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.

 

Socialism is the best ideology

page: 7
43
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2013 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leonidas
reply to post by DanCullen
 



Careful with your definitions there.

State+Capitalism = Fascism.
State+Socialism = Communism
Democracy + Capitalism = Free Market (pre-WW2)
Democracy + Socialism = North America, Europe, Australia/NZ etc. today


Wrong man! Fascism was simply italian national socialism(socialism plus nationalism). Nazism was german national socialism.

There is NO such thing as state socialism because it is taken for granted that the state acts as proxy for the people who own business and run it to keep profits for themselves. For example in alaska people get dividends sometimes for the oil industry that is state owned. If the business goes under then the tax payer foots the bill and its called a bailout.

Democracy is completly IRRELLEVANT to economic systems. Democracy means people can choose what elected officials and party they want DIRECTLY by popular vote count and people in general have a large DIRECT say in government regulation.

A republic implies INDIRECT METHODS, which is also the most common method of governing worldwide.

Then we have dictatorships where one person and party rule for a very long time with barely any input from the citizens.




posted on May, 18 2013 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leonidas
reply to post by neo96
 


...says a man living in a socialist state.



Want to know the difference between capitalism, and socialism?

Who pays that is the only difference.



posted on May, 18 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   


Democracy + Capitalism = Free Market (pre-WW2)


There is no such thing as a 'free market' first off.

Long before ww2 there was that thing call the Federal Reserve Act that created fiat money.



posted on May, 18 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   
I have to say that it is great to meet someone who thinks alike. I've also always been astonished by the fact that such a pure ideology as Marxism never fully functioned when it was put into practice in the form of Communism. Considering the strong evidence of Zionist participation in the Red Revolution in October I also question the motives of the ones that put this system into place. I'm currently working on creating a basic model for a new ideology which combines the effective elements of Marxism and (believe it or not) the free market system. It is my strong believe that, for a Marxism-like system to work in the real world, the allocation of luxurious items should be done according to the balance created by the free market. This will, in my view, however need to happen in a Non-monetary society. This because we have all seen that money creates the sick need to accumulate at the expense of the unfortunate.

Instead of money, non-transferable points will be used which can be obtained by working. Having a system without money but with proper incentive to work will lead to the free sharing of all available information and resources and this will lead to a much greater production-output. This system will be called Synergism (for obvious reasons). You can expect a full OP on my vision on this ideology in a couple of weeks. Positive input will then (naturally) be greatly appreciated.

S&F, CerdoFuego.



posted on May, 18 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Leonidas
 


I guarantee you, not by his choice or mine either.
Laos stayed communist after the great S.E. Asian patriotic war and Cambodia with Pol Pot set that country back at least two generations. Vietnam has even seen the light and is more capitalist than Socialist. They have to because once China began to promote free enterprise S.E. Asia saw the light and started trying to figure out how to increase their GDP.


edit on 18-5-2013 by 727Sky because: .......



posted on May, 18 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   
We already have socialism in the US. Have you looked at the government yet? The educational system? Welfare? Social security? The military? Public roads and parks and so on? Etc.

It's called taking from the wealthy and haves and redistributing it to the society. Whether that's for the health of poor people or people in general or the defense of the country, it's a similar idea. The police and military pretty much take from the young and tax everybody with an income.

The wealthy could just all live in bunkers and the rest of us be defenseless. This is especially true for people who would never actually defend their country. Why protect a coward? But because the defense of our country is redistributed to the society we all get to receive the benefits.

What about the poor guy that has never worked, hence has never contributed tax money, and yet he was educated in public schools and he gets to walk on public roads and is protected by police? You know how expensive just a pedestrian bridge is? Hundreds of thousands! And he can walk on it. He shouldn't deserve anything until he's actually contributed, right? This is socialism.

The US already has the best idealogy and it's not working great.
edit on 18-5-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2013 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leonidas
reply to post by beezzer
 


America, Britain, Canada, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland...just off the top of my head.

Socialism + democracy.


Incorrect.

Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy with socialist leanings + Capitalist Economy.

As for the Nordic countries...well, Iceland is a mess, and Norway, Sweden, and Denmark (all are export driven economies...which don't exist in the socialist utopia) are only capable of providing specific socialist programs due to selling resources on a capitalist market.

If those Nordic countries ever lost access to the capitalist markets that buy their products, they would be in financial meltdown in short order. This is not conjecture, this is fact that has already played out in each of the three on the list, at one point or another.
Go figure.



posted on May, 18 2013 @ 11:40 AM
link   
I feel really strongly about socialism and I agree with you for the most part OP. Except the means of production is owned by the workers in socialism not the state.

However, I'm really weary of having the same exact conversation with the same exact people about this subject at ATS. They always pull out the "But it always fails" line, and I pull out the tried and true "It's never been implemented" reply. Ad nauseum. Socialist programs exist everywhere and yet people are like "Capitalism means FREEEDOM! USA! USA!"

So I'm just gonna sit back and wait for Anok to get here to lay waste to the thread with reason, logic, and education.



posted on May, 18 2013 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Malynn
So I'm just gonna sit back and wait for Anok to get here to lay waste to the thread with reason, logic, and education.


Anybody that believes that pure socialism is the solution, threw reason and logic out the window long before this thread.

Here is a very simple question (that I encourage anybody to answer):

If socialism is utopia, why has it never been successfully implemented in humanity's existence?



posted on May, 18 2013 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by jonnywhite
 


Overall the USA is a liberal country with a few socialist tendacies. Canada was a true socialist country. USSR was a communist country.

Conservatives want free markets and socially are very conservative as well, meaning no abortion, religious, anti-gay, no welfare state, etc.

The welfare state can exist both in liberal and progressive countries.

conservative(free markets)-----liberal(regulated capitalism plus welfare state)---progressive/centrist(mixed economy with welfare state)---revolutionary/communist(everything is state/people owned with an extreme welfare state).

right TO left! This is what I learned in schools when they still taught meaningful stuff back in the 80s. Today they are pumping out closed minded, misinformed ignoramous folks and it is very sad indeed. Everyone is confused.



posted on May, 18 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Canada was a true socialist country. USSR was a communist country.


Canada has never been pure socialist country.

USSR has never been a pure communist country.



posted on May, 18 2013 @ 11:59 AM
link   
What's with all these pro socialism threads? I think you guys need to go study history before posting any more of this garbage.

I'm going to request that this thread be removed or combined with the other socialism threads. I'm not sure why we have to keep discussing this asinine ideology.

edit on 18-5-2013 by Nicks87 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2013 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by peck420

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Canada was a true socialist country. USSR was a communist country.


Canada has never been pure socialist country.

USSR has never been a pure communist country.


It depends on what you mean by "pure". Everything is subjective and relative to something else. Nothing is really pure. I was simply giving BASIC DEFINITIONS to help folks who are really confused.

Technically though you may be correct! Canada has had lots of covert influence from the british monarchy, as has australia, south africa, new zealand and even the usa. They consider their former colonies(those that speak english) as commonwealth countries.

USSR could have been either state capitalist(exploited by the communist party) or pure communist. I don't think there is enough information to conclude either way. What I do know is that the anarchy types are the ones to scream *state capitalism* all the time because nothing is ever good enough for them.



posted on May, 18 2013 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nicks87
What's with all these pro socialism threads? I think you guys need to go study history before posting any more of this garbage.

I'm going to request that this thread be removed or combined with the other socialism threads. I'm not sure why we have to keep discussing this asinine idealogy.


sour grapes much? People should be aware of poltical science since apparently most folks DON'T get taught about it in school anymore. It is sad!



posted on May, 18 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
It depends on what you mean by "pure". Everything is subjective and relative to something else. Nothing is really pure. I was simply giving BASIC DEFINITIONS to help folks who are really confused.


You are only adding to the confusion (just my opinion). Canada has never operated under a socialist system. We have never even attempted it. We have, however, borrowed certain socialist programs to assist.



Technically though you may be correct! Canada has had lots of covert influence from the british monarchy, as has australia, south africa, new zealand and even the usa. They consider their former colonies(those that speak english) as commonwealth countries.


Covert? There is nothing covert about Canada's system. You can trace back Canada's development from the stories of the aboriginal population, to the entrance of Europeans, to today.



USSR could have been either state capitalist(exploited by the communist party) or pure communist. I don't think there is enough information to conclude either way. What I do know is that the anarchy types are the ones to scream *state capitalism* all the time because nothing is ever good enough for them.


There is plenty of information on the USSR. They could best be described as a modified oligarchy. They did get a couple charismatic leaders that were able to sell 'communism' to a significant segment of the population, but those same leaders really operated as an oligarchy.

I see your point, though, on the confusion and it is, imho, from the politicization of certain topics that the confusion arises. Things like Canada being socialist never gained any traction until it was used as a label by US politicians. USSR's communism was sold as a catch phrase, not as an actual system, etc, etc.



posted on May, 18 2013 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by peck420

You are only adding to the confusion (just my opinion). Canada has never operated under a socialist system. We have never even attempted it. We have, however, borrowed certain socialist programs to assist.


Canada did not have a mixed economy in practical terms? A mixed economy implies some sectors of the economy are privately owned and some sectors are publicly owned. In the USA most sectors were and still are privately owned hence USA is liberal.



There is plenty of information on the USSR. They could best be described as a modified oligarchy. They did get a couple charismatic leaders that were able to sell 'communism' to a significant segment of the population, but those same leaders really operated as an oligarchy.


Actually they called themselves socialists(union of soviet socialist republics) but in practical terms they were communist. The gas attendant worked for the state and the premier worked for the state. How honest the system was is anyones guess. I have talked to people who lived in rumania, albania, bulgaria, ussr and none spoke of such great evil. They had mixed feelings about it. I think it is westerners who demonise it because of propaganda purposes. They were brought up to hate it based on misinformation, not real reasons.

I think you are the one adding unnecessary confusion. Just my opinion!



posted on May, 18 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Theories are grand... and when it comes to wants and desires, even if it's just for subsistence and survival... all human beings have a reasonable desire to get by, better themselves and their families if they can, and live in peace unmolested by others or by "the state".

Ideals... "Ideologies" Great stuff. Completely devoid of the impulses of human behavior, of course... therefore not based in reality. The ideal of communism is a completely self regulating "community" that cares for all.

In some ways, we have it already in the U.S., in communities where they have taken hold of developing the local resources and assets... growing food, sharing community resources in an equitable manner... but it is individuals learning and growing in their ability to work together, and otherwise "live and let live" that has revitalized these communities.

There IS still Free Enterprise, and in fact, that is a large part of the driving force behind these communities. Corporate Free Enterprise... "capitalism" is NOT a part of what revitalizes these communities.

The irony of this conversation, is in the glaring fallacy of a "benevolent equalization" of goods, services and rights that presumably exists in a pure communist system. It works great on paper, until you inject human nature and The State into the equation.

Power, is a corrupting influence on human beings... even if that power is nothing more than "you are not properly enlightened, therefore you no longer have a say in what matters to the people."

FadedFace... your own attitude, exhibited in your response to others in this conversation, is evidence of what it would be like living in a system where people like you are charged with managing the system.

If you had power... would you use it to enforce compliance with your wishes, in more than the words you said, quoted below?

Fair question. As someone who has spent plenty of time studying the disconnection between ideology and ideals in actual practice... I have answered that question to my satisfaction.

What do you say?




You've obviously never read any socialist and communist theory and just base your opinion on a false perception of the ideology and the capitalist propaganda you've been indoctrinated with. Go back to worshipping rich fascists and don't post in this thread again.

edit on 18-5-2013 by dasman888 because: Zombie kitties



posted on May, 18 2013 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by fadedface
'The only alternative to socialism is barbarism' Karl Marx

Socialism is the fairest and most equal political ideology where wealth is evenly distributed through all levels of society and the means of production is cooperatively organised and run by the working class. Trade and manufacture is based on necessity and everyone is designated a job based on their abilities and capabilities. All industry is owned by the 'State' and constitutes a nationalised publicly owned body which encompasses everything from high tech mechanised industry to service and goods and food outlets. In this scenario private commerce and ownership as well as free enterprise and entrepreneurialism will be abolished. The socialist state system will based on equality there will be no competition and no winners or losers and no class divisions.

This socialist society will eventually transition to full communism which in its purest form has never properly existed. I consider many of the derivatives of communism which have existed in the past such as 'Stalinism' to be deliberate subversions of the ideology to discredit it which has led to the simple minded accusation that 'communism doesn't work'. Communism has been corrupted by human hierarchical behaviour whereas capitalism accommodates this and is inherently corrupt because it is based on competition.

Capitalism promotes greed which in turns leads to poverty and inequality the only people who defend capitalism are those who know how to make money and these people always go on about 'how hard they've worked' when in reality they've had the breaks given to them somewhere along the line and begrudge others who haven't been as fortunate as them.

edit on 17-5-2013 by fadedface because: amending

edit on 5/17/2013 by benevolent tyrant because: to correct spelling in thread title.


Nope, wrong. The ultimate ideology would be anarchy. Where each individual could be trusted to be a good person and act in a civilized manner without the aid of a government. With that said, that form of government is impossible as this is not an ideal world. In other words, it's pointless to even discuss.



posted on May, 18 2013 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Oannes
The only reason Socialism is demonized is because it goes against the NWO's agenda. They don't wan't to share the wealth . Only the stimulation of there pockets will suffice. The only real way to boost an economy is to give to those that actually need it. The greedy know this. What they fear most is everyone being equal. That's why Socialist presidents win in landslides in South American countries. The game is up and they know it. We still don't. How about a stimulus plan where average people get a huge check in the mail ?


Socialists win landslides in South American countries because they are bribing the poor to vote for them using other peoples money. That and the supression of opposition parties and dissenting media outlets. The really important thing is that the poor stay reliant on their benifactor for their money. That way they keep voting for them. Heaven forbid that the poor start to make money for themselves and become well off. They might not vote for them anymore if they they don't need the governments largesse anymore.



posted on May, 18 2013 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Socialism where everything is shared with everyone else (free health-care through all paying taxes, and so on...)

this seems to be the most caring form of ideology rather than capitalism (nobody matters, each man for himself).

Most people automatically associated Socialism (equal sharing through ALL paying taxes) with Communism (one controls all and whatever that one cares to give is shared among all the people).


To be honest, though. I did NOT study much in this field so I probably don't know what I'm talking about! I just have a basic definition of Capitalism, Socialism, Democracy, Republicanism, etc.
edit on 18-5-2013 by arpgme because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join