Oct 10, 2008 01:09AM GMT
Question
•
Politics - United States
What's the difference between socialism and slavery?
It's hard to find people that defend slavery but easy to find many people who support socialism.So what's the difference?
Loading...-
raves +1 posted Oct 21, 2008 11:03PM GMT
Answered Not a whole lot of difference, let's make sure both institutions are abolished
Socialism sees no color. Every American will experience Obama's plan. Work, work, work and let Obama have it to devide it up as he sees fit.
Here's what's left for you and your family if Obama wins. Vote McCain/Palin 2008 -
raves +2 posted Oct 15, 2008 10:23AM GMT
Answered Not a whole lot of difference, let's make sure both institutions are abolished
For those who support socialism, all I can think of is," what fools these mortals be" that support it. Absolutely abolish it, as it goes against freedom and the Constitution of our beloved country.
-
raves +1 posted Oct 13, 2008 09:51PM GMT
Answered Not a whole lot of difference, let's make sure both institutions are abolished
Socialism: "From Each According to his ability, to each according to his Deed" (something like that). Anyway in socialism everyone still makes diffrent wages but they pay more taxes for "free" healthcare, schools, infastructure, and things of that nature.
Slavery: You do what your master says and you recieve just enough to live through the day.
Well that is my attempt. Most of you people out there are thinking that socialism is communism(which it's not). People still have certain freedoms under socialism. Just clearing that up. -
raves +1 Oct 14, 2008 12:24AM GMTSocialism: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his Deed"
Communism: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his NEED"
The only place where socialism really occured is Europe, and for a brief time the U.S.
Communism is an extreme form of Socialism. Now you really believe that because the Russians called their empire "socialist" they really were socialst. You believe China is a republic because they named themselves "The Peoples REPUBLIC of China"? Back to the Russians. They never practiced Socialism. After they overthrew their former royal government they installed a communist government under Vlademir Lenin. -
raves +2 posted Oct 10, 2008 09:37PM GMT
Answered Not a whole lot of difference, let's make sure both institutions are abolished
either way.....it's the control of 1 person (or group of persons) over the life of another person's. :( whenever i think of socialism....i'm prompted 2 ask myself: do i wanna be a slave??? the answer, of course, is NO! do i want a socialist government? nope. do i want 2 own a slave? nope. do i want 2 be sum1 else's slave (& sex-slave is a whole 'nother conversation!lmao!)? nope. do i want 40 acres & a mule?....depends on what i gotta do 2 get 'em!lol
sorry, but these serious questions always seem 2 bring out the wise-@$$ in me!??! :}~ -
raves posted Oct 10, 2008 09:29PM GMT
Answered With socialism, the government weilds the lash
i think that there is a big difference. Id bet my paycheck that the person who asked this question is white. Slavery is not to be explained or described in a few lines or even a book. It takes years and years of personal experience. It takes sitting beside your grandmother and explain there childhood and there mother and fathers life. Slavery was a total change a mentality to an entire race. Im sure wont believe me so when you get a chance take a glimpse into the barbaric history of slavery by reading the willie lynch letters. Thats simply a dose of what it was like. Whatever you may think socialism is, its not really all that. Your probally thinking more of communism. The basis of socialism is to help people and help support the trampled on in life. That is the foundation of it all. While i dont totally agree with it i think it can sometimes serve its purposes. Im a republican and i stand by what i believe and I also believe in with liberty and justice for all. Something not very popular with most republicans. -
raves +1 posted Oct 10, 2008 09:15PM GMT (edited)
Answered Not a whole lot of difference, let's make sure both institutions are abolished
Socialism is a failed attempt at distribution of wealth at all levels of society - Slavery is every American willing to trust the greed driven globalists and there prospect of a New World Order because once we allow them such power there is no turning back from it and that is tha problem... we the American people are tha answer to opressiom not these fascist pigs my friends in this time of need I ask u to remember independance and tha tyranny our forefathers fought to keep off this soil
Is tha America u look forward to, not me
-
raves +4 posted Oct 10, 2008 08:25PM GMT (edited)
Answered With socialism, the government weilds the lash
We're going to find out the full scourge of socialism soon if Obama gets elected.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
BTW, remember NAZIS were socialists. National Socialists=NAZIS.
Most folks think they are on the other end of the political spectrum.The left despises NAZIS because they almost wiped out Russia, the motherland for most lefties.
The very attempt to achieve the Utopian goals of socialism requires the ruthless suppression of the individual and an attack on any institution that might compromise the loyalty of the individual to the state. That's why one of the first orders of business for socialism, and those who support its ideas, is the attack on religion and the family.
Here's a perfect example of how our tax system, ie socialism, operates!
Sometimes politicians, journalists and others exclaim; "It's just a tax
cut for the rich!" and it is just accepted to be fact. But what does that
really mean? Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, I
hope the following wil...We're going to find out the full scourge of socialism soon if Obama gets elected.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
BTW, remember NAZIS were socialists. National Socialists=NAZIS.
Most folks think they are on the other end of the political spectrum.The left despises NAZIS because they almost wiped out Russia, the motherland for most lefties.
The very attempt to achieve the Utopian goals of socialism requires the ruthless suppression of the individual and an attack on any institution that might compromise the loyalty of the individual to the state. That's why one of the first orders of business for socialism, and those who support its ideas, is the attack on religion and the family.
Here's a perfect example of how our tax system, ie socialism, operates!
Sometimes politicians, journalists and others exclaim; "It's just a tax
cut for the rich!" and it is just accepted to be fact. But what does that
really mean? Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, I
hope the following will help. Please read it carefully. Let's put tax
cuts in terms everyone can understand.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all ten
comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something
like this:
a.. The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
b.. The fifth would pay $1.
c.. The sixth would pay $3.
d.. The seventh would pay $7.
e.. The eighth would pay $12.
f.. The ninth would pay $18.
g.. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the
restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until
one day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the
cost of your daily meal by $20." Dinner for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the
first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free, but what
about the other six men, the paying customers? How could they divide the
$20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized
that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from
everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up
being paid to eat their meal. So, the restaurant owner suggested that it
would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he
proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
a.. The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
b.. The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
c.. The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
d.. The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings)
e.. The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
f.. The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued
to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to
compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed
to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar,
too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me! "
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when
I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the
tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without
him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something
important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half
of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our
tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most
benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being
wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start
eating overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, PhD
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia(less) -
raves Oct 15, 2008 10:25PM GMTGermany was the largest country in Europe and the most industrialized. I think they are again!
The Germans had no Mafia though! I'm not sure even the Mafia would have beaten the Gestapo as they did the Italians sent to destroy them. Which is why they sided with us when we invaded Sicily. Its not a smart idea to piss off the Sicilian Mafia even if you are il Duce! -
raves +1 Oct 16, 2008 12:48PM GMTHere's another example of what socialism means.
Just a quick HillaryQuote should you ever begin to believe that there is any good to liberalism or socialism!
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." - H. Clinton))
This is the essence of socialism! Note some very key words in this brief sentence. Let's start with 'we'. Who are the 'we'? They are the redistributors of your property, elected (initially anyway) no doubt but not under the above slogan as their rallying cry. The 'we' will use words like 'fair' and 'share' and 'care' and 'equal'; words infused into your mind since grammar school, to gain the power to execute the above policy.
The next word is 'are'! Unlike 'may' or'might' this has such a definite, certain, bet-the-ranch-on-it tone to it. No discussion! We ARE...!
If there was one word that defines the liberal / socialist mentality 'take' has to be it. 'take' in the Stalinist sense! Break down your f'n door and 'take'! To a degree, they do it right now! Its systematized and institutionalized and automated and made to be as painless and transparent as possible. They 'take' (withhold) before you even see it. Next year, tell the IRS that you're not paying for National Public Radio or HIV Aid to Africa or tribute to the Pal...Here's another example of what socialism means.
Just a quick HillaryQuote should you ever begin to believe that there is any good to liberalism or socialism!
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." - H. Clinton))
This is the essence of socialism! Note some very key words in this brief sentence. Let's start with 'we'. Who are the 'we'? They are the redistributors of your property, elected (initially anyway) no doubt but not under the above slogan as their rallying cry. The 'we' will use words like 'fair' and 'share' and 'care' and 'equal'; words infused into your mind since grammar school, to gain the power to execute the above policy.
The next word is 'are'! Unlike 'may' or'might' this has such a definite, certain, bet-the-ranch-on-it tone to it. No discussion! We ARE...!
If there was one word that defines the liberal / socialist mentality 'take' has to be it. 'take' in the Stalinist sense! Break down your f'n door and 'take'! To a degree, they do it right now! Its systematized and institutionalized and automated and made to be as painless and transparent as possible. They 'take' (withhold) before you even see it. Next year, tell the IRS that you're not paying for National Public Radio or HIV Aid to Africa or tribute to the Palestinians (via Swiss banks) to keep suicide bombings at a low simmer. Try it! Sooner or later your property will be seized including your money, cars, furniture and your freedom! Freedom? 'Hey, they can't take that away, its in the Constitution' you say? Look, property equals freedom! Who's got more liberty, a homeless guy, you or Donald Trump? And in what order? All can scream 'Bush sucks'. The homeless guy is disturbing the peace, you're just another Michael Moore whacko liberal and Trump is invited to speak at Columbia! Now which of you three can practice your freedom of the press? Not the homeless guy! Maybe you can pass around a weekly neighborhood flyer proclaiming that 'Bush Sucks'. Donald can buy the NY Post! The key here is that when property is 'taken' freedom is 'taken' as well. And the less free the 'takees' are the less they can complain (or do anything about it). Nifty system eh?
In the 20's and 30's Uncle (as FDR referred to him) Joe Stalin was having problems with Ukrainians. They were resisting communism. He simply applied the above method 'on behalf of the common good'. Actually he had all their food, animals and land confiscated until they were all free to starve to death. By the millions!
I could go on and on about 'take'. Who does the 'taking', who is it 'taken' from, how much is 'taken' and what is the legal and moral basis for all this 'taking'?
Now to the phrase 'on behalf of '. These words imply that the 'we' people are doing all this 'taking' that they have determined as warranted by some criteria of theirs, not selfishly for themselves or some favored group but for the 'common good'! Here's where those other words you've been conditioned since toddlerhood to trust come in. 'Fair' and 'share' and 'equal'. You know, its only 'fair' that we 'share' until we're all 'equal'. This would be a beautiful world if 'on behalf of' could be trusted 100%. But there's no free lunch! There's the vig! The 'we' folks get something for their effort before the 'on behalf of' kicks in. Its power! What can be more powerful than to have the legal enforceable ability to 'take' someone's property and give it to someone else? We know 'power corrupts' but the powerful must remain in power! One of the wonders of modern Western Civilization is the transition of power to an opposing party after an election.
So, how can powerful people (or their party) remain powerful? They can define who 'on behalf of' will be.
Why do 90% of blacks in America vote Democratic? The proclaimer of emancipation was the founder of the Republican Party! The southerners who fought against civil rights were all Democrats from Orville Faubus to a Grand Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan, the current Senator from West Virginia, Robert Byrd! The Civil Rights Bill and the Voting Rights Act would not be law if it were not for Republican votes in the Senate! Its because the Democratic Party, for the most part, have defined 'on behalf of' to be blacks. War on Poverty, Affirmative Action, School Lunches, school busing etc. etc. program after program all define or create the image of defining the 'in behalf of' to be blacks.
Same for Hispanics. Bi-lingual education, open borders, driver's licenses for illegals, free health care for illegals etc. etc.
My point is that Socialists (the 'we' people) are ('ARE', let there be no doubt) going to take (that's right, TAKE, call it taxes or whatever) things ($ but ultimately your freedom) from you on behalf of (they define who this is, probably the ones that vote for them, ya think?) the common good (like what? a new park? Or free abortions for all?)(less) -
raves +1 Oct 16, 2008 12:53PM GMT (edited)Just in case you're not convinced that socialism is ABOUT THE WORST THING THAT COULD EVER HAPPEN TO A NATION, here's an academic metaphor which makes the point. Unless you're a Native American, be ready to be offended. BTW I'm not sorry if you are offended, just grow up!
Another liberal concept, that of caring and sharing and being fair can be applied to college grades as well as taxes. For the benefit of students who can relate to grades more than to taxes, which most of them don't yet pay, the following gives an example of redistribution not of wealth but of earned grades.
Ok, so we have some students in a 'Remedial Algebra for Phys Ed majors' class. Not an easy class but not Applied Theory of Parallel Quantum Universes either.
We have Pritipati Patel, Wok Loo, Serena Augustina Maria Santo Sanchez, Ginger James, Misty Atkins, Vanessa Fields, Melissa von Greunthal, LaMaleesha Johnson, Jamal Ali, Rocco Sicilia and Professor Irwin Feldman, PhD, Mathematics and Physics professor.
Prof. Feldman: Good morning class. This is our final meeting for the semester. Initially today I'd like to discuss grades. Some information for you first, I'm unable to grade as loosely as I had previously. The University has formulated new rules. Some of you may have enrolled in my class hoping to r...Just in case you're not convinced that socialism is ABOUT THE WORST THING THAT COULD EVER HAPPEN TO A NATION, here's an academic metaphor which makes the point. Unless you're a Native American, be ready to be offended. BTW I'm not sorry if you are offended, just grow up!
Another liberal concept, that of caring and sharing and being fair can be applied to college grades as well as taxes. For the benefit of students who can relate to grades more than to taxes, which most of them don't yet pay, the following gives an example of redistribution not of wealth but of earned grades.
Ok, so we have some students in a 'Remedial Algebra for Phys Ed majors' class. Not an easy class but not Applied Theory of Parallel Quantum Universes either.
We have Pritipati Patel, Wok Loo, Serena Augustina Maria Santo Sanchez, Ginger James, Misty Atkins, Vanessa Fields, Melissa von Greunthal, LaMaleesha Johnson, Jamal Ali, Rocco Sicilia and Professor Irwin Feldman, PhD, Mathematics and Physics professor.
Prof. Feldman: Good morning class. This is our final meeting for the semester. Initially today I'd like to discuss grades. Some information for you first, I'm unable to grade as loosely as I had previously. The University has formulated new rules. Some of you may have enrolled in my class hoping to receive a good grade based on my aforementioned reputation. However, I am now forced to submit grades that fit close to a realistic bell curve and reflect your semester's actual work. So I'll post those grades now and then we can discuss them.
P.Patel 4.0
W. Loo 4.0
S. A. M. S. Sanchez 3.5
G. James 2.1
M. Atkins 2.0
V. Fields 2.0
M. von Greunthal
Answered Not a whole lot of difference, let's make sure both institutions are abolished
SLAVERY: You work, work, work, live a miserable life and end up with nothing because the Masters take everything.SOCIALISM: You work, work, work, live a miserable life and end up with nothing because the Government takes everything.