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.

 

"Communism for Kids":Published by MIT Press

page: 12
21
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:08 PM
link   
(edited for double post)
edit on 17-4-2017 by ElectricUniverse because: edited for double post




posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74

It's not just my view. It is the original definition of the term as well as what most Socialists define Socialism as. I am not unique in this thought.

"We are convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality." - Mikhail Bakunin


Since when is "abolition" freedom?... Mikhail Bakunin was a "collectivist anarchist".


Collectivist anarchism (also known as anarcho-collectivism) is a revolutionary[1] anarchist doctrine that advocates the abolition of both the state and private ownership of the means of production. It instead envisions the means of production being owned collectively and controlled and managed by the producers themselves
...

en.wikipedia.org...






posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Wookiep

Oh God not Soros and NWO craptasticness...

Socialism was born long before him along with the notion of privilege. Because privilege is actually a thing. If you're born closer to the finish line it advantages you to successfully cross the finish line. Or do you argue that you have the same opportunities as a billionaire to make a billion dollars?



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

It can be when it refers to something like the abolition of slavery.
edit on 17-4-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Worker collectives yes, but not mandated. You can live alone and work alone. And just because I like his philosophy doesn't mean I follow lockstep. I'm not a collectivist.

Individualist Anarchism



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
Actually you would be wrong. Black is not a color and white is a combination of them.

But I wasn't using a srawman draws an. I used comparable situations.

Children are taught to honor their flag and have pride in their nation. Just as they are taught in Cuba so what are you complaining about?




Black is the darkest color, resulting from the absence or complete absorption of light.
...

en.wikipedia.org...

i wrote and i quote...


originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

They are as similar as black is to white. After all, they both are influenced by light or the lack of light.

Trying to say that socialism/communism have similarities to a "representative Constitutional Republic" is like saying they are as similar as black is to white.



As for my argument being a strawman not really... Socialism/communism are as similar to a "representative Contitutional Republic' as the color white is similar to black. After all, both ideologies are very different from each other.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74

Worker collectives yes, but not mandated. You can live alone and work alone. And just because I like his philosophy doesn't mean I follow lockstep. I'm not a collectivist.

Individualist Anarchism


First you claim to be a socialist, now you claim to be an "individual anarchist"?... Perhaps you should first decide what you are...


...Within individualist anarchismEdit
Main article: Individualist anarchism

Individualist anarchism refers to several traditions of thought within the anarchist movement that emphasize the individual and his or her will over external determinants such as groups, society, traditions, and ideological systems.
...

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Socialism is not about the individual, but about "the collective".



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:20 PM
link   

...
ARTICLE 4. The socialist system of economy and the socialist ownership of the means and instruments of production firmly established as a result of the abolition of the capitalist system of economy, the abrogation of private ownership of the means and instruments of production and the abolition of the exploitation of man by man, constitute' the economic foundation of the U.S.S.R.
...


Gee I wonder what drove them to that? Seems pretty drastic huh?


edit on 17-4-2017 by Bone75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74




Oh God not Soros and NWO craptasticness...


Oh no, is right. I don't find it too funny, personally.

Being brought up in a rich family is part of what happens when your family works hard to get you there. It's the beauty of capitalism. I would think you would do the same for your kids. You or I being jealous over it to the point of blaming them on our mis-fortunes does not mean successful people are evil.

I'm all for ridding corruption. Of course it exists. There are things that can be done if enough people demanded it. Like no more super PACS, ending lobby-ism, ending the FED and IRS, and agreeing upon a flat tax etc. The problem is, instead of working for a solution, an entire generation of children raised on the ideology of socialism would rather burn it to the ground and welcome the world into a false utopia that will resemble Mad Max.

As this thread indicates, it's not just socialism being pushed anymore, communism is the new rage. Oh boy!!
edit on 17-4-2017 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You used two different contexts.

Speaking of contexts. The context of poor parents in the us not being able to choose which school their children attend is a comparison within the context you presented not in the overall context of socialism vs a constitutional republic.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Socialism is not about the individual, but about "the collective".

That applies to all nations.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The last I heard she was a "Socialsit Anarchist Libertarian".

Lol, figure that one out.. :/



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I haven't stated what I am in this thread beyond Socialist. You know we come in varieties... like Anarchist, which is what I am but also known as Libertarian Socialism.

You obviously know nothing about what Socialists discuss and theorize, what we study, what schools of thought we learn from who we value as founders, where each variant rates on authority scale.

Socialism has a broad spectrum and you've taken something (Castro, China et al) that's not even on it and insisted to the rest of us who we are and what we believe. How the hell did you not know that Anarchism is Socialist?



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:39 PM
link   

edit on 4/17/2017 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Wookiep

Libertarian Socialist aka Anarchism.

Learn



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Libertarian - Free market capitalist, in general supports ridding big money in politics. Supports limited govt, where military and infrastructure are main priority of federal govt. Big supporters of states rights, getting the federal govt out of social politics.

Socialist -Not a free market capitalist in any way. Supports HUGE federal government. Massive welfare system nationwide. Equal pay for all. Government controlled social politics.

Anarchist - NO government. Self-governing. Economy..... ?

I seriously have trouble taking you seriously when you try to mix the three into one impossible ideology. None of them mix with the other.
edit on 17-4-2017 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

LOL I really don't care what someone wrote on Wikipedia. It's BS and completely made up.

PS - "Social democracy" was a nice little thing Bernie kept selling. But it's a bunch of BS as well.


edit on 17-4-2017 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Wookiep

There is no law that says you can't pick and choose what parts of different ideals you uphold. Like people who say they are fiscally conservative (capitalist) but socially liberal (pro-choice).



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

First you claim to be a socialist, now you claim to be an "individual anarchist"?... Perhaps you should first decide what you are...


Personally, I can't decide which label to wear... maybe you can help?

I'm a fairly successful entrepreneur who sees my country bowing down to global corporations who are trying to implement a global Socialist government that is going to suck really bad.

I'd like to help prevent this, and one of my ideas involves going Communist and intentionally crashing our currency.

What am I? ..... besides crazy?




posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Wookiep

Everything I disagree with is fake?

Remain ignorant then, your choice.




top topics



 
21
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join