Socialism is NOT a bad thing

reply to post by Tiger5


If the system you are referring to were a capitalist system there would be no regulation what so ever. It would be a free and unregulated market. The ridiculous laws and regulations are not a product of capitalism, they are a product of anti capitalistic forces bent on rigging the market place to their own ends. Socialism would do nothing to prevent the plethora of laws and regulations as socialism is infinitely more dependent upon a strong centralized government than capitalism is.

Originally posted by m4nchur14n
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

The typical capitalist rhetoric, "socialism will kill innovation". Coming from the mindset of a capitalist where the only reason you do anything is because it is profitable, that's hardly surprising. From the socialist mindset you innovate because it benefits society, not to make the 95th percentile a little fatter.

The numbers you quote only reveal your own passion for being a victim, and it is difficult to believe that the mindset of a victims is the fertile ground innovation.

reply to post by ShadeWolf


You got in over your head on this one. The socialists are going to ignore this thread because they know it has been infiltrated by Americans. Don't you know by now that you can't post anything on ATS that has to do with socialism? You made a big mistake my friend. When I read through American posts you can just see the inhumanity in their posts, they are trying to paint themselves with one brush and its working. I'm an American and a die-hard Socialist, yes I have flirted with libertarianism but then I asked myself; could I really tell poor people that I don't have an obligation to help them? And I immediately went back to Socialism. To me, socialism represents everything moral and humane.

Originally posted by m4nchur14n
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

From the socialist mindset you innovate because it benefits society, not to make the 95th percentile a little fatter.

In actuality, the innovations of those at the bottom, will only be taken away (for the greater good), for someone at the top to benefit. Whereas, in capitalism, the innovator is compensated.

reply to post by ShadeWolf


We are social animals. We cannot ignore that. There are those among us I guess who wish to succeed from the human race and maybe jump up a rung.
This is a cleaner, more private and exclusive rung on the ladder. It lives in gated communities and uses private jets and private schools for their children. So, What interest do they have then in public schools, hospitals, police department? They have their own armed guards. They drive cars that don't crush when they roll over (the lucky bast ards) and can fly hassle free on Private jets.
The rest of us just don't see how quickly we are getting left behind to take the crumbs and the backseat to a world view that will cater to the rich only.

It recruits employees from job sites like THE LADDERS -for 100K people looking for 100K jobs.- The Ladders commercial shows the great unwashed interfering with this whiz kid like a bunch of noisy apes in a zoo. They do not even try to hide their contempt for the "average middle class worker"

I cant see how so many people cannot see where this is going and who is responsible. Responsible for little by little and more and more effectively turning humans into "workers" drones and energy units first and foremost.

With them it is about jobs, which amounts to employees for their firms. It is about catering to the crumb eaters and keeping them in crumbs.

With the other party I think there is more of an idealistic, optimistic focus and push toward improving the quality of our middle class lives.

Many tea party people are frustrated, broke and angry now in the aftermath of Bush's disastrous economic policies and give them credit where it is due...conservative pundits have successfully pinned their none the less awful and inevitable hardships on Obama.

His policies have barely had time to begin to work.
The economy was not expected to have an instantaneous turnaround.
It is like turning a freighter.
It takes a long time to just stop the boat.
Never mind getting it set in the right direction.

If Obamas Health care program turns into a blessing do you think, McCain, Palin, Hannity, Limbaugh or Lindsey Grahm or Boehner are going to apologize for not only mis-characterizing it but deliberately slandering the President with lies?

No way. This too will pass.

People will forget again how they were almost taken to the cleaners by the Republicans who wanted to bargain with the devil (tort reform) for the value of their life which they generously estimated to be in the ballpark of $250G.

The Democrats or "socialists", (if that's what you want to call folks who care about human life and their environment as much as their republic)

...whatever you want to call them...think you are worth more than that.

I used to be a hard-core neo-con capitalist.

I am now a Distributivist.

IMO, the problem with Socialism is State ownership. The "collective" shouldn't own the means of a production - people should. But no one person should own too much.

"Capitalism does not mean to many capitalists but too few"

-G. K. Chesterton

I encourage everyone look into Distributism for themselves. Say what you want about the Catholic Church, but they've got it figured out economically.

I highly reccomend G K Chesterton's book "What's Wrong with the World" as a starting point. Conspiracy lovers should enjoy it, as even though he is mainstream thinker writing in the early 20th century, he mentions the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and social control. Very good book.

Originally posted by Tiger5
My Pension fund is linked to the stock market and property values!!!!!

And don't forget, in large part, to the very same insurance companies upon which the left has declared war.

reply to post by WTFover


Social equality does not rob you of your individuality. Of course if you wish to think you are better than everyone else, well, it's your prerogative. Also, why do people automatically equate socialism with social welfare? Social welfare is only one facet. Here's a rough example of how I see socialism working. I work at a factory that makes widgets. Each employee is a shareholder, and the shares are divided equally amongst all current employees. Rather than having say 2 partners on 150k 3 middle managers earning 75k and 30 grafters getting a mere 15k, all 35 employees earn 27,800. This is only unacceptable when one introduced the greed factor, where the 5 top earners earn what they do off the backs of the majority, how is that fair? The more productive a business is, the more everyone earns, not just the few at the top. Rather than have 30 people earning a barely livable wage, everyone earns a respectable wage. If you are earning a more respectable wage then perhaps you might worry less about paying towards the keep of the less fortunate. Being socialist does not mean being dole dossing lay about.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Capitalism and communism are both socio economic systems in theory. What we have had is the elites in communism replacing the elite of capitalsm like by themselves Which is fundamentally wrong. Canada is a social democratic country as is the USA. Canada has a variety of parties but the biggest are gathered around the centre which does not make them socialist What many are upset about is the rightward or leftward shift.

Capitalism requires all manner of social control to make us docile workers. Given that we live in the west the number on problem is capitalistic control of our lives. And yes despite my dislike my pension is still tied up in this and I have always saved for one.

reply to post by RedBird

While socialism allows no individuals to own productive property (it all being under state, community, or workers' control), and capitalism allows only a few to own it, distributism itself seeks to ensure that most people will become owners of productive property.

en.wikipedia.org...

The above quote from the Wikipedia link you provided accepts as a given that capitalism "allows" for only a few to own productive property, this is assumption is far from a given. Indeed, under capitalist principles the whole notion of being allowed or disallowed anything becomes ludicrous, and gaining permission to survive is a collectivist ideal, not an individualist ideal. In order to dissuade the individualist from analyzing capitalism for themselves, the collectivist will rely upon misinformation, or flat out lies, such as the notion that capitalism deprives people of opportunity, in hopes that these individualists will abandon their ways and join the collective.

Capitalism does not keep anyone from owning property. There are no rules to capitalism that dictate only a few at the top of some pyramid may prosper while the remaining population suffers at their behest, this is preposterous fiction put out by...well, in the case of G. K. Chesterton, a writer of fiction. In fact, one of the major tenets of capitalism is massive competition, not minute or moderate competition, but massive, which clearly contradicts the stale and tired propaganda of the left, that capitalism suppresses the people. Capitalism is the ultimate one on one situation, which is to say, if I don't like your product or service, I don't have to buy it and if you don't want to sell it to me, you don't have to.

Not to be flippant or anything, but I really don't give a rat's ass about how you do things in Canada. Nor, I would imagine, do most Americans.

reply to post by WTFover

What you and others describe as "de-regulation" has, in fact, been the result of greater government regulation of industry. I'd suggest you delve a little deeper into those actions you have seen as "de-regulation".

In response to your post,

Dems Threaten Congressional Show Trials After US Companies Leak Real Economic Damage of Obamacare

gatewaypundit.firstthings.com...

Late last week several US corporations leaked how the democrat’s health care bill will kill their businesses. The radicals in Congress were not pleased that these corporations would go public with this devastating information. In response, democrats threatened to call for Congressional show trials to publicly humiliate these corporations.
The Wall Street Journal reported:

The ObamaCare Writedowns

online.wsj.com...

Perhaps that explains why the Administration is now so touchy. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke took to the White House blog to write that while ObamaCare is great for business, "In the last few days, though, we have seen a couple of companies imply that reform will raise costs for them." In a Thursday interview on CNBC, Mr. Locke said "for them to come out, I think is premature and irresponsible."

Meanwhile, Henry Waxman and House Democrats announced yesterday that they will haul these companies in for an April 21 hearing because their judgment "appears to conflict with independent analyses, which show that the new law will expand coverage and bring down costs."

Originally posted by Darkrunner
Not to be flippant or anything, but I really don't give a rat's ass about how you do things in Canada. Nor, I would imagine, do most Americans.

Actually you are mistaken there. My mother is Canadian and even if she were not when ever you close you mind heart and head to a good idea you will suffer in the long run. Ignorance like elections, has consequences.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I'm sorry to burst your bubble but you are not reading western style socialism. That's like reading capitalism, there are many different forms ranging from Anracho-capitalism to Mixed Market. If you want to read western style socialism I will provide you th info.

Social democracy

In general, contemporary social democrats support:

A mixed economy consisting of both private enterprise and publicly owned or subsidized programs of education, universal health care, child care and related social services for all citizens.

An extensive system of social security (although usually not to the extent advocated by socialists), with the stated goal of counteracting the effects of poverty and insuring the citizens against loss of income following illness, unemployment or retirement.

Government bodies that regulate private enterprise in the interests of workers and consumers by ensuring labor rights (i.e. supporting worker access to trade unions), consumer protections, and fair market competition.

Environmentalism and environmental protection laws; for example, funding for alternative energy resources and laws designed to combat global warming.

A value-added/progressive taxation system to fund government expenditures.

A secular and a socially progressive policy.

Immigration and multiculturalism.

Youth rights and lowering the voting age.

Fair trade over free trade.

A foreign policy supporting the promotion of democracy, the protection of human rights and where possible, effective multilateralism.

Advocacy of social justice, human rights, social rights, civil rights and civil liberties.

en.wikipedia.org...

and to a much lesser extent
Democratic socialism

Democratic socialism is a description used by various socialist movements and organizations, to emphasize the democratic character of their political orientation. The term is sometimes used synonymously with 'social democracy', but many self-identified democratic socialists oppose social democracy, seeing it as capitalist.

en.wikipedia.org...

So basically all Democratic socialism means is that you can be any type of socialist but you must believe in freedom and democracy.

FYI most center-left political parties in the world are Social democrats.

[edit on 3/28/10 by Misoir]

The problem with socialism is exactly the mind-frame expressed in here. Bunch of whiners with the "woe as me" attitude jealous and envious of the next man.

And this quote I'm about to post sums up the socialist mentality:

could I really tell poor people that I don't have an obligation to help them?

That is the problem with socialist, summed up with one quote. This person feels that they don't have an obligation to help poor people because the barrel of a gun isn't pointing at their heads to do so.

A capitalist wants to help poor people too, by giving them a hand up which makes people independent, the socialist wants to help poor people by giving them a handout which makes people dependent.

Originally posted by m4nchur14n
.... where the 5 top earners earn what they do off the backs of the majority, how is that fair?

It's fair because it's called free enterprise. If you do not want to work for such a business, one that is privately owned where the owners are reaping a profit from your labor, then you are free to go work elsewhere. You are also free to take all the risks and start your own business and pay your workers whatever you feel they deserve .. or whatever you feel like paying them.

You see, right now you have the best of both worlds. If you want to be a greedy business owner, you can be. If you want to be a generous business owner, you can be. If you want to work for a greedy business owner, you can. If you want to work for yourself, you can. And, in so far as publicly held businesses, any one of you can become a part owner of those businesses, whether you work there or not.

I don't really see what you are complaining about. Nobody says you MUST work for another that is making a huge profit from your labor. You are perfectly free to decline working for such a business. You can also dump all of your savings and resources into your own business and give it all away to those you employ if you want too. You can start the kind of business you want to see any time you please ... or, are you expecting someone else to do that for you too?

reply to post by Light of Night


That's exactly why you can't talk socialism with an American. PERIOD. Americans don't care and whatever you tell them they have their own warped ideas. They don't care and people should stop discussing socialism on ATS because you will always get attacked because foreigners don't want anything to do with these types of threads because they get overwhelmed by obnoxious Americans. We already know exactly what you people think, we don't need to be told on our own threads 'how we are so wrong'.

reply to post by Light of Night

A capitalist wants to help poor people too, by giving them a hand up which makes people independent, the socialist wants to help poor people by giving them a handout which makes people dependent.

Most socialism doesn't want to stifle capitalism at all.
Teach a man to fish? All for it...Who isn't?

This same long range thinking however is what makes people scream socialism in the first place.

They do not want to, and simply refuse to, pay for this mans fishing lessons.

Social democrats and conservatives agree there should be some lowest basic minimums acceptable for life. Simple.

Other wise is life really worth it? Chained to a cog in a wheel of a machine.
Working until you die?
Is this what we should be striving for and grateful to achieve, as a nation?

Can't we set our sights a little higher for everyone?

I am as industrious as the next guy but this would be a hellish existence.

You have got to have some integrity and minimum basic standards above the beasts to call yourself human. Why not bring these human manners and ideals out for company?







[edit on 28-3-2010 by rusethorcain]

"The trouble with socialism is, eventually, you run out of other people's money."-Margaret Thatcher

reply to post by Misoir


You haven't shown me anything I haven't all ready read, and it doesn't change a thing. Western style this, anarchostyle that, blah, blah, blah. It is no shock to any opponent of socialism in The United States, by the way, that left wingers are Democrats. What you provided is precisely what we are in the United States, not capitalism, so I don't know why you have so erroneously assumed I don't understand what "social democracy" is, given clearly this is what the problem is with our economy today, this so called social democracy.

The system we have today, usually referred to as a capitalist system is anything but, and whatever it is a mixture of, free market principles are given a back seat in favor of extensive taxation, regulation, licensing schemes, and other ordinances and nuisances. The stated goal of "counteracting the effects of poverty" has done nothing observably effective to counteract the effects of poverty and as it has always been it remains today that the poor exist.

The only possible way that the so called "social democracy" you are advocating can work is through the creation of a gargantuan state. The state as Leviathan is not the pat the to freedom it is the path to subjugation of some form, slavery at worst. In order to have an extensive social security program that would counter act the effects of illness, unemployment and/or retirement, a huge government must exist to administer this redistribution of wealth, or legal plunder depending upon your view. Either way, the system you are advocating demands a Leviathan state that will heavily tax in order to create a fanciful economic situation where the audacity of hope lies in the ignorant belief that market principles are inventions rather than studied observations of the natural cycles of markets.