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.

 

Brace Yourselves! Americans Aged 18-29 Have A More Favorable Response To Socialism Than To Capitali

page: 5
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by manykapao
 





These kids are being miss led in many cases, or are too lazy to check what they support. They would see that capitalism is in decline and socialism with all sorts of public spending on private enterprises is on the rise. That is age old socialism.


No, it is not. Socialism is defined as the workers owning the means of production. If this is not the case then we are not discussing socialism. What you have just described-The merger of state and corporate power-is actually fascism.

We can't even get the terms right around here so how can there even be a productive discussion about it?




posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


I am not arguing the validity of your dictionary. I am saying that all practiced socialism is not WORKERS OWNING THEIR JOBS. It is corporations and regular business owning them and EMPLOYING THE WORKERS.

The difference is that the workers pay taxes, to pay themselves sometimes. And public money is always just handed to private businesses. That is not capitalism.

In capitalism the only role of government is to REGULATE business, set restrictions. Not favor some over others because they were labeled "too big to fail".

That is socialism. Working, practiced socialism.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by manykapao
reply to post by antonia
 




That is socialism. Working, practiced socialism.


Oh, so you are redefining the word to suit your purposes, oh I get it .



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Im not worried about these stats. Its quite normal for youth to be more left leaning and as you grow older to start leaning to the right. Thats the way it should be imo.

I doubt any of these youth envision Communist-Police-States , gray uniform and run-down buildings and infrastructure, heavy big government bureaucracy when they say "socialism".

Instead they probably envision holding hands in a circle with people from other cultures, around a self-sufficient organic farm, getting to do whatever they want (unlike the dictates of their terribly narrow-minded conservative parents) and awaiting peaceful space-brothers to land in UFOs.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


no I am not. You are purposefully misrepresenting what I am saying for lack of substance to your counter argument.

Go ahead. We see what you are doing. We are actually use to it here on ATS. You just gave me the right of reason. You underestimate the audience here.

Thanks!


edit on 5-11-2012 by manykapao because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:49 AM
link   


I am not arguing the validity of your dictionary. I am saying that all practiced socialism is not WORKERS OWNING THEIR JOBS. It is corporations and regular business owning them and EMPLOYING THE WORKERS.

The difference is that the workers pay taxes, to pay themselves sometimes. And public money is always just handed to private businesses. That is not capitalism.

In capitalism the only role of government is to REGULATE business, set restrictions. Not favor some over others because they were labeled "too big to fail".

That is socialism. Working, practiced socialism.
reply to post by manykapao
 


This is what you said, this is not socialism. I get that Americans love to use the word for anything they don't like but it has an actual meaning and it's not what you just described. What you have actually described is arguably Fascism.

Socialism is defined as the workers owning the means of production. If they don't own those means then we don't have Socialism.
www.kingarthurflour.com...

Here you may see an actual Socialist venture.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


no. fascism is the INTERPRETION of any system. You can have a fascist Democracy, if its rules are mandatory and unbending. (extremism)

You need more cocoa

did you read this perchance:
www.wikihow.com...

and came here with that garbage. Still arguing about the definition and avoiding the argument?

edit on 5-11-2012 by manykapao because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by antonia
Socialism is defined as the workers owning the means of production. If they don't own those means then we don't have Socialism.



Indeed. If I build a hammer with my hands and the villagers take it away from me because it "belongs to everyone", then we have socialism.
edit on 5-11-2012 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by manykapao
reply to post by antonia
 


no. fascism is the INTERPRETION of any system. You can have a fascist Democracy, if its rules are mandatory and unbending.



en.wikipedia.org...

Fascism in not an interpretation of anything. It is an actual system.
en.wikipedia.org...

It is used as insult mostly today but it is an actual system not an adjective.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


semantic disputes get you nowhere when we eat them up for breakfast.

You have failed in this argument by thinking you were as smart as you think us dumb. My argument stands untouched.


www.onelook.com...


A semantic dispute is a disagreement that arises if the parties involved disagree about whether a particular claim is true, not because they disagree on material facts, but rather because they disagree on the definitions of a word (or several words) essential to formulating the claim at issue.
en.wikipedia.org...

again thank you. I see I made quite the argument that you have to avoid it and muddle the discussion with BS.

Bye dictionary girl. Have fun knowing we were watching.

edit on 5-11-2012 by manykapao because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   
here is a kick ass definition. You would love it. How about you make a thread about it instead of derailing this one with nothing but your emotion of how you need to avoid actually countering my argument.

Have fun with that, bye.

Know that with every post not directly about my argument, I laugh so contently it should be a sin........






What constitutes a definition of fascism and fascist governments is a highly disputed subject that has proved complicated and contentious. Historians, political scientists, and other scholars have engaged in long and furious debates concerning the exact nature of fascism and its core tenets.
what dictionary girl wanted to do here....as well as with socialism. not the argument I presented though.

Most scholars agree that a "fascist regime" is foremost an authoritarian form of government, although not all authoritarian regimes are fascist. Authoritarianism is thus a defining characteristic, but most scholars will say that more distinguishing traits are needed to make an authoritarian regime fascist.

Similarly, fascism as an ideology is also hard to define. Originally, "fascism" referred to a political movement that existed in a single country (Italy) for less than 30 years and ruled the country from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini. Clearly, if the definition is restricted to the original Italian Fascism, then "fascism" has little significance outside of Italian politics. Most scholars prefer to use the word "fascism" in a more general sense, to refer to an ideology (or group of ideologies) that was influential in many countries at many different times. For this purpose, they have sought to identify a "fascist minimum" - that is, the minimum conditions that a certain political group must meet in order to be considered fascist.

The present article strives to bring together various definitions of fascism. In addition to the authors currently cited, there are important definitions provided by Roger Eatwell, Ernesto Laclau, and many others.
Benito Mussolini, Il Duce, dictator of Italy before and during the Second World War, signed an entry for the Enciclopedia Italiana in 1932, entitled The Doctrine of Fascism. [1] This text is often cited as the "original", or most accurate, definition of Italian Fascism (which, in turn, was the "original" fascism). However, the value of Mussolini's own claims about his political movement is disputed. Some authors have pointed out that Italian Fascist ideology constituted an incoherent and unintelligible justification for any actions that Benito Mussolini chose to undertake.

Some relevant excerpts from one of several English translations of the The Doctrine of Fascism are:

Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State.

The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.
answers.yahoo.com...




edit on 5-11-2012 by manykapao because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Instead they probably envision holding hands in a circle with people from other cultures, around a self-sufficient organic farm, getting to do whatever they want (unlike the dictates of their terribly narrow-minded conservative parents) and awaiting peaceful space-brothers to land in UFOs.


I can't believe how full of yourself and condescending you sound. Your whole point is "I know better than them" which, seeing your analogy about the hammer, is totaly wrong.


edit on 5-11-2012 by BobbyTarass because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by manykapao
 


Yahoo answers isn't a source, if you think something is off topic then you should report it instead of railing on against it. I don't think you have answered the point. What you have argued is not Socialism. It is not a semantic argument. There is no point in addressing what you are saying if it's not socialism. That's the point. The kids believe something else and it's not what are saying.
edit on 5-11-2012 by antonia because: added a thought



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by BobbyTarass

I can't believe how full of yourself and condescending you sound. Your whole point is "I know better than them" which, seeing your analogy about the hammer, is totaly wrong.



So taking the hammer analogy...what is the "right" way of seeing it?

Yours perhaps? Just a really wild guess...

(How old are you, btw?
)
edit on 5-11-2012 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


and you used wiki...

remember...I am laughing....thanks for that. This is fun.

avoid the man (argument) behind the curtain....ooooh ahhhhhh.....ooooh.

edit on 5-11-2012 by manykapao because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by manykapao
reply to post by antonia
 



remember...I am laughing....thanks for that. This is fun.


Well, have a nice day then.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


bye!






that is true only because people at that age like the idea of someone taking over for their parents in caring for them.

Also, the evils people associate with capitalism, are done so ignorantly. What we see as the evils of the current system are in fact aspects of CORPORITISM. Big difference.

In capitalism a bad business that cannot compete because of poor quality products or services, poor productivity by mistreating employees, customers, communities ect. is left to run out of business and be replaced by a viable business that offers better services and products. When the government bails you out and gives you public subsidy for private profit (free enterprise) you see a form of SOCIALISM where the government interferes with the natural cycle of the market.

Government regulates business in capitalism, it does not save it from poor business practices. The whole concept of "too big to fail" is a borrow over from socialism where vital parts of industry are wed to government creating stagnation, which is only curable by public tax money being funneled into private hands. That is not capitalism.

These kids are being miss led in many cases, or are too lazy to check what they support. They would see that capitalism is in decline and socialism with all sorts of public spending on private enterprises is on the rise. That is age old socialism.

Corporatism is an adaptation, rather underhandedly of socialism in modern day capitalism. The paranoia and hate fueled against capitalism is all propaganda by socialist states that want to see the world better reflect their system.

I should add that socialism is just a failed venture on borrowed time as well. The colonies fed Europe and allowed a life style they were not producing enough to keep realistically. When the colonies stopped sending tribute they started borrowing on future money and in so doing pushed the world into similar practices, since it allows for greater debt.

Really socialism has been more destructive in terms of finance then communism and outright dictatorships. It has accomplished more than any of those systems allowed. It also has demonized capitalism in the process.

How about if you earn it you get it. If not, you don't. Period.

Another suggestion, make money have an actual worth. The world bank might not like it, but in the US we always liked it, and until relatively recently kept a gold standard which we only abandoned by external pressure on our leadership. Like the installation of the federal reserve, modeled after Europe with "responsible men" over seeing a nations money behind the scenes and in "good faith"...private hands controlling public money.


THAT was my argument. Not about fascism or socialism defined to the satisfaction of everyone here.

EDIT TO ADD:
we would then be engaged in a semantic argument if we did argue that, which is just a waste of everyones time


edit on 5-11-2012 by manykapao because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by pierregustavetoutant
 


Socialism is the extreme opposite of compassion.

WHAT?!!

No.

No, it isn't. Please do some research. You are as far off when you say this, as another member was who recently asked if a Republican/right-wing talking point was heard on NPR.

:shk:

Good gawd, people!
If you don't understand a term used, LOOK IT UP! If you don't know much about a political ideology, LOOK IT UP! Don't just listen to other unaware people who have no idea what they're talking about.

GO MILLENIALS, GO! At least we raised you right!



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
reply to post by schuyler
 


To be fair the reason why socialism and communism fail is not that they are inherently flawed, but rather that the leaders who put them in play are inherently greedy and apathetic towards the well being of their subjects. The idea of "We" before "I" isn't a bad one.


No, the reason why true socialism is not achievable is because people are not insects. People will work for their own self interests. Some people are less industrious than others. Some will work for the greater good and some will choose to ride upon the effort of others. Why work harder than the other guy if you are not rewarded? Why innovate? Why not sit on your can and live off the work of others? This is why true socialism is not attainable and why eventually socialism and communism will fail.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by pierregustavetoutant
 


Socialism is the extreme opposite of compassion.

WHAT?!!

No.

No, it isn't. Please do some research. You are as far off when you say this, as another member was who recently asked if a Republican/right-wing talking point was heard on NPR.

:shk:

Good gawd, people!
If you don't understand a term used, LOOK IT UP! If you don't know much about a political ideology, LOOK IT UP! Don't just listen to other unaware people who have no idea what they're talking about.

GO MILLENIALS, GO! At least we raised you right!



Actually, Pierre is correct. In order for the collective to work, to have its needs met, to provide for everyone an equal share, then the needs and wants of the individual must be set aside for the greater good. If worker x cannot produce enough to survive and worker y can produce much more due to his superior skill, then worker y must be pushed harder to provide for worker x otherwise the system would fail.




top topics



 
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join