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.

 

Cutural Marxism is a Sociological Technology

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: introvert

These are the various means by which they con you into believing that socialism isn't all that bad.

These are also the means by which they convince you that:

1.) It is OK to vote your way into your neighbor's pocket is the intentions are good.

2.) If only a "little" socialism isn't that bad, then the next, bigger step won't be all that bad either. Look at all those reactionary folks squawking over their. You are the frog in the slowly boiling water who likes his hot tub.



I really don't see how your post is relevant to mine.

Please be specific on what "various means" you are referring to.




posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: introvert


Where did I say that? Have a quote?



That was the "or". They made an important distinction between collective ownership and government ownership.


fascism -

a ​political ​system ​based on a very ​powerful ​leader, ​state ​control of ​social and ​economic ​life, and ​extreme ​pride in ​country and ​race, with no ​expression of ​political ​disagreement ​allowed


Noting that control and ownership are not the same thing.



Again, what does that have to do with what I said?



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I am forced to remind you that your primary (if not only) argument was that there was a distinction between the collective and the government as it pertains to the realization of socialism. That the latter constituted communism while the former was merely innocuous socialism.

Incidentally, that distinction is also incorrect but, I didn't think it would be helpful to point that out at the time.

Communism is international Marxism while other forms of socialism need not be global revolutionary political ideologies.
edit on 11-2-2016 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp



I am forced to remind you that your primary (if not only) argument was that there was a distinction between the collective and the government as it pertains to the realization of socialism.


No. My main argument was this:



Now you are continuing to obfuscate by not addressing the most important part of what you posted. That was the "or". They made an important distinction between collective ownership and government ownership. That is important as it creates the separation between simple socialism and communism.


We were talking ownership. Collective ownership can exist separately from the government. That is exactly what a co-op is.



Incidentally, that distinction is also incorrect but, I didn't think it would be helpful to point that out at the time.


How kind of you. I'd be inclined to take offense at such an arrogant statement, but your apparent inability to follow the discussion's premise leads me to take a more sympathetic approach.



Communism is international Marxism while other forms of socialism need not be global revolutionary political ideologies.


That is true. I am glad you are now willing to separate Communism from "other forms" of socialism. We made progress.
edit on 11-2-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-2-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

I don't see anything actually happening, just faster or slower decent into totalitarianism, which might be nice for awhile.



This may seem like an odd question, but its where my brain went (it does that).

How can individualism work with 320 million people?

There are posters that state: "I should be able to do what I want". But, in reality, you really can't because you are in a society.

As a Globalist, I see the "whole" as necessary for both the planet and humanity. Does that or will that require totalitarianism?

As I say: "It's the WHO and HOW" - - not the "WHAT, WHEN, IF.

No matter the "ism" - - anything can be done right or wrong.


Individualism is what is really happening all of the time. Individuals do this and that; the world or the nation or society has no mind, it cannot behave or do anything. When someone speaks informatively about the world doing something they are estimating the net result of billions of individuals doing what they think is best for themselves.

The gov doesn't do anything itself. The people who work for the gov do things. Those people could do the same task as insurance or public relations company employees. And they would do a better job because results matter I the private sector.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 08:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: monkeyluv
The U.S. elite accomplished such without the need for Marxism. In fact, they had achieved control of the country through free market capitalism, which eventually lead to crony capitalism.


Nope they have subverted even that.

You think the market is free, but it's not and hasn't been. It's an interventionalist mess.


That's what I meant. It starts with a free market based on control of land and other resources, from which some become stronger than others through capitalism, and then take over by influencing government.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 08:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: introvert

It is black and white, either you are a socialist or you are not.

While it is true that many believe in a "social safety net" and the interventionist welfare state, they are not socialists, just misinformed socioeconomic interventionists. Perhaps you are among them in which case I would advise you to stop erroneously identifying with socialism, state ownership of the means of production.


There are mixed economies:

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 08:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: introvert

By various, they mean the variants of socialism which include communism, national socialism, fascism, state capitalism, syndicalism, guild socialism, etc.


These may also be types of capitalism.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: greencmp



Now you are being a little silly, this isn't even an etymological or lexicological debate.


That is true, but we must have some sort of common ground on definitions. You provided a definition as a rebuttal but did not notice the one word within that definition that refuted the very premise of your assertion.

The word "or" separated socialism in to two distinct categories. One being the state and the other being the collective.

To answer your question, the difference between them is that one is directed and controlled by the "state" and the others is directed and controlled by the people.

That distinction is very clear and I thank you for providing a definition you can agree with that very clearly separates the two.


We are all part of our voluntary collective so, no political (coercive force) motivation need be exercised.

What non-voluntary collective do you propose to introduce which could not be considered government?


FWIW, the origin of modern capitalism is coercion, i.e., enclosures. It's also coupled with fiat currency and regulations that protect property rights, etc.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 04:26 AM
link   
a reply to: monkeyluv

Capitalism is not a type of government, nor is it political in and of itself.

Capitalism is economics, capitalism is not politics.

Capitalism is culture, a social technology that allows surpluses to be traded and then the evolution of specialization of labor.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: monkeyluv

Capitalism is not a type of government, nor is it political in and of itself.

Capitalism is economics, capitalism is not politics.

Capitalism is culture, a social technology that allows surpluses to be traded and then the evolution of specialization of labor.



I didn't argue that capitalism is a type of government. I argued that free market capitalism leads to crony capitalism, where capitalists influence government.

I didn't argue that capitalism is politics. I argued that capitalists influence politics.

Finally, modern capitalism, which is discussed in this thread, involves more than just social technology. It also involves physical force (e.g., enclosures), legal systems, fiat currency and credit in general, etc.



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: monkeyluv

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: monkeyluv

Capitalism is not a type of government, nor is it political in and of itself.

Capitalism is economics, capitalism is not politics.

Capitalism is culture, a social technology that allows surpluses to be traded and then the evolution of specialization of labor.



I didn't argue that capitalism is a type of government. I argued that free market capitalism leads to crony capitalism, where capitalists influence government.

I didn't argue that capitalism is politics. I argued that capitalists influence politics.

Finally, modern capitalism, which is discussed in this thread, involves more than just social technology. It also involves physical force (e.g., enclosures), legal systems, fiat currency and credit in general, etc.


You didn't argue that capitalism leads to crony capitalism, you asserted it without evidence.

The "crony" part uses government. Blaming crony capitalism on capitalism is like blaming language for lies, or blaming electricity for heart attacks.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 09:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate


You didn't argue that capitalism leads to crony capitalism, you asserted it without evidence.

The "crony" part uses government. Blaming crony capitalism on capitalism is like blaming language for lies, or blaming electricity for heart attacks.


The presence of a Fed controlled by Wall Street, major bailouts of banks by governments worldwide after the 2008 crash, and a "shadow" derivatives market with a notional value of over a quadrillion dollars proves that.

The first sentence of your second paragraph proves my point.

The second sentence makes no sense as well, as you refer to "crony capitalism" and not just cronyism.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 04:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: monkeyluv

originally posted by: Semicollegiate


You didn't argue that capitalism leads to crony capitalism, you asserted it without evidence.

The "crony" part uses government. Blaming crony capitalism on capitalism is like blaming language for lies, or blaming electricity for heart attacks.


The presence of a Fed controlled by Wall Street, major bailouts of banks by governments worldwide after the 2008 crash, and a "shadow" derivatives market with a notional value of over a quadrillion dollars proves that.

The first sentence of your second paragraph proves my point.

The second sentence makes no sense as well, as you refer to "crony capitalism" and not just cronyism.



There is no argument that the free market, itself, ever leads to cronyism.



posted on Feb, 18 2016 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sargeras

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Sargeras

I choose option one.

There are somewhat involved explanations that would likely calm your ire about entrepreneurs and how and why they are necessary. Suffice it to say that stewards of capital in an unhampered market environment are the mandatories of consumers.

Laissez-faire is a consumer's democracy.


But entrepreneurs aren't the problem.

It is wealth hoarding that is the problem.

The Spice must flow!!!

If it doesn't we get today's economic situation.

Several people hoarding it all, is very bad, much worse than if the same several people had nothing and that same wealth was circulated throughout the economy.

And no, moving it around wallstreet us not moving it through the economy.

Which is what is happening now.

All the fat cats recovered long ago, all the average joes... Not so much



James Madison would agree with you by the way. He had some things to say about wealth balance and large monopolies. He had more influence on the constitution that anyone. (not that he was perfect)



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
There is no argument that the free market, itself, ever leads to cronyism.



Except reality.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: monkeyluv

originally posted by: Semicollegiate


You didn't argue that capitalism leads to crony capitalism, you asserted it without evidence.

The "crony" part uses government. Blaming crony capitalism on capitalism is like blaming language for lies, or blaming electricity for heart attacks.


The presence of a Fed controlled by Wall Street, major bailouts of banks by governments worldwide after the 2008 crash, and a "shadow" derivatives market with a notional value of over a quadrillion dollars proves that.

The first sentence of your second paragraph proves my point.

The second sentence makes no sense as well, as you refer to "crony capitalism" and not just cronyism.


There is no argument that the free market, itself, ever leads to cronyism.

I had something come up in my mind just now. I was a christian growing up. Christians believe in original sin. They believe people sin and always will. Assuming that's true, maybe that's why free people will inevitably turn on themselves and abuse or exploit for selfish or undesirable reasons. BUT given this is true, wouldn't you want a free society over socialism or communism or crony capitalism? Everybody wants freedom! Of course we would. While we might never achieve a truly free society, original sin doesn't excuse the exploitation and abuse of others. But turning to socialism or communism to resolve original sin is not any better than crony capitalism because both are trying to remove something which can't be removed and will probably have negative effects, possibly worse than crony capitalism.

Regardless of the merits of the above, I enjoyed reading this thread. I SHOULD research government more. It's always been a lesser priority to me than other things. I think because things of this nature usually get me down. It' social. Biology, strangely, does the same thing. I don't like to be reminded of this world. That's why my thoughts were always on distant things, like space or the future or historical events.

EDIT: My economics is simple. I've always believed we get what we deserve. If in a free society you do not labour or perform services or value to others then how can you put bread on the table or provide sustenance for continued living? Usually society will help the least of us, but if everybody is unable then there's no bread, no water, nothing to preserve continued living. We MUST put value on earning a living because it's a necessity to living. Whether our society is communist or socialist or capitalist or whatever it's, we can't lose sight of that.
edit on 2/19/2016 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: jonnywhite

I think sin, most basically and essentially, means irresponsibility or being a grasshopper at the specific time you should be an ant. Either of those is OK as long as no one else has to bring you back what you've lost, or if you are OK with doing less to get less. I like to know what I am doing, sometimes I am a slow learner.

In socialism the experts design and decide everything. There are maybe 10,000 of them in the world.

In a free market, everybody's mind is included in all decisions. The free market comes up with solutions that nobody in particular thought of. And everybody is "voting" for the world that they want; by buying or declining to buy, by moving to better more congenial for them places, by doing what they want or think is best.

The less restriction on people, the more people will do, which is the fastest society can progress.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 07:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: jonnywhite

I think sin, most basically and essentially, means irresponsibility or being a grasshopper at the specific time you should be an ant. Either of those is OK as long as no one else has to bring you back what you've lost, or if you are OK with doing less to get less. I like to know what I am doing, sometimes I am a slow learner.

In socialism the experts design and decide everything. There are maybe 10,000 of them in the world.

In a free market, everybody's mind is included in all decisions. The free market comes up with solutions that nobody in particular thought of. And everybody is "voting" for the world that they want; by buying or declining to buy, by moving to better more congenial for them places, by doing what they want or think is best.

The less restriction on people, the more people will do, which is the fastest society can progress.









A free market operates through a barter system. It enters a modern capitalist stage when money is used. At that point, more power is concentrated among a few who eventually take over, and markets are eventually driven by price mechanisms.

With that, there is no "democratic process" where everyone participates. This we see very clearly in the current world where the global economy is essentially controlled by a few.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: Semicollegiate

It's had its role to play in art, architecture, and culture as well. Once Marcel Duchemps signed a urinal and called it art, the traditional virtues of beauty and truth spiralled down the proverbial drain. Now someone can photograph a crucifix in piss and make millions. People staring at a canvas painted white in a posh gallery need someone to tell them why it has meaning, why it's important, why it is necessary, and that person always turns out to be the aristocracy you speak of, who think their inferiors need to be told what is right and wrong. And sadly, people believe it.



I have often thought that the Arts were great predictors of the direction society is going in by either lamenting the loss of certain values (Courbet) or by highlighting the excesses of a given culture (Max Ernst). Artist intuitively sense coming waves of social change and often respond by incorporating it into their art. The same is true of musicians - punk rock flourished under Reagan's Presidency in response to the coddling of the rich and the disempowerment of the poor. Rap came just a little later predicting the anger and violence that would rise from the inner cities.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join