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.
The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism.
... ^^^^ re-defined as "Failure Incorporated"
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.
Than you would think by now you'd have realized that the Left v. Right argument is tired and is a strategy used against the populace to keep us (the citizens) at war with each other because of ideologies that on any practical level no one really gives a #. The topics that are sensitive get artificially inflated to serve the stated purpose of divide and conquer.
Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.
I don't see conflicts, I don't agree with Marx's approach/transition to Socialism, but then again I read beyond the planks.
Now, in all of this discussion, can you link it to the thread topic of Leftist type Illuminati?
originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Rosinitiate
Than you would think by now you'd have realized that the Left v. Right argument is tired and is a strategy used against the populace to keep us (the citizens) at war with each other because of ideologies that on any practical level no one really gives a #. The topics that are sensitive get artificially inflated to serve the stated purpose of divide and conquer.
Who says I don't know that ?
originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: Kali74
So you believe that socialists will just confiscate the wealth of those evil capitalist corporate owners and all will be well and the little proletariats will have their own money cause the Elites will be brought to their knees? Is that what you imagine?
Then how come all the Russian people were subjected to such horrid things as having to stand in bread lines for a crust of bread then a different line for some meat, another one for whatever else......how come anyone dissenting was sent to a gulag in Siberia?
Don't bother to tell me what I do and do not know. It seems that you accept some parts of Marxism which are convenient to your dream and reject all the other manifestations which have come with the practice of it. Marxism is an exercise in futility.
Tell me why you think that only the so-called bourgeois rich people will be brought down? Do you not understand that every paycheck the average worker gets is taxed as much as the State can get away with? You may only make 15 bucks and hour and yet you are still paying for some gal who has 15 kids and expects the State to pay for them while Warren Buffet has his money in tax shelters. Oh wait, Warren-Tax-Me-More was caught NOT paying his taxes.....
The practice of socialism and the welfare state has destroyed the middle class in the US.
It seems that you accept some parts of Marxism which are convenient to your dream and reject all the other manifestations which have come with the practice of it.
originally posted by: amfirst1
Most people on the right is moderate on social issues its the reason why there is no ban on abortion. Plus, they support States rights on social issues to decentralize power.
Probably the most difficult task in this work will be to get across to the reader what is really an elementary observation: that the objective of The Order is neither "left" nor "right." "Left" and "right" are artificial devicces to bring about change, and the extremes of political left and political right are vital elements in a process of controlled change.
The answer to this seeming political puzzle lies in Hegelian logic. Remember that both Marx and Hitler, the extremes of "left" and "right" presented as textbook enemies, evolved out of the same philosophical system: Hegelianism. That brings screams of intellectual anguish from Marxists and Nazis, but is well known to any student of political systems.
In the Hegelian system conflict is essential. Furthermore, for Hegel and systems based on Hegel, the State is absolute. The State requires complete obedience from the individual citizen. An individual does not exist for himself in these so-called organic systems but only to perform a role in the operation of the State...
So who or what is the State? Obviously it's a self-appointed elite. It is interesting that Fichte, who developed these ideas before Hegel, was a freemason, almost certainly Illuminati, and certainly was promoted by the Illuminati. For example, Johann Wolfgang Goethe (Abaris in the Illuminati code) pushed Fichte for an appointment at Jena University.
The Order believes the opposite to most of us. That is crucial to understanding what they are about. So any discussion between left and right, while essential to promote the change, is never allowed to develop into a discussion along the lines of Jeffersonian democracy, i.e., the best government is least government. The discussion and the funding is always towards more state power, use of state power and away from individual rights. So it doesn't matter from the viewpoint of The Order whether it is termed left, right, Democratic, Republican, secular or religious - so long as the discussion is kept within the framework of the State and the power of the State.
The Fabian Society is a British socialist organisation whose purpose is to advance the principles of socialism via gradualist and reformist means.[1][2] The society laid many of the foundations of the Labour Party and subsequently affected the policies of states emerging from the decolonisation of the British Empire, most notably India and Singapore.Originally, the Fabian society was committed to the establishment of a socialist economy, alongside a commitment to British imperialism as a progressive and modernizing force.[3] Today its viewpoints are more social democratic
The Fabian Society, which favoured gradual change rather than revolutionary change, was named – at the suggestion of Frank Podmore – in honour of the Roman general Fabius Maximus
en.wikipedia.org...
Fabian socialists were in favour of reforming Britain's imperialist foreign policy as a conduit for internationalist reform, and were in favor of a capitalist welfare state modelled on the Bismarckian German model; they criticised Gladstonian liberalism both for its individualism at home and its internationalism abroad. They favoured a national minimum wage in order to stop British industries compensating for their inefficiency by lowering wages instead of investing in capital equipment; slum clearances and a health service in order for "the breeding of even a moderately Imperial race" which would be more productive and better militarily than the "stunted, anaemic, demoralised denizens...of our great cities"; and a national education system because "it is in the classrooms...that the future battles of the Empire for commercial prosperity are already being lost".[12]