Socialism is Not a 4 Letter Word

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: introvert

They were anti-communist only because communism is anti-nationalistic.

The national socialists were absolutely socialists.

That would require that the means of production was owned by the state, but as we can see with places such as Auschwitz and Monowitz, the Nazis protected and provided labor for private industry. IG Farben owned and operated plants at Auschiwitz III.

The Nazis used ultra-nationalism as part of it's propaganda, but had no problem working with outside sources for capital and providing supplies.

a reply to: introvert

National socialism and fascism are both variants of syndicalism, just not anarcho-syndicalism.

a reply to: greencmp

And fascism would be the correct term, not socialism.

a reply to: introvert

The similarities outweigh the differences.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: greencmp

And fascism would be the correct term, not socialism.

Fascism is national syndicalism which is a form of socialism.

a reply to: Isurrender73

What many people don't understand is that socialism and capitalism together cannot coexist. Under socialism the STATE owns every form of infrastructure and even private property is abolished.

This comes directly from www.workers.org The main and most known socialist website in the world.

...
The answer is a society where the means of production—factories, mines, railroads, the energy sources, all things used to create new wealth—are owned publicly, not privately. And that means socialism—a society where private property has been abolished.
...

www.workers.org...

Socialism, and Communism itself are about deception. Deceiving people into giving all power to a few elite who claim to "be the people".

In reality the claim from socialists that "the people will control the government and will own everything" is false, since it will be the state that controls all means of production and will have a say on what uses property will have. The state will be controlled by a few individuals and not by the people.

As to the claim that all/most of our social programs are socialist that's another false claim. For example, social security was originally meant to pay people a pension depending how much they earned throughout their lives. It wasn't made originally to pay all the programs that it pays these days.

Just because they are called social programs doesn't mean they are socialist in nature. It would be like claiming that traffic laws are socialist because they help everyone and minimize(or try to) accidents... It would be like saying everyone in a society is socialist because they live with other people in such society... IT would also be like claiming that "willingly" giving to the poor is socialist, which again none of it is true.

Socialism starts with the state/government owning all infrastructure, a central bank, and the abolition of private property.

What is true is that slowly countries are transforming into socialism, but it hasn't occurred completely at least yet thankfully.

In the United States for example we do have the Federal Bank, which is a central bank and part of what makes a country socialist or communist, but we still don't have the state controlling all infrastructure and there is no abolition of property yet. Although those in power have been trying their hardest to make it so. For example, by introducing property taxes even after you have already paid for your property.

BTW, this idea of taxing property was first proposed by Thomas Paine. But Paine's idea was that land that produced income owed the community a rent. His idea wasn't to tax all property. Doing so would conflict with the right to property that people have.

Meanwhile socialists/communists claim that the increase in debt globally has been caused by capitalism, the truth is that in great part the problem is that more and more socialist ideals and programs have been implemented around the world.

Capitalism has been corrupted by the progressive elites into corpocracy.

cor·poc·ra·cy 1 (kôr-pŏk′rə-sē)
n. pl. cor·poc·ra·cies
An inefficient corporation characterized by excessive layers of management.

cor·poc·ra·cy 2 (kôr-pŏk′rə-sē)
n. pl. cor·poc·ra·cies
A society dominated by politically and economically large corporations.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

When corporations control capitalism it is not capitalism anymore, but monopoly.

In fact, when certain large corporations are in control it is very similar to when the state controls everything, in which they both have monopoly over resources.

these systems always produce an elite political class who still gets to live like kings while the masses starve

That's bogus, no one's starving in Europe. In fact a lot of Europeans have a better quality of life than many Americans.

originally posted by: CB328

these systems always produce an elite political class who still gets to live like kings while the masses starve

That's bogus, no one's starving in Europe. In fact a lot of Europeans have a better quality of life than many Americans.

Poverty rates are high in Europe.

google it.

originally posted by: CB328

these systems always produce an elite political class who still gets to live like kings while the masses starve

That's bogus, no one's starving in Europe. In fact a lot of Europeans have a better quality of life than many Americans.

I was born in Cuba, a communist system that started as a true socialist system. My parents and I were able to leave Cuba and we lived in Spain for almost 10 years. The claim that all Europeans have a better quality of life than many Americans is false. I still have family in both Cuba and Spain, and we stay in contact with them.

Unemployment in Spain is much higher than in the United States. Just like in the United States, there are many people in Spain, and the rest of Europe who live from paycheck to paycheck. Only the middle class and high class in Spain live well, just like in the United States. There are rich, and poor people in Europe just like in the U.S.

If you are part of the high middle class in Spain, yes you are doing very well. I have cousins who have really good jobs in Spain. But guess what? Their parents put them in really good universities and paid for them. There are other cousins of mine in Spain who are not so lucky.

These days is even harder to get into a University in Spain, and Europe in general. In fact many students, if they are able to attend a university in Spain, leave to other countries to work. Many others have to go to universities outside of Spain.

May 23, 2014 1:04 pm
Spanish youth in crisis

By Tobias Buck

Since the financial crisis hit, young Spaniards’ lives have been put on hold. Youth unemployment stands at 55 per cent – second in the EU only to Greece – and almost half of under-30s still live with their parents.

t is not the job Marta Alba trained to do, or the one she dreamt of as a child. She doesn’t even know the salary on offer. But she knows it is a job, and a job is precious if you are 26 years old, unemployed and live in Spain.

Marta spent five years studying to be a nurse but hospital jobs are few and far between right now. She lost her part-time post at a dental clinic last year and her unemployment benefits will only last so long. She wants a job – any job – that will help her get a little closer to the life she wants to lead, to have a flat of her own and start a family with Pablo, her long-time boyfriend. Her dreams are not wildly ambitious; she just wants a “traditional life” and, if possible, to live in Seville, where she was born and still lives with her parents.
...

www.ft.com...

a reply to: DeepImpactX

Only in this case, the population doesn't seem to even see what they're doing.

So, so very true! And it is a puzzle why the "population" doesn't seem to see what's happening. I can only guess they are too old and fat and comfortably complacent that they just don't ever see what's happening around them. But, as you've pointed out, the future belongs to the newcomers; the past disappears along with the old, infirm, too old and too fat and comfortably complacent.

a reply to: TonyS

Future belongs to no one, in the US the debt has been pushed so high that eventually interest payments alone will make new, expanding, or improving existing programs impossible. Add to it unfunded liabilities, and the death of the petro dollar and the future of the US will see no improvement if it requires money. Anything currently requiring money will decline. My suggestion to the future as you put it is for people in the US to look at how to improve lives via non monetary means. The past took all the futures money. But hey it was fun while it lasted and we have two great parties who spent decades killing the financial future to keep getting elected in the past. Best of luck to the future with improvement, won't happen if it requires money, the interest payments on rising debt alone Will see to that even without the others. Enjoy

a reply to: Reallyfolks

It is very probable that by the end of this year, or early next year there will be another economic crisis, a crash in the system. This time I am not too sure we would recover, and imo it is exactly what the elites are hoping for, so they can implement their socialist/fascist world government.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Isurrender73

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."

-Murray N. Rothbard

My level of understanding of economics is much higher than most. I was in a six figure job consulting millionaires on business economics.

I doubt you want to get into an economic debate with me. But you can create a thread on your vast economic understanding and I would be happy to join the thread and teach you business economics.

Just because I don't agree with you, and you are unable to understand the ideas that I have presented, does not mean that I am ignorant of economics. I was paid quite well for my understanding of economics.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I'm not advocating for a 100% socialist system, but your the second or third person who is debating a system that has nothing to do with the OP.

We already have a mixture of socialist programs mixed with a capitalist market. I'm confused on why you say the two systems can't work together. Take away the corruption and private banking and the current system would be sustainable for a long time.

The debt grows from private banking through the federal reserve.

Social programs are not the cause of the massive debt in the country. Except possibly the ungodly amount spent on Military. And most of that money goes to friends of the globalist agenda.

Anyone who thinks we are 18 trillion in debt because of social programs needs to do some homework on ATS. The information on the debt is out there, just use the search function on ATS until your satisfied that our debt has nothing to do with immigration, welfare, or any other social program.

We pay plenty of taxes to pay for social programs. What we can't afford is to continue to pay interest on bogus debt created by a bogus banking system.

originally posted by: Isurrender73

Just because I don't agree with you, and you are unable to understand the ideas that I have presented, does not mean that I am ignorant of economics. I was paid quite well for my understanding of economics.

You say this all as the past, so what happened?

The bottom line is we can not do it right. In the end we would just have a Greece situation where you either work for the Government in an over inflated pay position or you are on welfare. I do not have optimism in my fellowman to want to work for a living if they were given an option to just go on a welfare type system and not work at all. Someone needs to pay the bills in the end, and I happen to be one of those who pays the bills, so how do you convince me.

We pay plenty of taxes to pay for social programs. What we can't afford is to continue to pay interest on bogus debt created by a bogus banking system.

Apples and oranges...doesn't take socialism to cure that issue. What kind of taxes do they pay in the European socialism systems? A lot more than us even in our screwed up ways...

originally posted by: Isurrender73
Social programs are not the cause of the massive debt in the country.

We are 18 trillion in dept because of big Government, and so you are talking bigger Government, or huge fundamental changes to the Government. Not going to happen in our lifetimes...

originally posted by: MystikMushroom


The cold war is over!

Socialism is not communism!

I have taken a political science class. Socialism, communism and the Nazi party are three different political ideologies.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I am not an advocate of the current welfare system.

I am an advocate for creating enough jobs for everyone who is willing to work full time to receive a viable living wage. Anything less than providing a jod for all who are willing to work is unsustainable in my opinion.

And I will restate. The debt is caused by the Federal Reserve and private banking, not the current social programs.

If you don't understand that our Federal Reserve is designed to create a debt based economy you should do some reaserch on the Federal Reserve and private fractional reserve banking.

Add - As for my job I quit because I grew tired of it. I had many job offers to go back if I would have wanted to. And could probably still reach out to those I consulted if I wished to go back.

Add 2 - Just to be completely honest I informed my corporate employer I was legally 420 friendly to get fired. My salary was picked up by private interests and the second time I simply walked out and burnt a few bridges, which is why I can only say probably.

My response to employers and cannabis laws.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Isurrender73
Social programs are not the cause of the massive debt in the country.

We are 18 trillion in dept because of big Government, and so you are talking bigger Government, or huge fundamental changes to the Government. Not going to happen in our lifetimes...

We already have socialist programs running in a capitalist market.

In this thread I am only advocating finding the right balance, not a bigger government.

Eliminating the Federal Reserve and private banking would return us to the financial system our founding fathers imagined. Many of them warned us about private banking and what would happen to the economy if we were to allow private banking.

The banking system is designed to create debt and through usury allow bankers to become insanely wealthy. This is not a socialist or big government problem. It is simply a financial scam.

originally posted by: Isurrender73

I am an advocate for creating enough jobs for everyone who is willing to work full time to receive a viable living wage. Anything less than providing a jod for all who are willing to work is unsustainable in my opinion.

Well first you need to define what is living then you can define a living wage. The problem is we are a consumer society and so a living wage is rather high to keep up with the Jones. If you define a 600 sq ft flat with three small bed rooms and Government food and clothing substance then a living wage is rather low. To suggest a living wage needs to pay for a single person to have their own 800 sq ft apartment, car, IPhone, computer, internet, cable, Nike, Starbucks etc then we start to scream 15 bucks an hour as lowest needed. The problem is people do not want to pay a 9 dollar an hour job 15 or 20 bucks an hour, and people do not want to give up their Starbucks...

So how do you fix this, kind of hard to change people views of lifestyles.

And I will restate. The debt is caused by the Federal Reserve and private banking, not the current social programs.

If you don't understand that our Federal Reserve is designed to create a debt based economy you should do some reaserch on the Federal Reserve and private fractional reserve banking.

I'm not a fan of the Federal Reserve and once again socialism is not needed as part of that fix.

Also social programs does not mean socialism too...