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.

 

Socialism is Not a 4 Letter Word

page: 23
37
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Not really, Hitler, like Mussolini were smart to know that they needed many corporatists to help them finance their wet dreams of grandeur. Their system was called Fascism because they sought to use corporatists to help them finance their socialist dreams.

It's just like for example, communism at it's essence is very anti-religion, but many communists and socialists have learned that they can use religion to help them get more people to accept their views. For example, Venezuela. Chavez even helped to convince castro to be more linient of religious people to help castro get more control in Cuba.

You can see this "change in mentality" by the claim that socialists and communists have been using that "Jesus was socialist" or "Jesus was a leftist revolutionary". Which of course are lies.


edit on 9-8-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.




posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

And was a form of collectivism which is part of what this thread is discussing.

Answer me this - did the individual German have any choice in whether or not they participated in NAZI collectivism? If not, it is very much part and parcel with the other forms we are discussing whether or not you think it is.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

What were these investors going to get out of their investment exactly? If you need rich investors, and they expect to gain by it, that's a dead give away that you are not practicing any form of socialism.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

The USSR had a lot of ties to Western Corporations also.




posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: The Vagabond
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

What were these investors going to get out of their investment exactly? If you need rich investors, and they expect to gain by it, that's a dead give away that you are not practicing any form of socialism.



Most of the forms of what we call socialism aren't really. They benefit a very small group at the top at the expense of everyone else. There really isn't any way to implement what most people think socialism is without this happening.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Their system was called Fascism because they practiced anti-Leftist ideology and tried to unify their populations under a ultra-nationalist social order. The tactics used were and are considered far right wing, including ultra-patriotism, invoking the name of god and appealing to one's faith. Those tactics are used today by the extreme right wing in the US.

This issue is often conflated by those that wish to portray the atrocities committed by these men to originate from an ideology they disagree with, but the facts are out there for all to see. It requires time and commitment to truly understand the issue.

Anyone that says the Nazis were socialist are uneducated and misinformed. There is plenty of evidence to show that leftists were the primary target from the outset.




You can see this "change in mentality" by the claim that socialists and communists have been using that "Jesus was socialist" or "Jesus was a leftist revolutionary". Which of course are lies.


I made that statement earlier as an "elbow" to the religious right. There is no way for us to say what Jesus would have been either way. I can't say he would be a socialist, and you cannot say he would not. You never met the guy, nor have I.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: The Vagabond

Except that for example Hitler forced corporatists to change their business "for the betterment of the fatherland".

Businesses owned by Jewish people were forced to sell out to non-Jewish Germans.

If you read, or watch Schidler's list you can also find how Hitler forced businesses to help them for the war.

However, Hitler knew he could not force businesses outside of Germany but he still needed them to help him.

BTW, you do know that there were Jewish people who also helped the NAZIS because they saw a common enemy in the Soviet Union?

Did that make the horrors that Hitler and the NAZIS inflicted on millions of other Jewish people less horrific, or not true?



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

He was not a friend to Capitalism. You've been reading too much DemocraticUnderground blogging. Oh you've researched more than the researchers....well I guess you just missed this little gem...

“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” –Adolf Hitler
www.fireandreamitchell.com...

I can't wait to hear you refute this.
However, I will concede that some wealthy industrialists supported his mission, such as Prescott Bush and Averill Harriman, both Skull and Bones members. Remember I've studied Antony Sutton and he exposed Skull and Bones, their connection to CFR and their Hegelian plans and support of leftist causes. He exposed the funding of the Bolsheviks and the Nazis by wealthy industrialists and Wall Street. Occupy Wall Street had it partially correct, but they still support leftist causes themselves.
edit on 9-8-2015 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Sometimes economics and economic conflicts between governments has little or nothing to do with political idealism.

Oil, Food, etc. can cause wars between similar like minded governments.




posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I just love how we always reference the most extreme examples instead of analyzing the more balanced democractic examples in order to prove an illogical perspective that doesn't support the " I me mine" paradigm.

The, I don't want to contribute because this is my stuff and I won't share waaaa mentality I keep reading.
edit on 8/9/2015 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 06:25 PM
link   
The root problem isn't to be found in any one "ism", be it capitalism, socialism, or the others. The root problem is always the same and it infects all "isms" making each and every one of them fail. The problem is corruption. That corruption follows the same end game as well. All power, wealth, influence, privilege, etc. in the hands of the few and despotism for everyone else. When it happens in a Socialist Society it's the members of the State that typically become corrupt. When it's in a capitalistic society it becomes the Capitalists and Elite Society members aka. the Wealthy that typically become corrupt.

Also, the reality is that no society is ever truly Socialist or Communist or Capitalist either. They are all hybrids like Democratic Socialist or Democratic Republic or Communist Dictatorship or whatever. Even those have elements of other systems which are involved. But they still all fall because of the same root problems of Corruption, Secrecy, Selfishness, etc.

Blaming any one system isn't going to work. It's like blaming your car for not working instead of yourself for not putting gas in it, or because the manufacture used faulty parts that don't work. It's not the car or the system, it's the operators and manufactures that cause the problems. The system only performs in the manner and the capacity that it's been built to perform at. As concepts and theory they would all work under whatever conditions they are supposed to work under. But you can't expect any of them to function correctly when the operators are actively removing parts of it, adding in incompatible parts and/or changing the proper operating conditions for which it is supposed to be operating under.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Cronies don't need government to have each others backs.


The free market solution is to not buy from them anymore, abstinence is an incredibly effective tool, far more effective than violence.

You can believe that if you want. If you have ever lived in a place where "might is right" you would see that your free market solution usually fails.
edit on 9-8-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: The Vagabond
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

What were these investors going to get out of their investment exactly? If you need rich investors, and they expect to gain by it, that's a dead give away that you are not practicing any form of socialism.



I understand what you are saying, that is the ideal put forth by avid socialists and writers and ideologues, but as Ive said many times here, industrialists supported these communist and socialist movements for personal gain. By now don't we all know that socialism works till they run out of other people's money?



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko



did the individual German have any choice in whether or not they participated in NAZI collectivism? If not, it is very much part and parcel with the other forms we are discussing whether or not you think it is.


Yes, they did have a choice. In Goebbles biography the writer, Peter Longerich, discusses how Goebbles admired Hitler's approach of a mixture of both collectivism and individualism. That is why the propaganda machine was so important to the party's "success".

They did not want to be seen as forcing the people to do or believe anything. They relied on the power of persuasion to effect the people and the people came willingly in to the collective.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

No, there is a difference between contributing from genuine charity and altruism and being forced into paying for arbitrary social programs at the whim of a tyrannical government dictatorship. I have already shown that Lenin and Marx both said a dictatorship of the proletariat must exist at the outset of a revolution.

Interestingly, here is the truth regarding the dictatorship of the proletariat(and we see this being manifest in the US today under the Progressive leadership of the Democratic Party, at least in rhetoric though we see that the ruling monied class is still in power)

exclude capitalists, as a social class, in order to ensure the establishment of a proletarian government, by and for the working class and the peasants. About the political disenfranchisement of the Russian capitalist social classes, Lenin said that ‘depriving the exploiters of the franchise is a purely Russian question, and not a question of the dictatorship of the proletariat, in general.... In which countries... democracy for the exploiters will be, in one or another form, restricted... is a question of the specific national features of this or that capitalism’.[11] In chapter five of The State and Revolution (1917) Lenin describes:

...the dictatorship of the proletariat — i.e. the organisation of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of crushing the oppressors.... An immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the rich:... and suppression by force, i.e. exclusion from democracy, for the exploiters and oppressors of the people — this is the change which democracy undergoes during the ‘transition’ from capitalism to communism.[12]


en.wikipedia.org...
So the way I see it is that those who espouse socialism and communism are in power in the country now and literally spew this same rhetoric about the nobleness of a classless society and equality and so on ad nauseum, yet they themselves have the power, the money, the privelege and the wealth, without subjecting themselves to the same dictates they impose on the masses. A classic example of this is a Congress which exempts itself from the ACA. Is it not obvious? The elites in communist Russia also availed themselves of the best vodka and goods and housing and what not. Something I read last night was that when these elites traveled to other countries they discovered their way of life wasnt as plush as they supposed.
edit on 9-8-2015 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

No, the differences were that Hitler and Mussolini wanted their form of socialism to be national, and they were smart enough to know that they needed funding to help their systems come true.

If you don't want to accept the written speeches by Hitler and his goons, here is a video showing a NAZI propaganda film which has subtitles in English.

At 2:46 you can start reading the subtitles, and then tell me that's not a socialist mantra.

For example, the NAZI youth included children of all classes, not just the poor, but also the middle class, and the rich. It was a "classless youth group".



There have always been competing brands/branches of socialism like there have been, and there still are competing brands of communism. Lenin wanted to implement international communism, and Stalin wanted NATIONAL communism.

The word national doesn't make any form of socialism as rightwing...

As for Jesus... He gave people a choice to follow him. He didn't force them to do so... Jesus's views and teachings weren't political, they were spiritual...


edit on 9-8-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: ketsuko

I just love how we always reference the most extreme examples instead of analyzing the more balanced democractic examples in order to prove an illogical perspective that doesn't support the " I me mine" paradigm.

The, I don't want to contribute because this is my stuff and I won't share waaaa mentality I keep reading.


Yeah, I am truly horrible. I respect that when you go to work, you deserve to keep what you earn, and I have no right to expect any part of it for my use unless you choose to share it.

I expect no less in return from you.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Annee

And your criticism would be valid if ... Venezuela had a capitalist society, but it demonstrably does not. In Venezuela, the anarchy comes from the failure of socialism.



Anarchy is anarchy.

What difference does it make where it comes from. Or you just want to bag on socialism?


Bag on socialism?

So what if it ends up in people killing each other over food?

You're all in?


You take that chance with any economic system if it is not run properly. Capitalism had to resort to socialism in the US to avoid that reality, in the form of food stamps.


It's not just snark when free market proponents agree with you and say that no economic system works, that's why we trade freely.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 06:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: ketsuko



did the individual German have any choice in whether or not they participated in NAZI collectivism? If not, it is very much part and parcel with the other forms we are discussing whether or not you think it is.


Yes, they did have a choice. In Goebbles biography the writer, Peter Longerich, discusses how Goebbles admired Hitler's approach of a mixture of both collectivism and individualism. That is why the propaganda machine was so important to the party's "success".

They did not want to be seen as forcing the people to do or believe anything. They relied on the power of persuasion to effect the people and the people came willingly in to the collective.


Sometimes you should read what you write and think about it.

They didn't want to be seen as forcing people which means they were really all about forcing people.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 06:45 PM
link   
23 pages in.

I think most would agree by now that socialism is coming to the USSA.

But there are many that won't accept it, embrace it, like the proponents here.

I don't know what everyone is trying to prove here.

You want a bigger government.
You want a socialist government.

We get it.

You don't like individuality, personal responsibility, liberty and freedoms.

It's hard.

But fear not, the way things are going, you'll get your wish.




top topics



 
37
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join