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.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: introvert
These are the various means by which they con you into believing that socialism isn't all that bad.
These are also the means by which they convince you that:
1.) It is OK to vote your way into your neighbor's pocket is the intentions are good.
2.) If only a "little" socialism isn't that bad, then the next, bigger step won't be all that bad either. Look at all those reactionary folks squawking over their. You are the frog in the slowly boiling water who likes his hot tub.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: introvert
Where did I say that? Have a quote?
That was the "or". They made an important distinction between collective ownership and government ownership.
fascism -
a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control of social and economic life, and extreme pride in country and race, with no expression of political disagreement allowed
Noting that control and ownership are not the same thing.
I am forced to remind you that your primary (if not only) argument was that there was a distinction between the collective and the government as it pertains to the realization of socialism.
Now you are continuing to obfuscate by not addressing the most important part of what you posted. That was the "or". They made an important distinction between collective ownership and government ownership. That is important as it creates the separation between simple socialism and communism.
Incidentally, that distinction is also incorrect but, I didn't think it would be helpful to point that out at the time.
Communism is international Marxism while other forms of socialism need not be global revolutionary political ideologies.
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
I don't see anything actually happening, just faster or slower decent into totalitarianism, which might be nice for awhile.
This may seem like an odd question, but its where my brain went (it does that).
How can individualism work with 320 million people?
There are posters that state: "I should be able to do what I want". But, in reality, you really can't because you are in a society.
As a Globalist, I see the "whole" as necessary for both the planet and humanity. Does that or will that require totalitarianism?
As I say: "It's the WHO and HOW" - - not the "WHAT, WHEN, IF.
No matter the "ism" - - anything can be done right or wrong.
originally posted by: ketsuko
originally posted by: monkeyluv
The U.S. elite accomplished such without the need for Marxism. In fact, they had achieved control of the country through free market capitalism, which eventually lead to crony capitalism.
Nope they have subverted even that.
You think the market is free, but it's not and hasn't been. It's an interventionalist mess.
originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: introvert
It is black and white, either you are a socialist or you are not.
While it is true that many believe in a "social safety net" and the interventionist welfare state, they are not socialists, just misinformed socioeconomic interventionists. Perhaps you are among them in which case I would advise you to stop erroneously identifying with socialism, state ownership of the means of production.
originally posted by: greencmp
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: greencmp
Now you are being a little silly, this isn't even an etymological or lexicological debate.
That is true, but we must have some sort of common ground on definitions. You provided a definition as a rebuttal but did not notice the one word within that definition that refuted the very premise of your assertion.
The word "or" separated socialism in to two distinct categories. One being the state and the other being the collective.
To answer your question, the difference between them is that one is directed and controlled by the "state" and the others is directed and controlled by the people.
That distinction is very clear and I thank you for providing a definition you can agree with that very clearly separates the two.
We are all part of our voluntary collective so, no political (coercive force) motivation need be exercised.
What non-voluntary collective do you propose to introduce which could not be considered government?
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: monkeyluv
Capitalism is not a type of government, nor is it political in and of itself.
Capitalism is economics, capitalism is not politics.
Capitalism is culture, a social technology that allows surpluses to be traded and then the evolution of specialization of labor.
originally posted by: monkeyluv
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: monkeyluv
Capitalism is not a type of government, nor is it political in and of itself.
Capitalism is economics, capitalism is not politics.
Capitalism is culture, a social technology that allows surpluses to be traded and then the evolution of specialization of labor.
I didn't argue that capitalism is a type of government. I argued that free market capitalism leads to crony capitalism, where capitalists influence government.
I didn't argue that capitalism is politics. I argued that capitalists influence politics.
Finally, modern capitalism, which is discussed in this thread, involves more than just social technology. It also involves physical force (e.g., enclosures), legal systems, fiat currency and credit in general, etc.
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
You didn't argue that capitalism leads to crony capitalism, you asserted it without evidence.
The "crony" part uses government. Blaming crony capitalism on capitalism is like blaming language for lies, or blaming electricity for heart attacks.
originally posted by: monkeyluv
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
You didn't argue that capitalism leads to crony capitalism, you asserted it without evidence.
The "crony" part uses government. Blaming crony capitalism on capitalism is like blaming language for lies, or blaming electricity for heart attacks.
The presence of a Fed controlled by Wall Street, major bailouts of banks by governments worldwide after the 2008 crash, and a "shadow" derivatives market with a notional value of over a quadrillion dollars proves that.
The first sentence of your second paragraph proves my point.
The second sentence makes no sense as well, as you refer to "crony capitalism" and not just cronyism.
originally posted by: Sargeras
originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Sargeras
I choose option one.
There are somewhat involved explanations that would likely calm your ire about entrepreneurs and how and why they are necessary. Suffice it to say that stewards of capital in an unhampered market environment are the mandatories of consumers.
Laissez-faire is a consumer's democracy.
But entrepreneurs aren't the problem.
It is wealth hoarding that is the problem.
The Spice must flow!!!
If it doesn't we get today's economic situation.
Several people hoarding it all, is very bad, much worse than if the same several people had nothing and that same wealth was circulated throughout the economy.
And no, moving it around wallstreet us not moving it through the economy.
Which is what is happening now.
All the fat cats recovered long ago, all the average joes... Not so much
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
There is no argument that the free market, itself, ever leads to cronyism.
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
originally posted by: monkeyluv
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
You didn't argue that capitalism leads to crony capitalism, you asserted it without evidence.
The "crony" part uses government. Blaming crony capitalism on capitalism is like blaming language for lies, or blaming electricity for heart attacks.
The presence of a Fed controlled by Wall Street, major bailouts of banks by governments worldwide after the 2008 crash, and a "shadow" derivatives market with a notional value of over a quadrillion dollars proves that.
The first sentence of your second paragraph proves my point.
The second sentence makes no sense as well, as you refer to "crony capitalism" and not just cronyism.
There is no argument that the free market, itself, ever leads to cronyism.
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: jonnywhite
I think sin, most basically and essentially, means irresponsibility or being a grasshopper at the specific time you should be an ant. Either of those is OK as long as no one else has to bring you back what you've lost, or if you are OK with doing less to get less. I like to know what I am doing, sometimes I am a slow learner.
In socialism the experts design and decide everything. There are maybe 10,000 of them in the world.
In a free market, everybody's mind is included in all decisions. The free market comes up with solutions that nobody in particular thought of. And everybody is "voting" for the world that they want; by buying or declining to buy, by moving to better more congenial for them places, by doing what they want or think is best.
The less restriction on people, the more people will do, which is the fastest society can progress.
originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: Semicollegiate
It's had its role to play in art, architecture, and culture as well. Once Marcel Duchemps signed a urinal and called it art, the traditional virtues of beauty and truth spiralled down the proverbial drain. Now someone can photograph a crucifix in piss and make millions. People staring at a canvas painted white in a posh gallery need someone to tell them why it has meaning, why it's important, why it is necessary, and that person always turns out to be the aristocracy you speak of, who think their inferiors need to be told what is right and wrong. And sadly, people believe it.