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: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes

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.




I just did some research on socialism and came back with names such as Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mugabe, Castro, Chavez, Lenin....or: History repeating itself. Would you suggest other paths of research?
edit on 5-11-2012 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Skyfloating,
that member (from what I've read of his posts) has an excellent first-hand grasp on what socialism is. And he is correct.

Socialism is not "taking your hammer from you". It's about the workers enjoying the profits of their contributions, IN PROPORTION to the amount they contribute.
I mean no disrespect, but really, the vast majority of American ATS members haven't really got a grasp on what "socialism" entails.

The best analogy I can think of is NO INVESTOR-ONLY SHAREHOLDERS. Companies don't "go public" and then screw over their employees just so the "investors" get rich AT THE EXPENSE OF THE WELL-BEING OF THE WORKERS.

Rather, in Socialism the WORKERS receive the rewards directly, and they decide on policy and trajectory, and the profits of their efforts are enjoyed BY THEM, for working TOGETHER. There's no "third party dividend" that goes to otherwise completely UNINVOLVED and NON-CONTRIBUTING people who just threw some money at the company.

To you, and EVERYONE on ATS, I don't mean to be disrespectful, I'm just frustrated and surprised. These are really important real-world issues, and everyone needs to have actual info rather than extremist mistaken ideas of what they mean.

I'll be back later.
Sorry for getting kerfuffled.


edit on 5-11-2012 by wildtimes because: I failed to remain objective. SORRY, sky.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   
since we like definitions.





cap·i·tal·ism
[kap-i-tl-iz-uh m] Show IPA

noun
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.
dictionary.reference.com...


and here is what Europe has and calls it socialism. It is what the US has and calls it capitalism. The definitions have little weight when considering the only important point about the practice. IT IS A LIE. Definitions of political and economic ideologies are only as good as their practice. China is not exactly a communist state anymore since it embraced a modified form of capitalism now is it. Pure form ideologies DO NOT EXIST IN PRACTICE. EVER.


Corporatism

In the last half of the 19th century people of the working class in Europe were beginning to show interest in the ideas of socialism and syndicalism. Some members of the intelligentsia, particularly the Catholic intelligentsia, decided to formulate an alternative to socialism which would emphasize social justice without the radical solution of the abolition of private property. The result was called Corporatism. The name had nothing to do with the notion of a business corporation except that both words are derived from the Latin word for body, corpus.

The basic idea of corporatism is that the society and economy of a country should be organized into major interest groups (sometimes called corporations) and representatives of those interest groups settle any problems through negotiation and joint agreement. In contrast to a market economy which operates through competition a corporate economic works through collective bargaining. The American president Lyndon Johnson had a favorite phrase that reflected the spirit of corporatism. He would gather the parties to some dispute and say, "Let us reason together."
www.sjsu.edu...


Under corporatism the labor force and management in an industry belong to an industrial organization. The representatives of labor and management settle wage issues through collective negotiation. While this was the theory in practice the corporatist states were largely ruled according to the dictates of the supreme leader.
www.sjsu.edu...




corporatism, Italian corporativismo, also called corporativism, the theory and practice of organizing society into “corporations” subordinate to the state. According to corporatist theory, workers and employers would be organized into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and controlling to a large extent the persons and activities within their jurisdiction. However, as the “corporate state” was put into effect in fascist Italy between World Wars I and II, it reflected the will of the country’s dictator, Benito Mussolini, rather than the adjusted interests of economic groups.

www.britannica.com...



EDIT:
So who owns the means of production in Europe? Who settles disputes FOR the workers instead of BY the workers?

Yeah. Enjoy your "socialism"
edit on 5-11-2012 by manykapao because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Yes, I would suggest you look into the Greek philosophers, and the actual "platform" that Socialism represents, not the extremist tyrants that corrupted it.


Democratic socialists endorse a post-capitalist, socialist economic system as an alternative to capitalism. Some democratic socialists advocate market socialism based on workplace self-management, while others support a non-market system based on decentralized-participatory planning. Many contemporary democratic socialists reject centralized planning as a basis for democratic socialism.[1]

That's from Democratic Socialism on Wiki

There are several different off-shoots and styles. America would practice Democratic Socialism, or Market Socialism. Good grief.

Using the term "socialism" and then "Pol Pot" as though they are equal is ridiculous. It's like saying the only thing being Christian means is to go to a veteran's funeral and hold up a sign saying "God hates fags."






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



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
Socialism is not "taking your hammer from you". It's about the workers enjoying the profits of their contributions, IN PROPORTION to the amount they contribute. *facepalm*


I will respond to this part and politely ignore your personal attacks and indignation.

What you are saying here is that socialism is workers profiting from their contributions. That would appear to contradict what was said before. Staying with the analogy, if I build a hammer then I would be the only one to benefit from it. Correct?



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by wildtimes

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.




I just did some research on socialism and came back with names such as Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mugabe, Castro, Chavez, Lenin....or: History repeating itself. Would you suggest other paths of research?
edit on 5-11-2012 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)


You must have taken that from US sources, because those are exactly the kind of people they want you to associate socialism with.

Mao Zedong: communist
Pol Pot: communist
Stalin: communist
Robert Mugabe: Marxist
Fidel Castro: communist
Hugo Chávez: socialist
Vladimir Lenin: communist

Only one of these is a true socialist: Hugo Chávez. Now if you do some research on him, you may actually find how much he is loved by the poor Venezuelan people. Not the rich of course, they don´t want to share, and he is certainly not loved by the folks in the US! He is everything the USA would not want you to believe a president can actually be.
edit on 5/11/2012 by RationalDespair because: Error in BB tag



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Tranny
 


Nope. Just graduated HS a few years ago. All they do is indoctrinate you into thinking that capitalism is the greatest thing in the world. It is the way to achieve freedom and riches.

One of the whole reasons they tell you to stay in HS is that HS graduates earn more money....go to college so you can earn more money......capitalism is brainwashed into all the youth. So many cartoons have plot-lines that involve the main character trying to get rich.

Nearly all popular music has lyrics bragging about their money, material things, and how great it is. There are so many reality shows featuring rich people, just to show off their richness.

The US is so brainwashed into capitalism that they don't even realize it, because it is such normalcy.




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



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by RationalDespair
 


actually Hugo can't go into certain cities in his country because the local militia wants to kill him. He just pays their opposition and keeps them happy.

There are whole cities of poor people that can't stand him.

Anti-Americanism has no place in describing what Socialism has failed to do. but hey, it's not socialism.
Its corporatism and the Catholic church devised it..



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by RationalDespair


You must have taken that from US sources, because those are exactly the kind of people they want you to associate socialism with.

Mao Zedong: communist
Pol Pot: communist
Stalin: communist
Robert Mugabe: Marxist
Fidel Castro: communist
Hugo Chávez: socialist
Vladimir Lenin: communist



Socialism is the pre-condition to Communism. You should know that.





Only one of these is a true socialist: Hugo Chávez. Now if you do some research on him, you may actually find how much he is loved by the poor Venezuelan people. Not the rich of course, they don´t want to share, and he is certainly not loved by the folks in the US! He is everything the USA would not want you to believe a president can actually be.



Please no...not another "the rich and successful are evil scum that dont want to share and contribute nothing to civilization and society and the poor are hapless and oppressed victims who have no responsibility for their situation at all".

No thanks...Ive been through this conversation a million times on ATS. Contact me again in 30 years (if ATS still exists then).



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by manykapao
 


Well, if you know about that, you would also know that there is a lot of controversy about who set up these militia *cough*CIA*cough*. I don´t have proof for that, but years ago I read an interesting article about Chávez wanting to sell his oil directly for Euros instead of Dollars, and that threw the US into an anti-Chavez campaign that hasn´t stopped since, apparently.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


If you follow the hammer (means of production) analogy you will see that socialism makes zero sense. Analogies like this allow us to look at things on a micro-scale, free of politicial propaganda. So have a look and tell me what happens to the HAMMER (and perhaps sickle
) that I produced with my own hands.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 



Socialism is the pre-condition to Communism. You should know that.


In Marxism it is...but socialism was around before Engels or Marx ever wrote anything. They wrote so little on socialism anyway.

There are many different variations of socialism, Marx didn't create it nor is God of the theory.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Human Action Mises

The Theory of Money and Credit Mises

The Road to Serfdom Hayek

Capitalism and The Historians Hayek

The Case Against the Fed Rothbard

What Has Government Done With Our Money? Rothbard

A Histroy of Banking In the United States From Colonial Times Through The Civil War Rothbard

Forty Centuries of Wage and Price Controls Schuettinger/Butler

Modern Money Mechanics (Fed Manifesto)

Propaganda Bernays

EO 11110 Kennedy

The above a good examples of why the youth favors 'socialism' over 'capitalism'. Firstly they are indoctrinated to do so, because they simply refuse to educate themselves in regards to economic concepts. In the modern era, we have had nothing even remotely resembling 'Free Markets' yet the Austrian School of Economics has been blamed for every economic collapse since the Panic of 1907.

TPTB will never allow a true free market system. Why? Because it is much harder to manipulate; corporations and their economies of scale are at a competitive disadvantage compared to smaller, leaner businesses. Hence, the confusion of basic economic ideas even at graduate/doctorate levels – of my entire social circle I would say less that 5% read non-fiction of any kind. The fundamental problem is that people simply refuse to make-up their own minds, by self-education namely because it is a massive investment few are willing to tackle.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Socialism is the pre-condition to Communism. You should know that.


That´s what they teach you in school over there maybe, but that´s blatant nonsense. It´s only the people abusing a system that are doing that; there´s nothing wrong with pure socialism.


Originally posted by Skyfloating
Please no...not another "the rich and successful are evil scum that dont want to share and contribute nothing to civilization and society and the poor are hapless and oppressed victims who have no responsibility for their situation at all".

No thanks...Ive been through this conversation a million times on ATS. Contact me again in 30 years (if ATS still exists then).


Well, if you deny that, then there´s not much use in debating this stuff. Do you ever go outside and talk to people? Seriously, if you deny this there´s not much hope for you left.

I take full responsibility for my family, my children, but I can only go as far as a system allows me. I have to work my butt off to survive and barely manage to get by every month. When a system allows me to take a loan or credit card which I can probably never repay or even get evicted from my home, while multi-billion dollar banks are bailed out using OUR tax money, then yeah... here´s another "evil rich scum argument" for you. Wake up man.
edit on 5/11/2012 by RationalDespair because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   
I think well regulated capitalist democracy is the best system. By well regulated I mean decent hospitals schools welfare police and good economic management by the government, which in the case of the US the GFC could have been avoided, which I'm sure everyone would be happy about. Except maybe some short sellers but that's another story.

By the way I think Hugo Chavez is a total loony, I saw a really good doco on him and I'm not a fan. There's very little good about him and to suggest there is is not reality.

Russian communism failed and I think it's only a matter of time for the other so-called countries.

What pisses me off is when the US right try to call everything Obama or the Democrats do as socialist, it's sensationalist sillyness.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

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)


I've posted some messages that you can find on the first pages, not that far back. Anyway, no political or economic system can be sumed up by a one-liner or a quick analogy, it's way too complex for that.

It is as irrelevant as saying "capitalism is how, when you have a hammer for five persons, the strongest takes it and keep it to himself even when the last four guys are living under a bridge 'cause they can't build a house whithout the tool.".

It's false and stupid.

I'm not particularly positive toward socialism, sure, from your point of view it may seems that I'm defending the idea and viability of it while I'm merely pointing out that most of the people that scream "SOCIALIST" as if it was a insult are mixing up economy, politics and history (and at the same time, are trying to make people that believe in that system look like idiots with the help of ad hominem attacks, just like you did - ie : socialists are kids and/or economists who are out of touch with the real world -).

As I said previously, those youngsters don't see socialism the same way most of the people who went through the cold war in the USA see it, nowadays when they talk about socialism it's mostly about social-liberalism/modern-liberalism (en.wikipedia.org...) or a mixed economy (en.wikipedia.org...) those two systems are applied all around Europe with more or less success (as every country is different it's quite hard to keep track of the trends but as always, the northern part of Europe is seen as a good exemple).

And no : I'm not 20, I'm not socialist and I worked long enough and in tough enough jobs to not be dismissed as a lazy-university-leftist-nutjob.
edit on 5-11-2012 by BobbyTarass because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   
I actually made a thread about the true nature of our current economic model a while back, it got little attention.

here is the link
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Just basically, ask yourself a very simple question, does our current American business model follow a parasitic or sybiotic model, and is it designed to help only the few, at the expense of the many.

Our current model is self destructive, it shrinks the customer base, by paying to little, that the workers no longer have the ability to purchase goods and services, so the businesses, cut wages, benefits, and jobs. Further eroding the customer base, and once again, lowering wages, benefits, and jobs.

Pay should be directly tied to a businesses profits, so that the workers always stay in the loop, so businesses always have an expanding customer base.

Get rid of the minimum wage, as it doesn't help raise anyone out of poverty, it simply puts those making more than the minimum wage at the poverty level when it is raised. As the raise, is automatically offset by businesses raising the cost of goods and services, thus nullifying the raise to begin with.

Any corporation making hundreds of billions of profits a year, shouldn't be getting government subsidies, in the form of welfare, because they don't pay a livable wage to their employees.

If they are making hundreds of millions or billions in profits, they are making more than enough, to pay a decent wage to their employees.

This is all talked about in my linked thread, check it out, give me some feedback, you might find it to be a real viable alternative to either, capitaism, or socialism. It doesn't have to be one or the other, there is other alternatives, that can work.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   

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



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
I will respond to this part and politely ignore your personal attacks and indignation.

What you are saying here is that socialism is workers profiting from their contributions. That would appear to contradict what was said before. Staying with the analogy, if I build a hammer then I would be the only one to benefit from it. Correct?


Dear Skyfloating,
I apologize if you felt attacked. I will respond to this and then edit my previous post. I suppose I am a bit indignant because I see the term "socialism" used very often as an equivalent to "Communism", and it simply isn't.

Since you want to stay with the analogy, if you build a hammer, you would be rewarded for building it and using it in proportion to how much you build WITH IT. But a single hammer-builder is not in a "social system." He or she is an independent entity.

There has to be a group of people to make a "social system." In theory, socialism is a method of seeing to it that everyone has at least enough, and contributes their skills and time and labor to the cause. Those who are more skilled or stronger or have more expertise are rewarded for that knowledge and productivity, but the guy forging the steel for the hammer isn't left to starve so that whatever group of people (or person) that initially "funded" the forge itself gets rich.

I honestly don't mean to be attacking you, or others. I'm attempting to join the discussion with whatever understanding I have gleaned over the years. FWIW, I was trying to talk to my husband about Dems vs Repubs the other day; he is a brilliant software engineer, but doesn't know what the parties stand for. He's not really interested. I happen to have some indepth investigation into the two schools of thought under my hat, and also some philosophy of how "states" can operate under different systems. That said, there is NO pure form of government. They're all theories.

I don't want people to be afraid of "socialism". It really is beneficial to the people doing the actual labor, rather than only the financial "shareholders". The healthier and happier and more well-rewarded the WORKERS are, the better job they will do. If THEY are the ones receiving the dividends (in the form of wage increases or other in-kind perks - even "shares") --- rather than some faceless "investor" who the CEO is terrified of pissing off --- well, can you see how that makes for a win-win situation? Instead of underpaid, undervalued, exploited workers who are always on the razor's edge of their job being outsourced to some other country in the name of PROFITS, you have workers who happily give it their all because they know THEY will be better off for their work effort, not a nameless "shareholder."

In any case, I want no animosity between us. I'm only trying to dispel misunderstandings. Socialism, in it's purest form, is simply a way to ensure that workers do not become ill-treated and dispensable "slaves", with no value to oligarchs except how many hammers they can pound together in 15 minutes ("and it better be at least five, or else you're fired!")

Hope that helps clear up my intention. I'm so ready for this election to be over.

Peace.



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

Originally posted by wildtimes

Since you want to stay with the analogy, if you build a hammer, you would be rewarded for building it and using it in proportion to how much you build WITH IT. But a single hammer-builder is not in a "social system." He or she is an independent entity.


There has to be a group of people to make a "social system." In theory, socialism is a method of seeing to it that everyone has at least enough, and contributes their skills and time and labor to the cause. Those who are more skilled or stronger or have more expertise are rewarded for that knowledge and productivity, but the guy forging the steel for the hammer isn't left to starve so that whatever group of people (or person) that initially "funded" the forge itself gets rich.




The analogy is that of a village. One in the village is a hammer builder who is part of the social group called "villagers". Lets say the village needs to build a boat.

In a Meritocracy, a person is paid by merit and gets to keep his belongings. So if he built the hammer, he gets to keep it. If someone else wants it, they have to buy it or trade it with something.

He has the choice to donate the Hammer to the poor, but he is not forced or coerced to. Oftentimes he will not. But even if he doesnt, the boat that he built will benefit the entire group as will the availability of hammers.

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




top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join