Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Concise Reason Why Socialism Will Never Work In The Western World!

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Yeah... it sounds like your thread should be about the failure of capitalism.

Every point youve addressed is about what capitalism and the "free markets" have done to society.

Seems like your just randomly tossing in socialism as some sort of whipping boy to take all the blame. You seem rather desparate to shift the blame.




posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 11:24 AM
link   
This idea that the USA is on the verge of
going socialist has zero merit.

Ask the stock market how it feels since Obama.
Oh but I know..just wait..

The more I wait for this black panther commie to
take over our beloved country, the stronger
Capitalism gets.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Same old double standard as always. Capitalists claiming that what is in place isn't "true capitalism" while not allowing socialist to claim the same about socialism.

The fact is that crony capitalism has always been the norm, both in capitalist and socialist countries. The elite don't care what it's called because they always corrupt any system and manipulate to their advantage, while everyone else is left arguing semantics.
edit on 9-3-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 12:38 PM
link   
I don't know what everyone is getting all excited about. The capitalists are doing just fine in Obama's socialist Greek Tragedy.

It's the lower classes. who aren't moving into the same neighborhoods that Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt live in comfortably. But of course, that's not how socialism works. Socialism works by placating the lower classes.

The only surcease the lower class has is being able to brag that their Democrat is in the White House. That won't change. The lower classes have been thoroughly indoctrinated into believing that government subsistence is the best they can accomplish.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by coltcall
 


No, they have not been brainwashed or indoctrinated. They have clearly seen that the system is engineered to keep the profits of empire from flowing their way, even if they were participating in it. It is the working class that has been indoctrinated into believing that "one day they may be rich, too" if they just keep working harder and harder and producing more and more in a system with stagnant wages while the richest one tenth of one percent take more in a few minutes than their employees will earn in the course of their lifetime. It's a scam, the game really is rigged. Everything else is just a carrot dangling before your eyes to keep you working and making profit for them.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   
The real capitalist know full well that Obama isn't a socialist. They are prospering almost as well as the Clinton years.

www.forbes.com...

The only people that think Obama is a Commie/socialist are the pathetic people that listen to Rush and the other GOP/TPM agenda motivated, talking heads like Sean H. Wall st. the epitome of capitalism loves Obama. Try to think outside the BS box the AM radio guys have put you in; Even ATS, with it's lean to the Right skews true information. Is it intentional? perhaps, perhaps not. Deny Ignorance....yeah right
edit on 9-3-2013 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by olaru12
 


True, and real socialists know that Obama is not a socialist. He's a centrist corporate Democrat, who just happens have a couple of socially liberal (but not at all socialist) positions on enough issues to make him popular with the masses. And you are correct, despite what many may have been taught by Fox News Channel and the Conservative media, Liberal and Socialist are not the same thing. As an illustration, I understand many right-wingers tend to believe the MSNBC is a socialist/liberal news channel, and to some extent it is "liberal". However, if it were actually "socialist" you would not see *commercials* on the channel because *commercials* are a necessity of a market-driven capitalist economic system, not a planned socialist one. Liberals love capitalism just as much as conservatives do.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Duamutef9
 


There is NO system where everyone gets wealthy. Unless you're talking about Shangra La, Heaven or Paradise or an afternoon's fantasy at Disney World.

Not everyone is chief or shaman of the tribe. Not everyone is pilot of a commercial aircraft carrying five hundred people.

Social Darwinism just doesn't work that way. There is even a head monk of the monks of any particular Shao Lin sect. Unless everyone reaches absolute enlightenment of Nirvana. But somebody leads the Ommmmm chanting.

It's all human nature. If as you say that a small percentage get wealthy, well, no argument there. There are more wealthy today simply because there are more people on the planet. Still, the percentages remain in the minority for those who hit pay dirt big time.

Yet there are those systems that allow for lateral movement. The neighbor has a newer used car or whatever. In the ghetto, there's not a lot to say for lateral movement. Except to admire the ghetto drug kingpin who has amassed a fortune selling crack and pimping out the prostitutes.

In the ghetto, everyone aspires to be the Head Kingpin Pimp. Very few get there. There's often a lot of drive by shooting to trim the rank and file. You can quite easily consider a drive by shooting and a curbside death as indoctrination of that particular ghetto, socialist system.

There's indoctrination in every system. Sometimes it's call mass market advertising. It's amazing how the Pied Piper advertising and media system mesmerized the mass mindset of even the seemingly most intelligent of the middle class.

If people couldn't be easily brainwashed, they wouldn't have brains.

Meanwhile, the numbers of brain washers is still small compared to the numbers of lemmings. I guess brain washers are just a lot craftier than the lemmings, no?



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by olaru12
 


C'mon. Obama would love nothing more than to turn America into a Communist state. Except he can't. He makes a lot of noise. The liberal media gives him a lot of adulation. Still, there are waaaayyyyyy too many Constitutionalist Americans who will take to chanting slogans out of Obama's fantasized Little Red Book.

Besides, Stalin didn't spend a lot of time on the golf courses of the world. Obama is NO Stalin. He is a Stalin wannabe. But NO Stalin DNA there. Obama enjoys his golf time too much to be taken serious as a Communist Community Organizer anymore.

So, the dude gets his eight years living rent free in the White House while he and George Soros rake in tons of personal cash. Yeah, if it wasn't Obama doing it, it'd be Harry Belafonte's evil twin getting away with the scam.

Or maybe Sean Penn's secret love child begat with Beyonce' or someone.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Duamutef9
 


Obama is in office to perform ONE major service: that is to keep the wars going overseas.

He's done a pretty good job of performing that service for the Pentagon. You don't see liberal antiwar types protesting in the streets like they did during Vietnam. The secret is long as the welfare liberals have their food stamps and welfare checks, they're placated. They really don't spend a lot of time worrying about the Afghan children being blown up or the flowers that are dying in an unfair world.

Everyone with any sense pretty much agrees that far as foreign policy goes, Obama is an extension of Bush in the Mideast....spreading to Africa.

And maybe North Korea? Boy, I bet Obama is losing sleep over that possibility. North Korea could really mess up Obama's cush golfing schedule. That'd be distracting the war effort from the Mideast and Africa over there to the Pacific, again. Iranian nukes is one thing. North Korean nukes is another thing.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   
American constitutional democracy at the very start of the twentieth century was the best model society that most socialist's dream of (and it was not socialism) as most of the population were industrious and hard working self employed, by the end of the twentieth century this had reversed and most American's had become wage slave's working for large corporation's that have actually taken the democracy over, replace the name corporation with nobility and you can see why the Russian people starving and working for barely enough to eat turned on there employer's.

Political system's move like a pendulum and when somebody block's the free movement of the weight it simply get's heavier and heavier until if break's free usually violently.

If the American government wishes to save itself and the rest of the west it had better start restoring democracy to it's citizen's and people before the pendulum swing's or it will take them down with it, I just hope come what may the American constitution survives as it is an inspiration the rest of us.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   
It really dosent mather what name a political system have if its intentions are to keep the people in chackles.
Most political systems today can not exist unles it keeps its citizens in debt.

It rally dosent matter what political system we have as long as we do what the system commands.

Why blame the government for all the things you do for it. Some of you will soon be in debt for bying a car or a house. From that moment on you are at the systems disposal. And when you have kids you will send them to be school to be educated into the system. Ironey right .)

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by LABTECH767
American constitutional democracy at the very start of the twentieth century was the best model society that most socialist's dream of (and it was not socialism) as most of the population were industrious and hard working self employed, by the end of the twentieth century this had reversed and most American's had become wage slave's working for large corporation's that have actually taken the democracy over, replace the name corporation with nobility and you can see why the Russian people starving and working for barely enough to eat turned on there employer's.

Political system's move like a pendulum and when somebody block's the free movement of the weight it simply get's heavier and heavier until if break's free usually violently.


There is really not much difference between state owned, and privately owned industry. Both are exploitation of labour.

Europe towards the end of feudalism was also moving in the direction of socialism, before the term was coined, and before capitalism replaced feudalism. Villages were cooperating and trading, and the people were more or less autonomous through their income. The land owners saw this as a threat to their power and wealth, so they had the inclosure laws enacted. This allowed land owners to fence off their land, and deny it's use to others. Land was no longer 'common land' (the commons) and it's use denied. This forced the 'commoners' to seek "jobs" in the factories and mills of the land owners. Capitalism replaced feudalism.


English commons
Main article: Common land

Originally in medieval England the common was an integral part of the manor, and was thus legally part of the estate in land owned by the lord of the manor, but over which certain classes of manorial tenants and others held certain rights. By extension, the term "commons" has come to be applied to other resources which a community has rights or access to. The older texts use the word "common" to denote any such right, but more modern usage is to refer to particular rights of common, and to reserve the name "common" for the land over which the rights are exercised. "Common land" does not mean state-owned or public land, but is owned by private individuals or corporations called partition units. A person who has a right in, or over, common land jointly with another or others is called a commoner.[10]


Commons



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by coltcall
 


You prove my point by assuming that I would want "everyone to be wealthy". The entire notion of "wealth" and "being wealthy" only serves the interest of those who are "wealthy" by making people chase "wealth" and benefiting from that chase.

I want people to be wise, healthy and happy. "Wealth" has little or nothing to do with any of those, and by claiming that it does, you perpetuate the enslavement of the entire human race to a system of exploitation. Further, making the assertion that things could be a different way is not the same as believing in a mythical location. Again, the refusal to entertain different possibilities of being serves those who profit from the status quo, which is why so much energy and resources go into leveraging people into believing something that a child can tell you isn't true.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   
The accumulation of tokens is no indicaton of achievement.....We won't be progressing far as a species until we stop meddling with 'money' and start creating things again.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


It won't work simply because the ones who want wealth power and the spotlight will make sure they jump ship on the previous ism to head up the new ism to continue their aspirations.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Duamutef9
 


I'd argue that it takes 'wisdom' and 'good health' to create wealth. Whereas just hanging around being like everyone else who is just hanging around creates lethargy.

Lethargy creates weight gain and a couch potato mentality.

Competition is good for the human spirit. Competition creates incentive that builds testosterone. And you know how the body and mind deteriorates without testosterone.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by squarehead666
 


You write as though the human race was better off huddle around a campfire warding off saber tooth tigers on the prowl.

Humans have opposable thumbs which separate us from the rest of the animal kingdom. Creating tokens is part and parcel to having opposable thumbs.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by votan
 


The idea of success is to be adaptable. If one system doesn't work for you, jump ship to another system that will work.

You find that abhorrent?



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by coltcall
 


And you continue to assume a dichotomy where none exists. For you, either one is industrious because they are seeking to gain wealth, or they are, as you put it, "hanging around". There are a myriad of human activities that do not seek the amassing of money as their goal. Reading intelligent books, artistic creativity for it's own sake, performing volunteer work in one's society, etc. None of these are seeking to pad one's bank account, and yet they are not merely "couch potato" behaviors. In a society that only values that which can be privatized and monetized, these humane activities are disdained, as you now display quite obviously. The tired rhetoric that gets trotted out in defense of this ridiculousness not only finds its way out in every corner of society, it comes out of the mouths of those who would only realize what they are saying if they would actually stop and think for a second. Wisdom and health have nothing to do with capitalist wealth-gathering, otherwise the United States would be the healthiest and wisest nation on Earth, and I assure you that neither of these are the case.

And as for competition, it has it's place in entertainment and sport, but humanity as a whole has progressed far more because of cooperation. No man is an island, no nation is without alliances. There is a reason for this. Unbridled competition is the path to tyranny and oppression because then there has to be a "victor" who expects a reward for his success, and for most victors, the world is not enough. And if competition and incentive are so necessary for testosterone production, one has to wonder why so many sports personalities resort to steroids in order to maintain their competitive "edge". Surely their competitiveness and incentive should be more than what would be necessary to engage human spirit and testosterone production in pursuit of winning....with no need to cheat or bend the rules, right?





new topics




 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join