It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The chief means of production should be socialized, that is, taken out of the private hands of the capitalists and put under public ownership, that is, government ownership.
...the economy should be planned to meet the needs of the people—in employment, education, nutrition, health care, housing, transportation, leisure, and cultural development.
Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by The Old American
Unfortunately Capitalism can no longer operate in the way you outlined. You out line a system of Capitalism advocated by Adam Smith. Now we live in a world of Global Capitalism, where the balance of power has shifted so far in the direction of the producer and away from the consumer.
The idea of Capitalism being a social good, relies on the business's to improve the lives of the people in their society or community, with well paid jobs and competitively priced goods.
In Global Capitalism, the work is outsourced to the cheapest labor, which produces more profit for the owner, but of no benefit for the people in the community where the business began.edit on 19-3-2012 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)edit on 19-3-2012 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by eboyd
socialism is simply "workers' control over the means of production", which can occur in a free market, ie worker cooperatives. capitalism =/= free markets, it is "private ownership of the means of production". anyone telling you otherwise about either ideology is lying, idc if it is the most prominent and respected economist in the world. your thread has been rebutted.
and to the people claiming the Scandinavian countries as examples of socialism, stop. they are not. they are capitalist countries with heavy government regulation.
Social democracy Main article: Social democracy
Traditional social democrats advocated the creation of socialism through political reforms by operating within the existing political system of capitalism. The social democratic movement sought to elect socialists to political office to implement reforms. The modern social democratic movement has abandoned the goal of moving toward a socialist economy and instead advocates for social reforms to improve capitalism, such as a welfare state and unemployment benefits. It is best demonstrated by the economic format which has been used in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland in the past few decades. This approach been called the Nordic model.
Originally posted by kozmo
I would love to credit the author but he/she is anonymous. This has floated around the net for years. For those of you continuing to argue the merits of socialism, take heart:
As the late Adrian Rogers said, "you cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
An economics professor at a local college said that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class.
That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich - a great equaliser.
To counter this, the professor said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".
All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.
The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.
As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little, studied even less and those who had previously studied hard, decided they wanted a free ride. So they too studied little.
The second test average was a D!
No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Since no one has the ability to change human nature (Nor should they!) this is the reality. it is also why Socialism has failed in EVERY nation where it has been fully implemented.
Originally posted by kozmo
reply to post by kaylaluv
If you cannot see the problem with this, then clearly you are part of the problem. Why should anyone be forced to give more than someone else? If government is going to simply confiscate greater and increasing amounts of the spoils of my labor, then why bother? I am not interested in taking capital risk to invent something or start a business to benefit the government and its minion of hangers-on.
This country was founded on the belief that all men were created equal and that each should be treated equally. If one is taxed at 50% while another pays no taxes, explain to me how they are being treated equally?