Why are you so afraid of the socialist society?

a reply to: infolurker

This was a very interesting watch. Thank you.

I truly am trying to figure out what the best approach is - and I appreciate it when people offer alternative demos.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: DexterRiley

The American public school system is a good example of a nearly 100% socialized system.

The American school system contains both public and private schools, which isn't 100% socialist. Your example was being overly vague. Did it occur to you that the reason the teaching pool is so poor for public schools is because the better teachers can seek better opportunities at private schools? There is clearly an outside influence there at work that suggests that the American public school system isn't a 100% self-contained socialist system. You can argue if you think that is a good thing or not. I'm just pointing out that you should zoom your perspective back a bit.

Just want to thank you all for the post so far. This got way more replies than i anticipated. A lot of interesting reads.

Hey, I'm ALL-IN...with one little caveat...

Just get George Soros, Bill Gates, the Wall Street elite, the Washington DC elite (and thieves), the JP Morgan elite, the Bank of America elite, the Monsanto elite, the big Pharma elite, the Hedge Fund elite, the Chevron and Conoco-Phillips elite, and all the other elite to chip in their equal percentage of their AGGRAGATE wealth (no hidden trust funds, charities, off-shore accounts, "charitable" donations, all of it...no BS) and have them live the EXACT SAME WAY the rest of us all live (same house, same dog, no servants, no private 747's, no cruise ships, no private islands)...and I'll sign up TOMORROW!

The moral of this story (and the answer to the OP's question) is, these conditions are impossible to meet. It's not possible to un-do what these elite have built for themselves. You see, what we're talking about here is the re-distribution of wealth in order to achieve true 'socialism', but this will never happen. Oh sure, even the elite will say they're all for it...just so long as they have all these places where they can hide their money and obfuscate their wealth. No, what they want is to 'redistribute' the last bastion of money they haven't been able to rape or pillage yet...the middle class. Take away their hiding places and their generosity will turn to anger and retaliation.

Now some might think I'm a liberal from what I've written, but I'm far from it. I'm actually at the opposite end of the spectrum. That said, I don't have any fear of socialism (different from communism) per se, but my objective observation would be it is not possible to achieve without completely decimating the country trying to implement it. Why? Because this is the wrath the elite will unleash on the country before they give up their goodies...that's why.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Indigo5

In all things where innovation, grit and hard work matter for the advancement of mankind...capitalism is the answer...no doubt...period...full stop. Just the facts. It incentives hard work, optimization, innovation and efficiency.

So you would agree that you don't have true capitalism but an Oil-igarchy in the US (bankers bail outs - preferential treatment of Oil companies)

Absolutely...the bail outs were the biggest socialist transfer of wealth in the USA's history and we continue to subsidize oil companies and a whole lot of other industries through tax loop-holes.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Never knew that. sounds crazy.

a reply to: maplecustom

Why are you so afraid of the socialist society?

I`m not afraid of socialist society but those leading it. You see I was there where friendship wasn`t measured by the size of your wallet but by the sweat of your brow...there was togetherness among people alright but the system was bound to fail because leaders didn`t know how to operate with state wealth. So you could say that people were entierly dependant on the leaders back then in comparison to now where you can still succeed independantly to your state, which is good because at least you have your chance. But there are others cons such as individuality, competition, frauds....all to gain wealth which is what you are measured on thesedays even if the values speak differently.

So it is not a question of ideology but the question of leadership. If we had people like Pope Francis running it, then things would be different. There is not much difference though because Democracy has its core values set right but in reality it is happening quite the opposite and all because of leadership. It is bound to fail...

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Actually, regardless what label you put on it, any system that allows a small group of people to control most of the assets in society (the wealth) without consent of the people is absurd. But it's how it is in the Western world.

According to an analysis of Federal Reserve data by the Economic Policy Institute, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans control 35.6 percent of the total wealth of the country -- more than a third [source: Allegretto]. Even more incredible is that the richest 10 percent of Americans control 75 percent of the wealth, leaving only 25 percent to the other 90 percent of Americans.

This means that yes, indeed, there is a modern day "elite" that feeds off the people. They, of course, can't do zilch without the people, their wealth has been obtained by labour of the people, but they hardly give back to the people other than sometimes meager salaries. If it weren't for socialists and the unions many people would be no better off then they were in the 19th century.

Many say "oh, but these people took a risk and are entrepreneurs". Nonsense, what risk? Most got their money from a bank who in turn got in from the people. Some got it from governments whom got it from the people, but at least in that case there is some (very remote!) control by the people. Some got money from private sources, whom undoubtedly - got it from the people too. Even the few that worked for their money initially often start stealing from others as soon as they hire their first employee..

I think one of the easiests "socialist" solutions I've ever seen is the idea that everyone gets a guaranteed basic income - say $10,000 a year. You do away with all other social programs like food stamps, etc. People making over a certain amount, don't get the $10k, but they have to be making a very comfortable living before that happens. Children also get the guaranteed income - but you limit it to the first say, 3 children a family produces - to avoid people choosing to overbreed and exploit the system. Adminstration costs go way down, because everyone is getting the same amount. It's not really enough to live on, but it is enough to guarantee that you'd be able to afford housing and food in almost every place in the country. It allows people who have children to choose to work fewer hours, perhaps, in order to have more family time. Or people who are pursuing a passion for art or science or anything at all, to be able to work and do that as well. In places where things like this have been tried, the population overall is happier and more fulfilled, and the cost of something like this is about the same as existing programs.

a reply to: Inannamute

The idea of a basic income is appealing, indeed, but not because it would save us money. For example, if you're handicapped, the costs for necessary care can be staggering. Part of that is caused by the very high price of health care, another problem that should be tackled. But you can't pay for all those costs if you have just a basic income of say $10K/a. So, we'd stlll need additional provisions. Also, if you'd have restrictions on whom get the payments, you'd end up with the need to check - more civil servants.

However, it would indeed liberate people. And we may well have no other options sooner or later. It is clear that the costs of human labour will eventually always be higher than the costs of automation and mechanisation. Simply put: the robot is cheaper than any hired hand. But if all (or at least most) work is done by automatrons that would create a dent in the system: People would all be out of a job and hence not able to buy the goods and services produced.. and without money, people will die, unless we provide an income for them.

That would be us, them dead folks..

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: Inannamute

The idea of a basic income is appealing, indeed, but not because it would save us money. For example, if you're handicapped, the costs for necessary care can be staggering. Part of that is caused by the very high price of health care, another problem that should be tackled. But you can't pay for all those costs if you have just a basic income of say $10K/a. So, we'd stlll need additional provisions. Also, if you'd have restrictions on whom get the payments, you'd end up with the need to check - more civil servants.

However, it would indeed liberate people. And we may well have no other options sooner or later, as it is clear that the costs of human labour will eventually always be higher than the costs of automation and mechanisation. Simply put: the robot is cheaper than any hired hand, and in a truly capitalistic system no manager would hire people anymore: too expensive. In a capitalistic system you're always trying to reduce costs. But that would create a dent in the system, as people would not be able to buy the goods and services produced. There is neither sufficient talent nor work to make everybody a doctor or a scientist. But even then: in the end it is labour that creates wealth and if labour is done by entities that do not consume, there is nobody to buy your goods.. the are all dead because we did not provide for them.

That would be us, them dead folks..

I agree with both of you whole heartedly. I think America will one day have to introduce money evenly at certain intervals
to ensure basic survival and also allow the private system to exist to augment the socialized system and ensure freedom, enterprise, etc...

I think this is what many people want in this modernity. A hybrid system where capital was introduced via the citizens bank accounts would revolutionize the economy.

originally posted by: maplecustom
Hello friends. I am very curious to know why some of you are so incredibly negative towards the idea of a socialist approach to sosiety in the US? Reading posts here on ATS i find most of your opinions and meanings towards how it really works, and would work for you guys, to be filled with an astounding amount of fear of it all.

Do you think the government would just take over everything and dictate your say in every matter? Tax you into the ground? Give you free healthcare, free education and restrict your opportunities for Success?

Living in Norway, a country where society is based on socialist dogmas I will happily try to answer any questions you have of it all and debate to the best of my abilities.

So much for socialism helping you out in Norway. Seems as though you can't escape what the rest of the world feels as well:

Norway Pushes Panic Button

Norway has declared that its oil industry has entered a “crisis.”
“[The] industry is in a crisis now, we can’t deny that,” Bente Nyland, director general of the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, told Bloomberg who reminds us that “Norway depends on oil and gas for about one-fifth of its economic output and nationwide, the petroleum industry has cut almost 30,000 jobs.”

Here is my issue with Socialism...and all the other ism's really.

THEY ALL USE CENTRALIZED BANKS!

The real issue we ALL face on this planet is the issue of money and especially fiat money at that.

Leave it to "budgets" to be the biggest excuse in the world not to do something right. It's not that resources aren't there, but the man made, invented, imagined and believed money we use truly is the main cause of the worlds strife.

Take the USA's Space Shuttle for example. It was the most dangerous vehicle in use when it was being used. And this was not that it couldn;t have been engineered better. From the engineers themselves, it was unsafe due to the fact that it had to work within a budget.

Or take WWII for another example. Before the US entered the war, their air force was small to moderate. Then they entered the war and an exponential boom in air craft manufacturing happened. Could they afford it? No. Were the resources there though? Yes, they were. And they clearly made it happen because it was essentially do or die.

If we want anything to change in this world, the economic model the world uses (ie monetary economics) MUST change. Communism, capitalism, socialism, etc. None of these will work, EVER, so long as they are rooted in monetary economics. Not to say they would work without monetary economics. Perhaps communism could, but it historically never has.

It is essential that global economics change and adapt to survive.

a reply to: Sparkymedic

BTW - - Tyler Durden is a character from Fight Club.

I suggest you research the source of the site of the article you are promoting.

a reply to: Indigo5

They also tax residents on the amount of rain that falls on their property by the square footage of land they own... NC politics is extremely messed up and backwards... if anyone wonders why I have practically zero republican leanings it is because theyve had control for a very long time and things are a nightmare of corruption and embezzlement legislatively... and wholly ignored the public not to allow fracking with nearly 80% against it if I recall. While corruption isnt tied to one specific party, the polices made from the right lean very very far to the right and rife with discrimination written into state law.

the NCDOT head was using his on the clock time to write extremist propaganda books and pass laws to remove the poor and disableds driving privy requiring medical evaluations at random at least once a year sometimes twice or poof revoked and of course the form requires specialists and out of ones own pocket as an expense this "legal" discriminatory law violates 3 federal laws and any agency thats federally funded must comply to anti-discrimination laws.

So yeah nightmare that says run away and move yet its such a lovely state itself... but has been utterly ruined by the political right.

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: Sparkymedic

BTW - - Tyler Durden is a character from Fight Club.

I suggest you research the source of the site of the article you are promoting.

It cites Bloomberg. The quote I used is from the Bloomberg article. And the rest is drawn on from other sources. I am promoting the ZH article, and like all business and economic news, it's open to speculation.

Also, based on what "Tyler Durden" (obviously an alias) has reported about in the past, there is no wonder they won't use a real name.

I've found news on ZH of significant events in recent history before it ever arrives here at ATS or the MSM. Is any of what is written about or reported on manipulated BS at ZH? Absolutely. But have you seen the rest of this site lately? Or even the MSM for that matter?

Obviously though, what you choose to believe is up to you. The Bloomberg article is one side of the story. The ZH article shed a bit more light and background to create a clearer picture of the seriousness of the topic at hand.

originally posted by: Sparkymedic

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: Sparkymedic

BTW - - Tyler Durden is a character from Fight Club.

I suggest you research the source of the site of the article you are promoting.

You clearly didn't read past the authors name, in a typical ATS judgmental style.

Actually, I did. But, had to leave quickly. Hence "quickie" post.

So, still looking for answers on source this came from.

Bloomberg is an extreme Right Wing source. So, that helps with perspective.

a reply to: Annee

Fair enough. I have edited my post above.
The sources are obvious and the author is clearly using their own charts to visualize publicly available data.

originally posted by: Sparkymedic
a reply to: Annee

Fair enough. I have edited my post above.
The sources are obvious and the author is clearly using their own charts to visualize publicly available data.

OK. And what is the source of the data?

I'm not taking sides, but "articles" are written all the time. Some are legit, some are baseless, others slanted with unfounded bias.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Sparkymedic
a reply to: Annee

Fair enough. I have edited my post above.
The sources are obvious and the author is clearly using their own charts to visualize publicly available data.

OK. And what is the source of the data?

I'm not taking sides, but "articles" are written all the time. Some are legit, some are baseless, others slanted with unfounded bias.

UHHH! SO LAZY YOU ARE!

One chart has the sources listed on it. The others are EASILY GOOGLE-able. and the last graphic is an admitted screen grab from Norges Bank's webpage. Which is why it's in Norwegian.

Happy?

a reply to: Sparkymedic

The real issue we ALL face on this planet is the issue of money and especially fiat money at that.

Is it?

I mean, I agree with you that money is front and center .....

but is it the "real issue"?
I'm thinking no.

I'm thinking survival, and planetary health, and cooperation are more of the real issue.