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.

 

~Left Wing~ Secret Societies

page: 3
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck

I personally agree with Masonic light about the nation as a community being more concerned with helping their fellow citizens instead of striving for self riches..



Perhaps but if I dont strive for those personal riches I wont have the $$$ to pay the taxes needed to help my fellow citizens.

Then again if everyone strived for personal riches there would be a lot less poor poeple to feed. If people know their basic needs will be met by the labors of others they tend to get lazy.

[edit on 30-4-2007 by RWPBR]




posted on Apr, 30 2007 @ 04:55 PM
link   
That is very true, along with being lazy - the lack of reward leads to the decline in product quality. Again, China and the USSR all proved this..

I believe a strong centralized government, a Monarch, who personally upholds the will of the people and controls the wealth, while holding none himself is the best form to implement a Socialist style society..

BUT.. I don't think it is possible with a large population.. and buracracy (sp) has to be wiped out as well.. and population control methods be striken.

Capitalism is the best form of economy for large populations.

The best part about Capitalism, you are only held down to the level that you your self set..

I could easily drop out of school and stop racking up my tuition bills and loans.. and go work a labor job the rest of my life. I wouldn't get anywhere like that, but many millions do. So many people have no ambition, and have no problem being poor, except the jealousy against those who do have money, because they think that those with money did not work much harder to gain it.



posted on Apr, 30 2007 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck


I could easily drop out of school and stop racking up my tuition bills and loans.. and go work a labor job the rest of my life. I wouldn't get anywhere like that, but many millions do. So many people have no ambition, and have no problem being poor, except the jealousy against those who do have money, because they think that those with money did not work much harder to gain it.


Yet Marxian socialism has nothing to do with jealousy, but the evolution of society. Sicial systems come and go after they've outlived their usefulness. If Marx was correct in his assessment, capitalism is doomed...not out of jealousy, but due to its own internal contradictions.



posted on Apr, 30 2007 @ 06:44 PM
link   
As long as you have one person willing to work a little harder than somebody else capitalism will survive. As long as somebody is willing to pay a little bit more for something capitalism will thrive. As long as somebody wants a little more than the next guy capitalism will dominate.

LONG LIVE THE FREE MARKET ! VIVA LA CAPITALISTAS !



posted on Apr, 30 2007 @ 06:54 PM
link   
I completely agree with ya there, as long as one person has that ambition for power and wealth, someone will always be "elite"

Socialism, imo, died with the Soviet Union, and those Capitalist countries that have tried to implement socialist ideas, are the ones who are doomed.

Capitalism as really ALWAYS existed.. there was always a merchant class, an elite class, shop owners and importers..

The Industrial revolution simply caused mass production to explode the method in which someone can produce something cheap at the highest cost possible, while advances (because of Capitalism and competition) in telecomunications, travel and importing abilities and free trade (a product of Capitalism) lead to much larger markets.

Your ideology that Capitalism will run out of "new markets" is simply assuming that once someone has a product they will never.. say, upgrade it, disgard it and buy a new one, a change in pop culture deems it not popular and he will need something newer, cooler and all around "cool" .. there will always be something new to market, someone new willing to buy it and someone always willing to sell it, and just as importantly, someone to compete to make something bigger, better and cheaper.


You make it sound like capitalism will get boreing to the people or something.

If anything, the nations who use capitalism may fall, but the ones who rise in their place will always have some element of capitalism.

Someone will always control the means of production, and someone will always generate wealth.



posted on Apr, 30 2007 @ 07:52 PM
link   
My love for the free market economy does not however excuse corporate greed and irresponsibility.



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by RWPBR
As long as you have one person willing to work a little harder than somebody else capitalism will survive. As long as somebody is willing to pay a little bit more for something capitalism will thrive. As long as somebody wants a little more than the next guy capitalism will dominate.



That's what the manor lords said about feudalism.

Working hard has nothing to do with capitalism. Capitalism simply details one's relationship to the means of production. Regardless of how hard one works, the market still will fluctuate, become flooded, and seep into recession and depression....and, if Marx is correct, finally into total collapse.

There are many, many, many hard working people who have lost their jobs because of this, and will be many more in the future.



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck


Socialism, imo, died with the Soviet Union, and those Capitalist countries that have tried to implement socialist ideas, are the ones who are doomed.


If socialism did not exist in the Soviet Union, it could not die with it.


Capitalism as really ALWAYS existed.. there was always a merchant class, an elite class, shop owners and importers..


Marx coined the term "capitalism" to refer to the system which replaced feudalism. True modern capitalism did not begin until the Industrial Revolution, but its roots can be found in the burgher system.

You are correct that there have always been separate claases. Marx himself begins his manifesto by stating that the history of all hitherto existing societies has been the history of class struggle.

In the late middle ages, the new emerging capitalist class was revolutionary. Eventually, they overthrew the feudal monarchies, abolished the aristocracy, and replaced the divine right to rule with capital.

The serfs were then transformed into either peasants or proletariat. Marx predicted the latter would become revolutionary, just as the capitalists had.



Your ideology that Capitalism will run out of "new markets" is simply assuming that once someone has a product they will never.. say, upgrade it, disgard it and buy a new one, a change in pop culture deems it not popular and he will need something newer, cooler and all around "cool" .. there will always be something new to market, someone new willing to buy it and someone always willing to sell it, and just as importantly, someone to compete to make something bigger, better and cheaper.



Yet that assessment ignores the actual mode of production. Consider the Great Depression, which Marx predicted. This would have completely wiped out capitalism, had not the capitalist powers adopted elements of socialism to save it. A socialist would argue that it is only delaying the inevitable.

I believe you are thinking inside the box, as an American. It's important to remember that Marx predicted that socialism could only function worldwide. Most people in the world do not have the option of "buying better and cheaper"...indeed, most people don't even have the option to eat when they're hungry. The vast wealth of the USA tends to make us forget that we've become that way by exploiting everyone else.


You make it sound like capitalism will get boreing to the people or something.


Not "boring". The world will just have outgrown it.


If anything, the nations who use capitalism may fall, but the ones who rise in their place will always have some element of capitalism.


If Marx is correct, there will be no more need of capitalism than there is of feudalism.



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Marx has been proven wrong time and time again.
Consider it a failed experiment based on flawed logic and move on.



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by RWPBR
Marx has been proven wrong time and time again.
Consider it a failed experiment based on flawed logic and move on.


Marx hasn't been proven wrong at all. In reality, our current situations validate his theories. On the macro level, pretty much everything he has predicted has either happened, or is beginning to happen now.

You say that his logic "flawed". How so? Have you studied his works, and do you truly understand his theories, or is your view that which was instilled to you by a capitalist media?



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Marx was wrong in thinking that a sudden violent revolution would be needed to generate a more equitable distribution of resources. In a democracy, the proletariates can vote for laws that redistribute the wealth down the income scale (IE Social Security in the U.S.) allowing them to get their share of the wealth without violent redistribution.

But the real problem with the Marxist ideas in his communist manifesto would be that Marx misunderstood which class would ultimately subdue all the others. He was under the impression that workers must ultimately take over the means of production and destroy the capitalist system. What he could not understand was that the means of production would become less and less expensive all the time due to efficiencies in production. Workers would themselves become entrepreneurs in free and republican societies. The advent of computers, and inexpensive access to the tools of a service industry would make small business a dominant and driving force.

As far as being misinformed by the capitalist media goes, I live the American Dream...the idea that anybody is able to move to America and rise from the bottom to the top is a repudiation of Marxism. The entire premise of Marxism is flawed because he never entertains the thought this economic powerhouse could even exist.



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Oh and Happy May Day comrade !



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by RWPBR
Oh and Happy May Day comrade !


LOL .. how ironic that I was just about to say that..

Indeed, happy May Day ML ..

Not just for socialist of course, Beltaine as well



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by RWPBR
Marx was wrong in thinking that a sudden violent revolution would be needed to generate a more equitable distribution of resources.


Marx did not think that. Marx believed that capitalism would collapse of its own accord after it had flooded the global market, and would be replaced by socialism naturally. The idea that an armed revolution can speed the process up is Leninism...the idea is absent in classical Marxism.

Also, Marx's preconditions still have not been met. Capitalism has not yet flooded the global market, but it's certainly getting closer.



In a democracy, the proletariates can vote for laws that redistribute the wealth down the income scale (IE Social Security in the U.S.) allowing them to get their share of the wealth without violent redistribution.


The classical Marxist state is democratic. Social Security and Medicare are examples I used earlier of how capitalism adopted elements of socialism to keep from collapsing. The more global capitalism becomes, the more socialistic it will need to become to stay afloat. The Revolution here is not necessarily an armed struggle, but a natural evolution.


But the real problem with the Marxist ideas in his communist manifesto would be that Marx misunderstood which class would ultimately subdue all the others. He was under the impression that workers must ultimately take over the means of production and destroy the capitalist system. What he could not understand was that the means of production would become less and less expensive all the time due to efficiencies in production. Workers would themselves become entrepreneurs in free and republican societies. The advent of computers, and inexpensive access to the tools of a service industry would make small business a dominant and driving force.


Yet that is a fantasy. Again, Marxism can only be understood from a global perspective, and 80% of the earth's population will go to bed hungry tonight. Not only are the means of production too expensive, but basic food and shelter. The cruel irony is that the wealthier the United States proletariat becomes, the poorer the proletariat become everywhere else. The American proletariat are not revolutionarym but we are beginning to see more and more of this outside the US.


As far as being misinformed by the capitalist media goes, I live the American Dream...the idea that anybody is able to move to America and rise from the bottom to the top is a repudiation of Marxism.



Not at all. By "anybody", you don't mean "anybody" at all...you simply mean the small percentage who live in the United States, and therefore who garnish wealth through the exploitation of other nations. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that, sooner or later, such a system is doomed.



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 06:42 PM
link   
On this matter we must agree to disagree.






But I am still right



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 06:49 PM
link   
While I agree with a few of your thoughts,

I to don't think I could ever believe as you do.

Not that thats a bad thing at all
if we all conformed to the same ideologies and so forth, we would be all the more easier to be taken advantage of.

While I dislike most of the corporate world,

Marxism is not for me.

Peace brother.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 04:52 AM
link   
Well after a whole year of fighting lloigors no anti illuminati society contacted me niether in real world or telepathicly.

It is just sad. Where the hell coould they be?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join