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.

 

There is no "communist" NWO

page: 2
21
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: kitzik
a reply to: JeanPaul




Capital, as in, the corporations/banks who run our governments & economies, would NOT be able to profit with a centralized global government. They need a bunch of separate nation states in order to chase cheap labor. In order to avoid providing safe workplace conditions. In order to avoid regulations. In order to avoid taxes. A centralized global government would be the last thing banks/corporations want.


Centralized global government is desirable to enshrine all those inequalities. Who told you that one government can't have different rulings, many tiers citizens and other mechanisms to help corporations in exploitation of different regions on Earth ?
With many nation states there is always a nasty chance that some nation will not play to the benefit of the multinational corporations.
Simply they want Corporations above any national state laws. And USA corporate law, patent law and other legal mechanisms will be the only arbitrator between them . All this backed by USA military power. One world government is USA corporate culture expanded into the whole world, it doesn't means some fancy social guarantees from the "government"


Stuff like the TPP arises out of competition at the nation state level. The TPP is part of the "pivot to Asia" which is seeking to limit China/India's influence on the Eurasian continent. It's not "communist global government" but a more blatant form of (western) big business controlling economies/societies. This is pretty much what a "free market" would do. Capital/concentrated wealth would make the rules. The TPP= the golden rule, he who has the gold makes the rules.

When World Bank/IMF forces various developing nations to slash social programs in order to pay back loans this is the golden rule in action. Capitalism in general is an economic expression of the golden rule. Wealth accumulates and grows. This wealth then seeks to preserve itself and expand even further by controlling various governments in order to push policies favorable to them. It's the market system itself that created all this, not socialism. This is the natural evolution of capitalism.

The sole purpose of Alex Jones/Ron Paul types is to deny this. Like Hayek, they label anything that's not absolute "free market" capitalism as being "socialist". It's the denial of reality. They deny how capitalism actually works and at the end of the day actually promote policies in line with corporate interests. Many of the right wing "conspiracy theorists" have been duped into supporting the very thing they claim to be against. Wealth accumulation by any means necessary. The right wing constituency in general moans and screams when higher tax rates for the top .01% are even mentioned. They'll call it "stealing". They'll call it "socialism". They'll call our current system "corporatism" is pushed to accept the fact socialism isn't happening.

Even the term "corporatism" is misleading. What we see today is simply the natural progression of capitalism. Capitalism can't exist without government intervention. Without social programs. Without taxes. The finical crisis would be frequent and more severe. Unemployment would expand and last longer. Resources wouldn't be properly allocated into western markets without coercion. Large labor forces could not be created without coercive dispossession. There has never been and will never be a "free market" capitalist system. Corporations were formed to pool risk and to shut down competitors. Competition leads to winners and losers, the winners accumulate vast amounts of wealth. In turn, they gain more control over government. This spreads, expands and flows across the globe on into the developing countries. This is capitalism. the "NWO" is just capitalism.




posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Exactly. I'm glad someone has finally taken the time to explain this on ATS. If there is some unified trend towards a "NWO", it is absolutely capitalist/mercantile in nature.

As you've already noted,
the "developing" world will be kept impoverished via economic subjugation, while the "West" functions as a stable consumer base, or rather, a pen for livestock.

In a very simplified sense, the third world is the grain, we are the cattle, and the capitalist elite are the butchers dining on veal.
edit on 22-6-2015 by Drest because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: JeanPaul

Thank you for your long eloquent answers. Of course I'm not saying that "NWO" is about communism, there is nowhere in the world communist agenda.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 08:45 PM
link   
In order to understand the current system at a fundmental level, you need to look at the past- British mercantilism. Nothing has changed at a fundmental level since those times, we are still operating under the same paradigm.

I believe this should be helpful:

www.digitalhistory.uh.edu...

The difference is that now, rather then the industrialized world dealing in routine production, we now deal in technology and symbolic analysis; the routine production workers can found cheaply elsewhere. The role of symbolic analysts is internal market regulation- problem solvers for corporations, essentially. They have a hand in things like technology, advertising, consumer trends etc, but also serve another role- to "teach" the developing world how to modernize and industrialize. They oversee the build up of infrastructure and then coopt regional economies by forcing them into the "global market". Then, in come the regulations and the corporate bureaucracy, and your independence is as good as gone.

The goal is to eventually stabilize the third world and create a permanent and sustainable infrastructure there, but that infrastructure will be under the exclusive jurisdiction of it's corporate financiers. Resource plundering operations will continue sporadically, and anytime some dangerous "reactionary" group crops up, they will be put down without mercy.

As it stands, the future is looking grim.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: gosseyn


The first step IMO is to nationalize food production, let's say produce 50 different sorts of vegetables and fruits, until it becomes a public service, etc.

Dear lord, don't you people ever learn?

This has been tried over and over again in Communist and Socialist countries. It is currently the way things are done in North Korea. It never works and never has.

Rampant capitalism is an evil, but Socialism is no better. No human system is.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 11:57 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

What a lot of twaddle. I challenge you to show how the first nine planks of the 'Communist manifesto' (as defined in your post) are supported by international corporations or Western governments.



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 12:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: gosseyn


The first step IMO is to nationalize food production, let's say produce 50 different sorts of vegetables and fruits, until it becomes a public service, etc.

Dear lord, don't you people ever learn?

This has been tried over and over again in Communist and Socialist countries. It is currently the way things are done in North Korea. It never works and never has.

Rampant capitalism is an evil, but Socialism is no better. No human system is.


Mao's idiocy in China had nothing to do with Karl Marx's socialism. The "Great Leap Forward" and "Cultural Revolution" represented the complete and total abandonment of Marxist analysis.

Anyhow, in an already industrially advanced nation planning food production would not be that hard, especially with today's computing power and information gathering capabilities.



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Just look at the Rights gained by the corporation since the mid 1980's drug testing, background checks, financial checks, now they have the right to give unlimited money to campaigns........ the host of victimless crimes like seat belt laws since the great leader Reagan, Americans have been forced to buy auto insurance since the 1980's yet freak out with Obama care???? Its pretty plain to see.

Whatever brand of fascism it is will be triumphed and applauded when it finally arrives...



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 12:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: gosseyn


The first step IMO is to nationalize food production, let's say produce 50 different sorts of vegetables and fruits, until it becomes a public service, etc.

Dear lord, don't you people ever learn?

This has been tried over and over again in Communist and Socialist countries. It is currently the way things are done in North Korea. It never works and never has.

Rampant capitalism is an evil, but Socialism is no better. No human system is.


What the heck does Juche have to do with socialism? What does an isolated North Korea have to do with socialism? North Korean land is not as fertile as South Korea. North Korea is run by some insane anti-democratic family. They're also isolated from global trade. It's very disingenuous to point to North Korea as being the ultimate failure of socialism, as with Mao's China. The entire idea of "socialism in one country" would have been laughable to Marx.

Anyhow, with modern industrial farming techniques, high yield seeds and modern computing power planning large scale food production would not be an issue. If the soil and climate allows. You think the USA couldn't grow enough food for each American if trillions of dollars were shifted from war into planned food production? We could probably feed the entire western hemisphere.



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 12:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: JeanPaul

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: gosseyn


The first step IMO is to nationalize food production, let's say produce 50 different sorts of vegetables and fruits, until it becomes a public service, etc.

Dear lord, don't you people ever learn?

This has been tried over and over again in Communist and Socialist countries. It is currently the way things are done in North Korea. It never works and never has.

Rampant capitalism is an evil, but Socialism is no better. No human system is.


What the heck does Juche have to do with socialism? What does an isolated North Korea have to do with socialism? North Korean land is not as fertile as South Korea. North Korea is run by some insane anti-democratic family. They're also isolated from global trade. It's very disingenuous to point to North Korea as being the ultimate failure of socialism, as with Mao's China. The entire idea of "socialism in one country" manifesting out of feudal conditions would have been laughable to Marx. It goes against everything he wrote.

Anyhow, with modern industrial farming techniques, high yield seeds and modern computing power planning large scale food production would not be an issue. If the soil and climate allows. You think the USA couldn't grow enough food for each American if trillions of dollars were shifted from war into planned food production? We could probably feed the entire western hemisphere.



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 12:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: gosseyn


The first step IMO is to nationalize food production, let's say produce 50 different sorts of vegetables and fruits, until it becomes a public service, etc.

Dear lord, don't you people ever learn?

This has been tried over and over again in Communist and Socialist countries. It is currently the way things are done in North Korea. It never works and never has.

Rampant capitalism is an evil, but Socialism is no better. No human system is.

"All I know is that I am not a Marxist" -Karl Marx
edit on 23-6-2015 by gosseyn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 04:07 AM
link   
a reply to: JeanPaul

Perhaps I'm missing something but I've never seen the point of whether or not the NWO is communist, capitalist or whatever else. I just do not understand what difference it makes what its orientation is???????

Would love to know what difference it makes.

To my way of thinking it doesn't make any difference what race, colour creed, hair colour, DNA, or whaterver ********* else the person is who is going to screw you does it?????????????????????

Someone please explain what difference it makes or what I've missed.



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 05:14 AM
link   
a reply to: JeanPaul

I've heard those excuses before. They are nonsense.

I have lived under Socialist regimes. I know — intimately and in detail — how they work, or rather, don't work.

Have you read Marx? I have. A great writer, which is why so many fell under his spell. But he was a fantasist, not a realist, and his view of the world and of humanity was entirely fanciful, made up out of whole cloth. Apply logic and factual scrutiny to his arguments and they fall to pieces, just as all would-be Socialist and Communist regimes around the world have done — except, of course, for Cuba and North Korea, the exceptions that prove the rule. Brilliant examples of Marxist social engineering, aren't they?

Give it a rest, Jean-Paul. Marx was a great man in his way, and a revolutionary philosophy of some kind was desperately needed in Europe in his time; you could say, as he no doubt would have, that his appearance on the scene was a historical inevitability. But his work is done, his era is past, and it is high time his ideas were given a decent burial. Capitalism, too, is tottering on its pins — but we shan't need Marx to deliver the quietus.

I suspect that the future, like the past, belongs to absolutism. Given the magnitude of the challenge posed by overpopulation and climate change, it is probably the only form of government that can ensure our survival as a species.

Freedom, equality and democracy are fine things indeed, but they are summer's fruits, and the summer of human civilization is drawing to a close. Winter, as they say on a certain popular TV show, is coming.


edit on 23/6/15 by Astyanax because: of froideur.



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

I think Marx never intended for all 10 to be used equally when he wrote the guidelines for Oligarchy.

But they are using the most effective planks as needed.

Banking and taxes etc.

All requiring massive authoritarian policies and massive enforcement structures.




posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen


Banking and taxes

These are Communist devices? Gosh.



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: incoserv
I agree that the idea of a global communist/socialist gov't is just stupid.

It is obviously oligarchist.


Most communist/socialist systems are oligarchies in disguise.


Hmm, I don't know about that.

And, most capitalistic societies are oligarchies in actuality, including ours. And it isn't really hidden...


Sure they are.

You have state control of everything, and the oligarchy consists of the privileged few the state deems smart enough to decide what is best for all the rest. Of course, they have access to the best of everything because they are the elites and deserve it. Besides the system has them in power so who stops them?

Whom do you think the communist party was in the old USSR? or the party officials in China today? They are oligarchs.



originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Astyanax

I think Marx never intended for all 10 to be used equally when he wrote the guidelines for Oligarchy.

But they are using the most effective planks as needed.

Banking and taxes etc.

All requiring massive authoritarian policies and massive enforcement structures.





All do respect, but I fear the two of you don't have a clue of what you're talking about.

Marx did not write "guidelines for oligarchy" and China is not communist. They are capitalist. All those sweat shops in China with little kids making your shoes are privately owned, and let's not forget that child labor is against one of the planks of communism.



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax



Marx said so, not me.




posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: JeanPaul

I've heard those excuses before. They are nonsense.

I have lived under Socialist regimes. I know — intimately and in detail — how they work, or rather, don't work.

Have you read Marx? I have. A great writer, which is why so many fell under his spell. But he was a fantasist, not a realist, and his view of the world and of humanity was entirely fanciful, made up out of whole cloth. Apply logic and factual scrutiny to his arguments and they fall to pieces, just as all would-be Socialist and Communist regimes around the world have done — except, of course, for Cuba and North Korea, the exceptions that prove the rule. Brilliant examples of Marxist social engineering, aren't they?

Give it a rest, Jean-Paul. Marx was a great man in his way, and a revolutionary philosophy of some kind was desperately needed in Europe in his time; you could say, as he no doubt would have, that his appearance on the scene was a historical inevitability. But his work is done, his era is past, and it is high time his ideas were given a decent burial. Capitalism, too, is tottering on its pins — but we shan't need Marx to deliver the quietus.

I suspect that the future, like the past, belongs to absolutism. Given the magnitude of the challenge posed by overpopulation and climate change, it is probably the only form of government that can ensure our survival as a species.

Freedom, equality and democracy are fine things indeed, but they are summer's fruits, and the summer of human civilization is drawing to a close. Winter, as they say on a certain popular TV show, is coming.



If it's not prying too much, could I ask where you are from? Former Yugoslavia perhaps?



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 11:54 AM
link   
What we have seen in the past century or what we still see today in some countries is not and has never been communism, but we should call that "state capitalism". Ideologically the US represented "private capitalism" while the USSR represented "state capitalism".

Anyway, for me anyone today who still thinks in terms of capitalism and communism, like if there was nothing else to invent, is blinded by ideology. Ideologies were useful in a time where we couldn't overcome scarcity and we had to have a system to distribute scarcity, but today with science and technology we can overcome scarcity in many domains. And usually from my experience, those who disagree with this are those who are not aware of the state of advancement of technologies. The private ownership of the means of production has to come to an end, because it's becoming ridiculous, everyone and every community should have access to those means of production to free themselves. It's the year 2015, we have all those greatly improved technologies, but yet people are still struggling everyday just to be able to survive, to have a roof above their head, etc.. It's just coming to a point where we live in a parody of a system, a theatrical play, where the rules are fake, where the limitations are fake..



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: gosseyn
The only solution if we don't want one day to be living is the sort of dystopia found in science-fiction is to abolish the market little by little. You have to realize that the market is not useful anymore for a series of activities, because we have attained a level technological prowess that makes the market obsolete. If you don't want to become one day a slave to a corporation, you have to make it so that your survival isn't tied to anything that has to do with the market. The first step IMO is to nationalize food production, let's say produce 50 different sorts of vegetables and fruits, until it becomes a public service, etc.. Then if you want a ferrari, you are free to become a slave to the market, it would be your choice.

Because nationalizing food production has done so well before, right?



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join