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.

 

The 'Squad' aims to guillotine the Democratic old guard

page: 2
41
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2019 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Let me ask you...

Can you name one communist country in the history of Communism, that did not have a rich political class and poor citizens ? Can you name a Socialist country that does not have a rich political class and poor citizens ?

Can you list the examples of poor citizens, becoming rich citizens under those economic systems ?

I bet you don't have to even scratch your head, to think up a list of poor who became rich under a capitalist system, though correct ?





Are you suggesting that all of those in that top .1 percent are socialist?


Did I say they were ? Maybe they are, maybe they are not I wouldn't know. I was explaining away the apparent hypocrisy of why the super wealthy support those economic systems. It's about control, not equality.


edit on 17-7-2019 by CrawlingChaos because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 17 2019 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: CrawlingChaos


Can you name one communist country in the history of Communism, that did not have a rich political class and poor citizens ?


No, I cannot. Because we have no examples of a communist country turning into a socialist country. Like China as an example it was a communist country that turned into a single corporate nation with no signs of workers owning and controlling their own means of production.

Can you name a Socialist country that does not have a rich political class and poor citizens ?

No, I cannot because I have never seen a communist nation turn into a socialist nation. What I have seen is any number of capitalist nations with the capitalists in charge allowing their nations to be called socialist and offering large incentives to their citizens to keep the nations capitalist. In those nations, which are not socialist, the capitalists willingly share more of the wealth with the workers as a short stop to prevent them from demanding true socialism.


I bet you don't have to even scratch your head, to think up a list of poor who became rich under a capitalist system, though correct ?


Right, easy peasy. A few can become rich but the vast majority will never become rich even though they will defend this system to their graves. Here, in the US, the battle for wealth is long and suffering. For a while people struggled back against the monopolies by electing representatives to help them control the power of those corporations, such as back in the day of the robber barons. But those robber barons have managed over the last century to put on a smiley face to make people believe that they only have peoples best wishes at heart.



Did I say they were ? Maybe they are, maybe they are not I wouldn't know. I was explaining away the apparent hypocrisy of why the super wealthy support those economic systems. It's about control, not equality.


And I agree, it's about control. At the risk of sounding like Joe Biden I will say, ''look''(he always say ''look'') I think we are fighting the same high actors here, it's just that now those controllers are being called socialists when they really are not socialist at all. They are the most successful of the capitalist system and using that to control everything beneath them. They want everyone to believe that it is socialists who are after their money because if people begin to understand that it is really capitalists who control things, people might rise up against them. As it is, people rise up against the false boogy man of socialism which to my mind is dead and gone.



posted on Jul, 17 2019 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: mobiusmale


morphing almost overnight into a far-left, socialist...dare we even say communistic organ.


Yet those top rung people and organizations you listed are almost all rich people who got their money from within the system of capitalism. Soros for one is a capitalist and the news agencies are profit driven info outlets. So help me here in understanding just how these are pushing us into far-left, socialist and communism which are all anti-capitalist.



Lol.

Those types will still be rich under a Communist/Socialist regime. Like the Communist Chinese. Consolidate the wealth at the top and leave scraps for the peasants.

It's about control and power. How they made their money is irrelevant and in no way does it mean that they are believers in Capitalism other than what it can do for them.

They are no different than the snakes that control religion. Many, many people have used religion as a tool to get what they want while actually believing in none of it. It's a means to an end.



posted on Jul, 17 2019 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: mobiusmale


morphing almost overnight into a far-left, socialist...dare we even say communistic organ.


Yet those top rung people and organizations you listed are almost all rich people who got their money from within the system of capitalism. Soros for one is a capitalist and the news agencies are profit driven info outlets. So help me here in understanding just how these are pushing us into far-left, socialist and communism which are all anti-capitalist.


Is it just me or what? But it seems the 1 percenters who ARE capitalists, who from capitalism are the ones pushing socialism? Soros is a HUGE backer of socialist venues and is a member of the Democratic party. Go figure.



posted on Jul, 17 2019 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I gave you a star, for a good discussion. I like it when the adults get to talk once in awhile



posted on Jul, 17 2019 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Communism isn't 'anti - capitalism', after all Marx noted that you need the bourgeoisie to create revolution. Otherwise it will be a futile attempt to just destroy all upper class and rich.

The problem with people calling the communist card so lightly is that the American constitution and democratic system gets in it's way, 100% of the time. Capitalism is the only economic system allowed, and a democratic republic is the only political system allowed. All these people who think they are an actual threat are delusional. Stop giving them attention.



posted on Jul, 17 2019 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: mobiusmale


morphing almost overnight into a far-left, socialist...dare we even say communistic organ.


Yet those top rung people and organizations you listed are almost all rich people who got their money from within the system of capitalism. Soros for one is a capitalist and the news agencies are profit driven info outlets. So help me here in understanding just how these are pushing us into far-left, socialist and communism which are all anti-capitalist.



Because like how communist nations tend to prefer a buffer zone with their borders, so too do communist elites prefer a buffer zone between them and the next lower class.



posted on Jul, 17 2019 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnS23

I don't disagree with anything you point out except for one thing. Though they are called the Communist Chinese, there are not communist at all. They are one big corporation run entirely from the top down with one, now life time, CEO. All enterprise is orchestrated from the top and not from the bottom which would be the case in a socialist economy where the workers own and work their own means of production.

You suggest that


How they made their money is irrelevant and in no way does it mean that they are believers in Capitalism other than what it can do for them.


Exactly. While capitalism is a better form of economic development, especially over the monarchist and feudal system it replaced and which also was considered egalitarian in that it promoted innovation and competition it has no restraints against those who abuse it such as you describe above. You comparison to religious leaders being the perfect example.



posted on Jul, 17 2019 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Communism isn't 'anti - capitalism', after all Marx noted that you need the bourgeoisie to create revolution. Otherwise it will be a futile attempt to just destroy all upper class and rich.

The problem with people calling the communist card so lightly is that the American constitution and democratic system gets in it's way, 100% of the time. Capitalism is the only economic system allowed, and a democratic republic is the only political system allowed. All these people who think they are an actual threat are delusional. Stop giving them attention.


Notice how Democrat candidates want to change certain constitutional rights, namely speech and guns? Yeah, I don't believe you.



posted on Jul, 17 2019 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454

It won't happen. You can't just 'change' the constitution.



posted on Jul, 17 2019 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Communism isn't 'anti - capitalism', after all Marx noted that you need the bourgeoisie to create revolution. Otherwise it will be a futile attempt to just destroy all upper class and rich.

The problem with people calling the communist card so lightly is that the American constitution and democratic system gets in it's way, 100% of the time. Capitalism is the only economic system allowed, and a democratic republic is the only political system allowed. All these people who think they are an actual threat are delusional. Stop giving them attention.


The flaw in that logic is that the Constitution is the exact target of the radical left.

Make no mistake, the Constitution, and the basic freedoms that it ensures, is not unassailable.

Activist judges on the SCOTUS, or at the district level for that matter, can stray widely from the document's original intent.

In many areas of the country, federal laws have already become mere suggestions, and it is not a stretch that things like gun control, non citizens given voting rights, etc will eventually become the norm, unless ppl stand up and say "no, not 1 more inch given".



posted on Jul, 17 2019 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: StoutBroux

Yes, that is how it ''seems''. But is Soros really backing socialist policies? I think not. Has he turned over his enterprises to those who work within them and allow them to plan and run their own means of production? No he has not, therefore not allowing that simplest concept of real socialism within his own ranks. What he does do is to promote one philosophy of capitalism that is different from other philosophies of capitalism. That being to open up the market place to a larger variety of consumers with wider desires to fill and hence to profit from all within the capitalist system.



posted on Jul, 17 2019 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: JohnS23

I don't disagree with anything you point out except for one thing. Though they are called the Communist Chinese, there are not communist at all. They are one big corporation run entirely from the top down with one, now life time, CEO. All enterprise is orchestrated from the top and not from the bottom which would be the case in a socialist economy where the workers own and work their own means of production.





They are Communist. Because the idea of a "real" Communist utopia never has, nor ever will exist.



posted on Jul, 17 2019 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Wardaddy454

It won't happen. You can't just 'change' the constitution.


See my above post. It has already begun.

Trump's election, and his SCOTUS appointments have, temporarily, thrown a monkey in the wrench, but it is not over by a long shot.



posted on Jul, 17 2019 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Wardaddy454

It won't happen. You can't just 'change' the constitution.


If we don't give them the opportunity, they can't. But the desire is there. The desire to be more like Canada, or Europe.



posted on Jul, 17 2019 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

I agree Crawl. I think we are pushed these days to talk in ''soundbites'' that almost invariably limit us in our comprehension of what others are trying to communicate. I think that once we get by those quippy cliches and tomes, we may find that we have much more in common in our perceptions then those who promote those soundbites would have us understand.



posted on Jul, 17 2019 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp


Communism isn't 'anti - capitalism', after all Marx noted that you need the bourgeoisie to create revolution. Otherwise it will be a futile attempt to just destroy all upper class and rich.


''Eat the rich''. Just kidding, my days of that mentality are long gone. But you are right about Marx.I just got tired of writting so much in this thread and got as Redneck likes to say, lazy.



posted on Jul, 17 2019 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Sure. The real socialists within that early communist party were clear in their warnings against Stalin, that he should never ever be allowed near the top of that party. But that did not happen and the ''elites'' who said the right words and held enough power among their own within that party took over and the rest is sad, very sad, history.



posted on Jul, 17 2019 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454


They are Communist. Because the idea of a "real" Communist utopia never has, nor ever will exist.


One thing, yes a real Communist utopia has never and never will exist. And don't get me wrong here, what I quibble with here is not what they are, but rather what we call them. If we call them commies and such then we use names that are fantasy because as you point out there never was a real communist utopia. What there was was a failed communist state that had been taken over by despots and turned into their own enterprise to utilize in their affairs with the rest of the capitalist system.

My real objection to calling these oligarchs and totalitarians ''communist'' and ''socialist'' is that it removes from discussion even the idea that there is something seriously lacking in the capitalist system itself. As long as we can call it something else we do not look at capitalism with a critical eye and THAT is what I think we need to do.



posted on Jul, 17 2019 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Again, there seems to be a real effort by people to avoid the reality of what's going on here. The DNC have been slowly taken over by Trotskyists, and now that the thresh hold has been met, we can all get to see it. It's not about "eating their own", it's about creating as much chaos as possible so that people will flock to them seeking some sort of authoritarian satiability. it's like in cooking, you set the water to boil, but really most people don't see when it's about to boil they only see it when it is boiling. The DNC did just that, but they forgot to have the food ready for the boiling water. Now they just have boiling water and raw food they don't know what to do with.

The DNC (really it was all the people National Security Act profiteer's) now has a situation where the people are becoming fed up with the political environment, but instead of seeking them out are instead turning around and putting the food away. People are wanting to return to a simpler political landscape (even if that landscape never existed before).

So in the end it's that Trotskyist movement that has brought us to this point in time, and again we should be asking why it isn't called out. Instead we hear about the "Socialists" the "Left" the "New Breed of Democrat", it's all Trotskyists people.



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join