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.

 

Antifa, openly anti capitalist = openly anti American

page: 8
20
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: Gryphon66

I don't get your point. Ford, not your union, implemented the standard that we still have today.


You are mistaken. See the information just posted.

Ford set up an 8-hour shift to improve productivity, but it was not "his idea."

He did not institute a five-day work week, nor limit his workers to 40 hours a week.

I'm realizing that you mostly quote "right-wing" opinions as your "facts."



No the 8 hr work day started with the stone masons union. Not sure what ford has to do with it other than he ran 8 hr shifts.




posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Ford did look out for his workers part if his philosophy. He believed they depended on him aND saw it as a responsibility taking care of them. Very rare in a capitolist



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Gryphon66

Ford did look out for his workers part if his philosophy. He believed they depended on him aND saw it as a responsibility taking care of them. Very rare in a capitolist


Within certain limits, I can see what you mean.



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

That's because capitalism strongly depends on supply and demand.

Have you ever heard of the paredo principle??

Pareto Principle



The Pareto principle (also known as the 80/20 rule, the law of the vital few, or the principle of factor sparsity)[1] states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.[2]


If your not the 20% of your workforce you are not a valued asset IE not in demand.



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Hating fascism is unamerican now? Jesus help us.

You know Nationalism isn't the same thing? You don't have to draw such fat lines because your ideology. Fascists are completely against Democracy, not 'the Democrats'.

The other side of the argument is honestly just as sad. Capitalism = Amercia? The intellectual level of using = sign in the first place is gawking. If you think American values are solely about structure of spent money, I'll be the first to argue YOU aren't American. American is about Freedom, and the very moment a Socialist platform provides more of this than Capitalism is the day America will switch, if you think it has to do with more Capitalism over personal Liberty Capitalism provides, you have a mind poisoned by greed.



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: CarlsBad

You don't understand that capitalism, at it's core is about the ability to own private property.



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Here is the question all of you should be asking yourselves in this thread aside from petty bickering..

Do you want the ability to be able to own what you produce?

If the answer is yes, then you are an American and a capitalist.

If the answer is no then you are a pure socialist, or (Marxist) communist.



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

Divisionist. You would love the world to be that black and white, no one would notice your creases. Call everyone that isn't you exactly an enemy.


Owning property is ambiguous. Your argument that this is why America uses it sucks. People are actually communist and socialist around the world, and guess what genius, they own some extent of property, so your false qualifier is wrong.

Nor do the words even SLIGHTLY suggest the issue is as simple as property. Tell me, do you call services you pay for property also? Is your Doctor visit "your property"? It seems there is obviously more to economics than you even comprehend.



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: bastion

Why would you post your private info??

You know you just screwed yourself, right?


Anyone using the internet in the UK including TOR etc...has been revealing private info on internet use for nearly 20 years now. Given we hand it over to the US I'm guessing you guys have the same.

Agreed I would be in any other situation but they're already fully aware of who I am and were the whole time (was housesharing at a place rented by ex military intel with CID, ex-SBS (albeit 80+ year old guy), daughter of head of one intel recruitment and IT expert who never really left his room orwent to work but was best mates with the landlord so wa as are many orgs and newspaper editors - how I came to be able to relay info of public interest but not risking national security or equiping anyone with enough info to find out anything that would do it, there's dons in most unis who offer students a way into intel work and was into level 3 in all but thought the pay was terrible and dull, or one in a place I had no subject knowlege or ability to speak the language so turned it down. Plus haven't used my real name in a couple of decades.


originally posted by: toysforadults
Here is the question all of you should be asking yourselves in this thread aside from petty bickering..

Do you want the ability to be able to own what you produce?

If the answer is yes, then you are an American and a capitalist.

If the answer is no then you are a pure socialist, or (Marxist) communist.


I don't think you know what the words mean yet. America isn't the only country you can own companies in, and there's eight levels of capitalism in Marxism. socialists, marxists and communists are highly complex and varied philosophies with a whole smorgasboard of contructs, probably in the hundreds that promote private ownership in various models.
edit on 29-8-2017 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: bastion

HAve you ever read anythin from marx? I have my doubts along with your sanity I might add . As he said the immediate aim of the Communists is the "formation of the proletariat into a class, [the] overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, [and the] conquest of political power by the proletariat." The Communists' theory simply describes a historical movement underway at this very moment. This includes the abolition of private property.

Marx says that Communists have been "reproached" for desiring to abolish the "right" of acquiring private property through the fruits of one's labor. However, he points out, laborers do not acquire any property through their labor. Rather, the "property" or capital they produce serves to exploit them. So he as we can see he's against any form of private property.



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

He also acurately predicted the consolidation of wealth under capitalism.

We are far from any form of communism. Far from it. We are a solid oligarchy.

It may seem as though private property rights are dissappearing but in reality they are being consolidated to the oligarchy.

Now that could set off a workers revolution but I doubt it. Marx didn't a count for TV and media opiates.



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 09:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: dragonridr

He also acurately predicted the consolidation of wealth under capitalism.

We are far from any form of communism. Far from it. We are a solid oligarchy.

It may seem as though private property rights are dissappearing but in reality they are being consolidated to the oligarchy.

Now that could set off a workers revolution but I doubt it. Marx didn't a count for TV and media opiates.


You must be Russian the only oligarchy currently in existence. The next closest would be China though there there is less control by the state.



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 09:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: dragonridr

He also acurately predicted the consolidation of wealth under capitalism.

We are far from any form of communism. Far from it. We are a solid oligarchy.

It may seem as though private property rights are dissappearing but in reality they are being consolidated to the oligarchy.

Now that could set off a workers revolution but I doubt it. Marx didn't a count for TV and media opiates.


You must be Russian the only oligarchy currently in existence. The next closest would be China though there there is less control by the state.



No the US. Perhaps you aren't aware of who pushes and lobbies for the legislation.

We are a country where congressman fund raise the majority of the work week, so I would say you aren't real observant to reality. The people have far less say writing legislation than corporations/owners.



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 09:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: dragonridr

He also acurately predicted the consolidation of wealth under capitalism.

We are far from any form of communism. Far from it. We are a solid oligarchy.

It may seem as though private property rights are dissappearing but in reality they are being consolidated to the oligarchy.

Now that could set off a workers revolution but I doubt it. Marx didn't a count for TV and media opiates.


You must be Russian the only oligarchy currently in existence. The next closest would be China though there there is less control by the state.



No the US. Perhaps you aren't aware of who pushes and lobbies for the legislation.

We are a country where congressman fund raise the majority of the work week, so I would say you aren't real observant to reality. The people have far less say writing legislation than corporations/owners.


I'd argue you are trying to create your own reality. Truth is lobbyists exist from corporations and even groups one lobbyists group I'm familiar with is MADD wife does legal work for them. They lobby to get legislation to curb drunk driving. There is many groups trying to get legislation passed with many reasons to do so your a fool if you think there is some consolidaton even possible. Let's say you were a billionaire and wanted to push your ideals guess what there will be another one oposed to you it's reality.



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Lol. No it works like the insurance industry tells the politicians the nitty gritty to increase the entire market. Or banks tell how to write home loans so the dream of everyone owning a home is a reality. Or making a sub company that allows the illusion of government contract competition.

On top of that there are the private interest of those owners, and their ability to navigate the legal system far beyond any middle class or lower class person could.
edit on 29-8-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 01:54 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

You seem to be quoting mostly from the Manifesto, Chapter 2.

Marx is pretty clear here where he talks about what kind of property the Communists (which were already in existence at the time; Marx and Engels were engaged to write the little pamphlet for the Communist League) intended to do away with ... the property of the bourgeoisie ... the capital-owing class ... and redistribute that to a State controlled by the proletariat ... the workers class.

After indeterminate time then, this State thus formed would, somehow, evolve into a classless society in which all resources were shared equally by all.

Marx:



When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.


Which is a worthy, egalitarian, noble ideal ... but is an ideal nonetheless. The problem is the reality that we have always seen to this point when attempted on a large (national) scale ... when power is achieved by a few (or one), it is held on to by that few (or the one) and the hierarchy of classes is perpetuated if not strengthened overall.

Of course, this notion was merely put forth in the 1848 Manifesto (which was a rushed document at best) ... and Marx's thought continued to evolve through out his life. Marx and Engels updated the original in 1872 and continued to revise.

In later works, Marx reoriented his thought to allow for a slower, more organic progression from Capitalism to Communism (via Socialism) that did not require the creation of a totalitarian state. (These possibilities were obviously not as popular with folks like Lenin, Stalin and Mao.)

Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848)

Communism is grossly idealistic ... much like extreme forms of libertarianism and anarchy ... there is too much presumption that humans will work and act for the good of the many ... and of course, what always gets elevated is the good of the few over the individual.

As presented in the Manifesto, most of the ideas put forth are also far too ... simplistic. There are not merely two homogeneous classes (the rich and the workers) but, rather, a multitude of different levels of classes -- all of which interact complexly.

An economy and governmental system which takes the best aspects of all viable systems and philosophies and focuses on creating the best circumstances for the many while preserving the freedom of each individual is best.

(We're still working that part out.)

edit on 30-8-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




An economy and governmental system which takes the best aspects of all viable systems and philosophies and focuses on creating the best circumstances for the many while preserving the freedom of each individual is best.

(We're still working that part out.)


I'm still thinking basic income and more direct democracy with open source platforms.


Salehi-Isfahani and a colleague, Mohammad Mostafavi-Dehzooei, have studied the Iranian basic income’s effect on work. “Our overall conclusion," they write, "is that the program did not affect labor supply in any appreciable way." That’s especially astounding given the size of the benefit: In 2011, when it was introduced, it provided about 29 percent of the median household income on average. In the US, that would mean paying out $16,390 to the average family.

A basic income really could end poverty forever

Actual work in progress, studies like this are pretty rare. Enjoy the read!


edit on 30-8-2017 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:45 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Awesome, I'll read with interest.

The interesting thing about a guaranteed minimum income is that it would go immediately back into the local economy at 100%.

On the national scale that would go infinitely further to increase the volume of the economy than subsidizing billions in corporate profits.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Gryphon66




An economy and governmental system which takes the best aspects of all viable systems and philosophies and focuses on creating the best circumstances for the many while preserving the freedom of each individual is best.

(We're still working that part out.)


I'm still thinking basic income and more direct democracy with open source platforms.


Salehi-Isfahani and a colleague, Mohammad Mostafavi-Dehzooei, have studied the Iranian basic income’s effect on work. “Our overall conclusion," they write, "is that the program did not affect labor supply in any appreciable way." That’s especially astounding given the size of the benefit: In 2011, when it was introduced, it provided about 29 percent of the median household income on average. In the US, that would mean paying out $16,390 to the average family.

A basic income really could end poverty forever

Actual work in progress, studies like this are pretty rare. Enjoy the read!



Actually I totallt agree with this, despite gryphon's assumptions to my leanings, lol.

I have been on both ends of income status, so I have known poverty and prosperity. Right now, an extra 32k between the wife and I to supplement our income could probably get us back out of poverty status, and into middle to upper-middle class. No longer living check to check.

edit on 30-8-2017 by KnoxMSP because: Punct.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr.
Yes I've read Marx, Engels etc...that's how I know they're flawed system and know you haven't read his works because you've not read his works or any of the updated theories - have a read here to read his works disproving your claims

www.marxists.org...
www.marxists.org...
www.theoryandpractice.org.uk...

i.e here's a part on how private property capitalism being a good force.

'The profit motive is not just the result of greed on behalf of individual capitalists. They do not have a choice about it. The need to make a profit is imposed on capitalists as a condition for not losing their investments and their position as capitalists. Competition with other capitalists forces them to reinvest as much of their profits as they can afford to keep their means and methods of production up to date.'

I'm not Marxist by the way, I just like to read as broad as possibleon the subjects and see how thier theories/applications and warnings either failed or came to true as I think it's essential to have a grasp of politics given all the crimes against humanity.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Wow thanks for that. Sounds an amazing read. Have you read/watched any of Curtis' work. There's an excellent documentary on how and who in the US created a false reality and live in a post truth world full of falsehoods which led to Trump being elected. It covers 440 years of how they created and how the falsehood left everyone clueless from radical to progressive and powerless to change anything.

5 min teaser on Trump, Las Vegas Gangster, How 30 years ago robbed $150m from government to make New York a place for the super rich and how banks paid him billions before finsing out it was all a lie and how he's #ed everything up ever since.

youtu.be...

'He argues that an army of technocrats, complacent radicals and Faustian internet entrepreneurs have conspired to create an unreal world; one whose familiar and often comforting details blind us to its total inauthenticity. Not wishing to undersell the concept, Curtis begins the film with a shot of a torch shining limply into a thicket, so that viewers find themselves literally unable to see the wood for the trees.

From there, HyperNormalisation tracks a course to the present day, allowing Curtis to weigh in on Trump, Putin and Syria. But those expecting a snappy crash course in our chaotic world (“You won’t believe how this veteran BBC film-maker explains the Islamic State! What happens at 156:34 will shock you!”) clearly aren’t familiar with his methods. The film may address some of today’s most critical global issues, but it also allocates space to Jane Fonda, the fall of the Soviet Union and a supercut of pre-9/11 disaster movies. And unlike Curtis’s earlier work for TV, HyperNormalisation refuses to drop the kind of storytelling breadcrumbs that might anchor a viewer in its overarching narrative.'

www.youtube.com...

May take a few dozen watches as the most epic work I've seen. He's spent 40 years doing this kind of journalism and revered as the worlds best - personally I love his ability to uncover and describe such amazing, bizzare information but insist the viewer must research and make their oown minds up as the public believing what polticians, experts, economists, journalists, media, any kind of authority figure says is why the world keeps making such terrible mistakes (which I beleive too - i.e I've never been a member of a party but I go to all meetings, was horried to see the Socialist Workers Party in the UK bully a rape victim to stop her going to the police after one of the council had raped her and based on the 'police are facists don't speak to them' would rather cover it up than have him imprisoned - so around 90% of members quit in disgust at how twisted they'd become)


edit on 30-8-2017 by bastion because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-8-2017 by bastion because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-8-2017 by bastion because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
20
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join