It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Thanks to advances in technology, "You don't have to settle for the world as it is; you can create the world as you want it to be," President Barack Obama told young people in Buenos Aires, Argentina on Wednesday. "You have the freedom to build the world in powerful and disruptive ways."
In the course of answering the question, the president indicated that the "sharp division" between "capitalist and communist or socialist" is starting to blur, and instead of clinging to any one of those ideologies, people should just do what works to create change:
"[S]o often in the past, there's been a sharp division between left and right, between capitalist and communist or socialist," Obama said. "And especially in the Americas, that's been a big debate, right? Oh, you know, you're a capitalist Yankee dog, and oh, you know, you're some crazy communist that's going to take away everybody's property.
I think today's "definition" of Capitalism is a version of Karl Marx's "definition.
originally posted by: introvert
He is correct.
Glad he is willing to say it.
In fact if you read it correctly, Obama is trolling people like the OP who actually say things like " you're some crazy communist that's going to take away everybody's property".
Everything people here oppose, either from the left or right, but MOST oppose as we see it ruining our world to the benefit of a select few.
These select few fall in line with the power elite and everything meant to crush free will and identity.
there's been a sharp division between left and right, between capitalist and communist or socialist," Obama said. "And especially in the Americas, that's been a big debate, right? Oh, you know, you're a capitalist Yankee dog, and oh, you know, you're some crazy communist that's going to take away everybody's property.
democratic socialists see capitalism as inherently incompatible with the democratic values of liberty, equality and solidarity; and believe that the issues inherent to capitalism can only be solved by superseding private ownership with some form of social ownership.
originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: theantediluvian
Pragmatism like asking for a mix of capitalism and socialism like we always had in the west
INSTEAD of what is forced, that is highly purist socialist push that is highly critical of capitalism?
originally posted by: CB328
Of course he's correct, all systems are fallible, and none are perfect.
Conservatives demand sharp divisions in everything because they don't want to have to spend any time or energy on evaluating things and making moral decisions, or having any responsibility, or thinking at all for that matter.
The IMF, World Bank, WTO, Inter-American Development Bank, OECD, UNCTAD, GATT/TRIMS/TRIPS/GATS/NAFTA, G6/G7/G8, etc — any of that ringing a bell?
Social democracy is a political ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, and a policy regime involving collective bargaining arrangements, a commitment to representative democracy, measures for income redistribution, regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions. Social democracy thus aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian and solidaristic outcomes; and is often associated with the set of socioeconomic policies that became prominent in Northern and Western Europe—particularly the Nordic model in the Nordic countries—during the latter half of the 20th century.
There is most certainly a push for a more purist socialist state. The fact that single payer health care is seen as the enemy of all things moral, the obtusely critical nature of thought about capitalism, and so on. The fact that people now are advocating for free education instead of regulation of cost, asking for greater social spending to change social behavior, greater government intervention and so on is a socialist interpretation not in line with the traditional mix of both ideologies we have always had.
It is not pure socialism in that WORKERS dont own the production. Corporations do and that is the one sided goal of globalism and the power elite.
We are asked to surrender what means of production we do own based on moral charges against capitalism. The state is then made owner, and consequently transfers ownership to nationless corporations.
That is why immigration is pushed with the promise of socialisms benefits, while providing NONE of its guarantees.
The reason the globalists push to erode national sovereignty is to this end.
Borders are blurred and erased making all these efforts easier, like in the EU.
In this way national identity is watered down by the influx of weak people who dare not defy the hand that promises to feed them, which asks for a World citizenship, not a national unity.
I am probably better read than you sir. I also understand the nature of government and globalism better than you. so check that mess at the door when speaking with me.