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: 3
21
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Actually yes it is Communist..........




In the politics of the People's Republic of China, the Central People's Government forms one of three interlocking branches of power, the others being the Communist Party of China and the People's Liberation Army.


I mean a 2 second google search could fix that

Do you ever know what youre talking about or do you just spout random crap for the sake of argument?

Just because you want to say it to be inflammatory doesnt make it true




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

originally posted by: NavyDoc

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?

The difference today is that we can automate 80% of nearly all processes of production. And it is not "nationalizing" per se, I am not saying we should prohibit for any company to produce food like they are doing today, but they would have to compete against a "company" of sort which is made by the people for the people with the use of latest technologies.



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: introvert

Actually yes it is Communist..........




In the politics of the People's Republic of China, the Central People's Government forms one of three interlocking branches of power, the others being the Communist Party of China and the People's Liberation Army.


I mean a 2 second google search could fix that

Do you ever know what youre talking about or do you just spout random crap for the sake of argument?

Just because you want to say it to be inflammatory doesnt make it true


Communism is an economic model, correct? China's economy is not communist. The food, housing and all forms of production ARE NOT owned and operated by the state. They are privately owned and operated.

The People's Republic of China is just that, a republic. The majority ruling party being the Communist Party, but there are many other parties in China, just like the US. Just because the Communists are the head of the political structure does not make it's economy a Communist model.

China has a robust capitalist economy that is putting the US to shame. There is nothing Communist about it's economy. THe only thing Communist is the name in the leading party's description.

Do more than just a google search before you try to lecture people.


edit on 23-6-2015 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 01:15 PM
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.



Start another thread on the feasibility of socialism please. I will say this, I'm not even a Marxist but in their defense there has never been a socialist revolution in an advanced capitalist industrial nation as Marx "designed" but more importantly there has never been an attempt at non Bolshevik socialism which wasn't absolutely squashed by capital via violence, subversion and sabotage. Be it Germany in the 1920's with Hitler's rise (destroying the SPD) or in Spain in the 1930's with Franco or Chile in the 1970's with Pinochet.

Socialism itself doesn't have to follow the Leninist model, which is what the world has seen in practice, be it in Mao's China, Lenin/Stalin's Russia etc. North Korea is a red herring brought up by those who know nothing of Marx or the broader spectrum of socialism in general.

Marx aside, socialism doesn't even have to follow a centralized planned model. This is the thing, any and all economic criticisms of socialism melt away when we introduce market socialism. The calculation problem etc. It's essentially democratic worker run capitalism, without planners. Without capitalists. Without the huge wealth gap, although there would still be inequality.

That's the thing most people take away from Marx (without even reading anything he wrote) that "socialism/communism" can be some utopian system where everyone is equal. It's nonsensical. A pipe dream. I agree, that sort of socialism/communism is impossible. Anyhow, I don't advocate some sort of red herring utopian socialism/communism. I advocate a mixture of market socialism and decentralized planning under democratic worker run production. Its feasibility really can't be questioned, unless you simply hate democracy. I can give multiple real world examples showing the viability of both market socialism and in many cases where planning has produced quality results.

The thing is, as I define socialism (democratic worker run production), if it is attempted anywhere on earth capital will violently oppose it. Any system, no matter what you call it, if it threatens capitalism it will be squashed. Either via isolation from proper trade or via subversion from the Pentagon.

With market socialism we can achieve pareto efficiency, free trade can be facilitated under the law of comparative advantage, the calculation problem doesn't exist etc. It's really no different than capitalism as it retains markets. The only question is how to stop firms from creating the oligopoly like conditions we see today. Competition would have to be regulated in order to stop firms from becoming too large. Government subsidies would definitely have to go. The financialization as we see on Wall St would have to be minimized as it was in the early 20th century. Finacial markets would have to be severely regulated. Market socialism's feasibility is not in question- otherwise you'd have to say capitalism doesn't work at any level.

The only thing stopping us from moving on from our current model is a lack of demand, in part because the term socialism has been so mangled by the Marxists. Our understanding of economics has advanced past Marx's Capital.


Edit:

(Accidentally put this in my last post)

One example of the principles of market socialism in action is the Mondragon Corporation:

en.wikipedia.org...

It can't function as a system under the current conditions capitalism has created though. There would have to be widespread institutional/economic/political change in order for a market socialist system to manifest. As of now, they are forced to operate in competition with capitalist firms under unsatisfactory conditions. This is just a small sample size of market socialist principles in action.
edit on 23-6-2015 by JeanPaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

You don't understand how China does business do you? The state is the company in China.

My husband was playing host to some Chinese VIPs back when his company was looking to open up a market in China. Do you know what was most fascinating to them? The lab equipment catalog. See, they were astounded at the idea that you could just open it up and have a choice of 10 to 20 different options for a piece of equipment like slide coverslips. In China, there is often only one option, produced by a state run company.

In order for a foreign company to do business there, they have to give up corporate secrets to the state of China. China then busily rips them off. If China ever figures out how to rip off what you are selling there, they tend to kick you out and bar you from doing business there to prevent competition with the state.

So, China does not exactly have a "capitalist" economy.



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Azureblue
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.


My point is, the "NWO" is just capitalism as manifested in America/western Europe. The expansion of the property based industrial market system (supposedly) under enlightenment values. It's the natural evolution of property based industrial capitalism. It has to expand in order to function. This requires foreign investment and trade. To do that you need foreign governments to create conditions safe for investing and trade. The WTO acts as a regulatory body, a mediator for trade. World Bank/IMF set up favorable conditions for western investing.The UN is the political body which attempts to mediate cultural/political conflict between world leaders.

The west wants an integrated system which is safe for capital mobility. This means, at a rudimentary level, reliable foreign financial markets. Reliable private property and patten laws. Reliable legal institutions and government to keep workers/people/governments from seizing and nationalizing production after capitalists invest. Capitalism requires perpetual expansion, constant growth and that requires a base level governmental continuity from nation to nation as far as fundamental investment protections, regulations and such.

They aren't necessarily concerned with "spreading democracy", it's more so about market expansion. Gaining access to more resources, more labor, more consumers more places to invest. This can't happen without "the rule of law". "The rule of the jungle" does not provide safe conditions for capitalism.

www.youtube.com...

I'm not saying Bush is a great guy but all he's talking about is creating a capitalist world free from world war. Now, one can rightly point out that the USA is full of crap. That you don't create peace through war. We can point out that "spreading democracy" is not their goal- that profits by any means necessary has overtaken any sort of noble quest to "spread liberal democracy" (capitalism). A "New World Order" is a world free from "barbarism" (as they see it). Free from any other economic systems which would threaten capitalism.They want an ordered structured world free from chaos. Where "free trade" rules the day. Where governments have created safe conditions for investing (so they can squander developing countries). They want to destroy any smaller nation's government that doesn't want to play along. They also want to force Russia, China and Iran to play along.

It's a geopolitical pipe dream. Capitalism creates too much competition. Lacking actual democracy large capitalists and the governments they control will always create conflict in competition over land, resources, consumers and labor. There will always be smaller nations who side with this or that larger nation (without true democracy). South America is now attempting to get out from under the World bank/IMF's thumb. Venezuela leads those efforts. Assad sided with Russia. China is entering a new period of economic expansion, thus challenging western hegemony. The whole "new world order" is just capitalism how the west wants it and it's not exactly working out at the moment.


Edit:

One example of the principles of market socialism in action is the Mondragon Corporation:

en.wikipedia.org...

It can't function as a system under the current conditions capitalism has created though. There would have to be widespread institutional/economic/political change in order for a market socialist system to manifest. As of now, they are forced to operate in competition with capitalist firms under unsatisfactory conditions. This is just a small sample size of market socialist principles in action.
edit on 23-6-2015 by JeanPaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko



So, China does not exactly have a "capitalist" economy.


Correct. It is not a truly free-market capitalist system. I never claimed that it was. But it is no where near a communist economic system.



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: ketsuko



So, China does not exactly have a "capitalist" economy.


Correct. It is not a truly free-market capitalist system. I never claimed that it was. But it is no where near a communist economic system.


China has in fact threatened this "NWO". The "NWO" is simply capitalism as advocated by the west. The culmination/combination of Enlightenment values and property based market capitalism. When Francis Fukuyama declared "the end of history" after the fall of the USSR he was basically saying liberal democracy had prevailed. The "NWO" is western liberal democracy (capitalism).

China has shown, in its own way, liberal democracy is not necessary in order to produce efficient economic results. They are considered hostile to western liberal democracy (capitalism) because they offer alternatives, both for domestic production and now they are beginning to offer alternative paths to development outside of the western structure (World Bank/IMF etc).

The USA wants to maintain hegemony. China, Russia and Iran are beginning to challenge US hegemony and hence the "end of history" has not manifested:

www.theatlantic.com...


The people behind the so called "NWO" (western liberal democracy/capitalism), would like "the end of history" to happen. Their preferred system is basically a mixture of Neoclassical economics and Hegemonic Stability theory:

en.wikipedia.org...

There's no centralized global government in the works. Just the expansion of western liberal democracy, so that the US can maintain hegemony and so the advanced western nations (and their corporations) can remain top dogs.



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 05:22 PM
link   
LOL NO communist nwo?

ANSWER: YES THEIR IS A COMMUNIST NWO AND THE COMMUNIST NWO DEATHS YOU!

OP?: In future you + World + communicate "Their is no communist nwo" =i OP + = OP NO %

Communisim: Communication/ no deathing the % you communicate with?

LOL so you admit it you YOU OP DEATH YOU PAST COMMUNINITY YOU DEATH IOTT COMMUNITY YOU YOU OP!



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: JeanPaul

Communisim: The act of +ing words + no deathing % word -er

You + that communisim is all about capitalisim.. lol to me capitalisim is about -ing bacon +ing no work + +ing work while you so stupid you no nuerologically enhance me to communicate while your stupid old ass claims that with no capital their is no communication in the first iott

Yes I've (the no 1st time traveler) have communicted with no -ing capital. LOL Your a weird conspiracy theorist, but yes Im so frustrated I might just do it. LOL



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: introvert

Actually yes it is Communist..........




In the politics of the People's Republic of China, the Central People's Government forms one of three interlocking branches of power, the others being the Communist Party of China and the People's Liberation Army.


I mean a 2 second google search could fix that

Do you ever know what youre talking about or do you just spout random crap for the sake of argument?

Just because you want to say it to be inflammatory doesnt make it true


China is an odd form of (authoritarian) market socialism. Deng introduced market reforms in the 1970's in line with Marx's theory that capitalism had to fully develope industry before socialism could be achieved.

Mao had ignored this stage of development and attempted to jump straight into socialism. It predictably failed.

I don't think the Pentagon during Nixon's administration fully understood that China never planned on completely embracing western liberal democracy (capitalism). The Chinese have traditionally thought and planned for the long term.

Me thinks the Pentagon was in a rush to "defeate communism", to further isolate the USSR. They probably didnt fully understand China's angle or future plans.



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: JeanPaul

Of course it is, that's the bamboozle. They pretend to paint u a nice socialist society so u can give them control. Then they bait and switch for communism and u can't stop them because u would be disarmed and they have full control. The blueprint was written like this by the think tanks. We already know the game plan and it has slowly came into fruition predicted many decades ago. They will stage crisis after crisis and u will give them more control to resolve something they created.

A Communist NWO is the end game. Socialism and Communism is an oligarchy. One would argue it's socialism for the wealthy. The game plan is to turn the 1% into the middle class and the middle class into the poor class and at the very top is the elites exempt from laws. As seen with the class warfare being pushed. Just watch some of the examples like Divergent movie etc. The writer must be libertarian.
edit on 23-6-2015 by amfirst1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: JeanPaul

China is Communism at the top and practice capitalism at the bottom to bring in revenue. If they wanted to they can smash capitalism at will, but they are more smart than stupid like America which at this point trying to destroy capitalism. That makes them Communist.
edit on 23-6-2015 by amfirst1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 02:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: amfirst1
a reply to: JeanPaul

Of course it is, that's the bamboozle. They pretend to paint u a nice socialist society so u can give them control. Then they bait and switch for communism and u can't stop them because u would be disarmed and they have full control. The blueprint was written like this by the think tanks. We already know the game plan and it has slowly came into fruition predicted many decades ago. They will stage crisis after crisis and u will give them more control to resolve something they created.

A Communist NWO is the end game. Socialism and Communism is an oligarchy. One would argue it's socialism for the wealthy. The game plan is to turn the 1% into the middle class and the middle class into the poor class and at the very top is the elites exempt from laws. As seen with the class warfare being pushed. Just watch some of the examples like Divergent movie etc. The writer must be libertarian.


I guess you're the person I've been looking for. lol



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: JeanPaul


Start another thread on the feasibility of socialism please.

Not interested. I agree with what you say in the OP of this one. But my political views are... unusual. You might say I consider myself post-political.

As far as I am concerned, no economic theory works. As for forms of government, they are, as Pope said, fit only to be contested by fools. Democracy is mainly useful as a way of replacing governments without violence, but it has such massive and obvious flaws that keeping it workable has meant endless tinkering and constant expansion of the franchise, to the point where the complexity and weakness of democratic government render it increasingly useless.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Yep. Corporate Fascism.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: JeanPaul


Start another thread on the feasibility of socialism please.

Not interested. I agree with what you say in the OP of this one. But my political views are... unusual. You might say I consider myself post-political.

As far as I am concerned, no economic theory works. As for forms of government, they are, as Pope said, fit only to be contested by fools. Democracy is mainly useful as a way of replacing governments without violence, but it has such massive and obvious flaws that keeping it workable has meant endless tinkering and constant expansion of the franchise, to the point where the complexity and weakness of democratic government render it increasingly useless.


Fair enough. In the spirit of democracy- everyone is entitled to their opinion.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: amfirst1
a reply to: JeanPaul

Of course it is, that's the bamboozle. They pretend to paint u a nice socialist society so u can give them control. Then they bait and switch for communism and u can't stop them because u would be disarmed and they have full control. The blueprint was written like this by the think tanks. We already know the game plan and it has slowly came into fruition predicted many decades ago. They will stage crisis after crisis and u will give them more control to resolve something they created.

A Communist NWO is the end game. Socialism and Communism is an oligarchy. One would argue it's socialism for the wealthy. The game plan is to turn the 1% into the middle class and the middle class into the poor class and at the very top is the elites exempt from laws. As seen with the class warfare being pushed. Just watch some of the examples like Divergent movie etc. The writer must be libertarian.


So...I wonder what the whole Cold War was all about? I wonder why these same people overthrew countless governments attempting socialism? I wonder why they are spreading private property and patent laws? I wonder why they fought tooth and nail to stop oil nationalization in Iran? Why they fought Nasserism in Egypt? Why they fought the socialist government in Afghanistan? Chile? Spain? Germany? Venezuela? Vietnam? On and on.

Your world view is based on "free market" ideology. That any sort of government intervention is "socialism". It rests on the denial or inversion of reality. Sure there were a few people after WW2 who thought a world government was necessary to avoid WW3 but actual capitalism won out.

I don't know how delusional one has to be to think the Pentagon/USG is building global communism. I mean, seriously. It's nonsensical. Historically inaccurate to say the least. Alex Jones is full on insane. G Edward Griffin is just silly. He actually thinks JP Morgan was a communist. Rockefeller, Robert Mcnamara was heading World Bank a few years before Griffin wrote his book. Anyone who thinks Robert Mcnamara was advocating communism needs to have their head examined.

Anyone who thinks Keynesian economics has anything to do with communism needs to have their head examined. Today's ruling economic ideology isn't even full blown Keynesian it's a mixture of Neoclassical and the New neoclassical synthesis, which has nothing to do with socialism. They do what they do in order to keep capitalism from imploding. To protect profits at all cost. This includes war. This includes overthrowing socialist governments. This includes all manner of coercive policies which capitalism demands. There has never been and will never be "free market" capitalism. These financial institutions and corporations (controlling our government) are NOT building some global communist system. It's not happening.




top topics



 
21
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join