oil reserves in the world has a little to do with it... They can promise a great deal more than their country's GDP output would support if you remove that oil reserve from the equation.

Germany - the beacon of light to socialists. I will grant you that Germany is a fairly prosperous country... However, the workers do not own the means of production. It operates on capitalist principles and it hasn't promised (for the most part) more than it can deliver; however, it still deficit spends and relies on systemic inflation to keep it's borrowing costs affordable. This is a rare, almost unheard of state of affairs for a democratic socialist state.

Let's go a little further and look at the Eurozone in a little more depth -

Portugal - bankrupt
Ireland - bankrupt
Greece - bankrupt
Italy - bankrupt
Spain - bankrupt

All of these have tried democratic socialism for several decades and guess what - THEY ALL HAVE FAILED!

So how do your examples support your assertion that this form of government is a viable solution? It seems to have had more failures than successes.
edit on 3-2-2012 by JimmyNeutron because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

Society is about people helping each other out yes or no?



Yes certainly. And you can best help others out if you have something to give, right?



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by LifeSpeaker
Would you please care to point out which system you are referring to as Totalitarianism? The one in place or the conceptual idea I'm in favor of? I'd rather not comment until then.
edit on 3-2-2012 by LifeSpeaker because: For better understanding and a more productive debate


The system you propose (enforcing what you deem a "good life" on ALL people) is called Totalitarianism. Its what Hitler and Stalin promised.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyNeutron
Also... Social Democracies like you see in Canada, France, Germany, and Scandinavia are actually very prosperous and afford their populations some very decent benefits:


France, Germany, Denmark and Sweden have right-wing Governments. Portugal and Greece, who are bankrupt have had left-wing Governments.

Do you know why most old people vote fiscally Conservative? Because they have been around long enough to see how socialism fails again and again.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Who said we NEED iphones or many other consumer goods just recently introduced?? We live on a FINITE planet. And most of those products are created on virtual slave labor in despotic countries with "open" markets.


First - who are you to decide what I NEED or DON'T NEED. That is mighty arrogant of you.

Second - I agree that the system we have today - where slave labor in China (and other despotic countries that do not value life or the rights of the individual - mostly socialist/communist/fascist countries BTW) provides the goods at a cheap price so that the Western World can enjoy an artificially high standard of living - is abominable.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by theubermensch

Originally posted by Tea4One
I'm going to bed. This discussion has been a pleasure. I shall leave you with something from Marx...

"Capitalism is whack y'all."


“The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope.”
― Karl Marx

Thats my fav.


Without the capitalist, there would be no rope!



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


in a true socialistic society ... people wouldnt need to cater or help others, because everyone would be taken care of, and everyone would have the means to help themselves...



Who decides what "taken care of" means?

And just how does a socialist collective enable a person or individual to help him/her self? The individual's wants/desires are at odds with the whole socialist concept UNLESS all of those desires are in line with socialist principles. If the collective deems that what the individual wants is outside the bounds of the collective's socialist concept of "enough" that individual's wants/desires are suppressed or squashed. That my friends is a dictatorship at best or communism/fascism at worst.

Pure socialism may seem like a neat system on paper, BUT IT DOES NOT WORK in the real world. Grow up people!




top topics



 
92
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join