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.

 

All middle class!!!

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   
All middle class should mount a campaign known as "Freedom over Socialism" NOW! They should push to place it on televisions, radios, talk shows, bulletins on car windows, and encourage the use of window chalk on rear car windows. Mount a campaign NOW before it is too late!

The middle class (who have the money) should create websites about this campaign and spread it around like wildfire. Do it NOW before it is too late!

I am lower middle class to upper lower class and can not do this, but I AGREE WITH YOU! FREEDOM OVER SOCIALISM! Go NOW before it is too late!!!!!!!!

Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 27-1-2009 by Gemwolf]




posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   
If you look at how socialism operates in Europe it treats the middle and working class pretty well and raises the life standard of most people considerably. What is the big fuss aside from the monumental cost? I personally would like to see more people have access to better housing, decent healthcare and well funded social programs.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   
I suspect this thread is a joke, but if it's not: OP--which freedoms are you worried about losing? What aspects of socialism bother you?



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by HillbillyHippie
 


If you look at the history of socialism, you will find that it was an alternative for the working class, in opposition to the wage/labour slavery of capitalism.

Socialism in its true and original definition is, ‘the workers ownership/control of the means of production'. Nothing more, nothing less.

So if you, as a worker (are you really middle class?) owned the means of your production then you wouldn’t have to share the fruits of your labour with a third party 'owner'. It would bring you far more 'freedom' than you have now selling your labour for someone else to profit from.

Look at what socialism really is, not what your propaganda media tells you it is. The term socialism is a working class term, stolen by the middle class, and sold back in authoritarian clothes (Marxism etc.).
It is in no way non-libertarian; in fact it supports liberty far more than the capitalist system, which uses coercion and forces people into labour agreements they do not desire. Capitalists maintain monopolies of power over those who labour for them (the working class, under supervision of the middle classes, for the benefit of the capitalist class).

In fact the term ‘libertarian’ was first used by left anarchists, before it was stolen by authoritarians (much like the term socialism).

BTW I don't really understand what American 'middle class' is; it's such an arbitrary term here. So I am coming from a European angle, but that's where the terms originated. Most of you are actually 'working class', because you sell your labour for wages, and you don't own the means of production. The middle class, historically, are the lower and middle management, and above that the capitalist, or ruling classes, the owners of the means of production.

So most of America cannot be 'middle class', the majority is always going to 'working class', or nothing would get produced. (in the UK thatcher tried to destroy the working class, and now what does the UK produce?)


"The liberals and conservatives and Libertarians who lament totalitarianism are phoneys and hypocrites. . . You find the same sort of hierarchy and discipline in an office or factory as you do in a prison or a monastery. . . A worker is a part-time slave. The boss says when to show up, when to leave, and what to do in the meantime. He tells you how much work to do and how fast. He is free to carry his control to humiliating extremes, regulating, if he feels like it, the clothes you wear or how often you go to the bathroom. With a few exceptions he can fire you for any reason, or no reason. He has you spied on by snitches and supervisors, he amasses a dossier on every employee. Talking back is called 'insubordination,' just as if a worker is a naughty child, and it not only gets you fired, it disqualifies you for unemployment compensation. . .The demeaning system of domination I've described rules over half the waking hours of a majority of women and the vast majority of men for decades, for most of their lifespans. For certain purposes it's not too misleading to call our system democracy or capitalism or -- better still -- industrialism, but its real names are factory fascism and office oligarchy. Anybody who says these people are 'free' is lying or stupid." [The Abolition of Work and other essays, p. 21]


It’s sad how most of the working class now has accepted this as ‘normality’ and even *cough* ‘freedom’…

That’s how powerful the ‘systems’ conditioning is, be careful what you accept as truth.
Never accept authority as the last word, find your own path….



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Fuggle
 


I suspect you don't understand how our American views differ from your views. Over here our government can be really corrupt at times and would favor multinational corporations over the middle class. So, in reality socialism here would just be socialism for the wealthy. But I suspect you knew that already.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Socialism doesn't really work out in reality the way it's supposed to. They say that workers are supposed to control the means of production. But isn't that bad? Wouldn't that potentially limit growth if they controlled the means of production? No one government or people should control how much of things are produced. I'm all in favor of more regulations on multinational but having a socialist economy would take away a huge amount of opportunities for the many working class Americans in the name of government control.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 02:33 AM
link   
Real socialism ins the bees knees if you can get it working. America can barely even keep it's existing minimal social programs effective and fully funded, so I wouldn't trust the government with yet more responsibilities.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
Socialism doesn't really work out in reality the way it's supposed to...[/quote

They say that workers are supposed to control the means of production. But isn't that bad? Wouldn't that potentially limit growth if they controlled the means of production? No one government or people should control how much of things are produced. I'm all in favor of more regulations on multinational but having a socialist economy would take away a huge amount of opportunities for the many working class Americans in the name of government control.


Socialism does NOT require a government to control things. The whole point of socialism is that workers govern their own lives and work places. Look up libertarian socialism.

It takes away the control of production from private individuals and puts it in the hands od EVERYONE.

Why would it slow down growth? A worker who is benefiting directly from their labour is going to be a happier more efficient worker, no matter what the job. Paying workers low wages might save the boss in the short term, but he is never going to get the full cooperation and benefit of that labour.

But 'growth' is a capitalist myth anyway. Only capitalism requires ever expanding markets to prop up it's never ending desire to create capital.
Without the need to continually line the pockets of the few in the capitalist class, then much more of the economy will benefit directly from its own production. A community can be as productive as they desire, not forced to 'compete' in a never ending system of exploitation of the many by the few.

I can see the desire to be 'one of the few', but its an empty room that has no value, and can be taken away quicker than you can get it. An economy based on legal gambling.

What's the difference between a broker and a bookie?
Answer



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by mdiinican
Real socialism ins the bees knees if you can get it working. America can barely even keep it's existing minimal social programs effective and fully funded, so I wouldn't trust the government with yet more responsibilities.


Socialism is NOT social programs.

Social programs are a requirement of a capitalist system because it creates a poverty class.

In a socialist society social programs wouldn't be necessary.


Isn't socialism what they had in Russia, or in China or Cuba, or in Sweden?

No. Socialism, as understood by the World Socialist Movement, was never established in any country. A short definition of what we understand to be socialism:

a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of society as a whole.

* If there are wages and salaries, it is not socialism.
* State ownership is not socialism.
* Social programs are not socialism.
* Socialism means democracy at all levels of society, including the workplace.
* Socialism means a wageless, moneyless society.
* Socialism means voluntary labour.
* Socialism means free access to the goods produced by society.

With this understanding of socialism, the Socialist Party of Great Britain noted in its journal, the Socialist Standard (August 1918, page 87), that the supposedly "Marxist" Russian Revolution of November 1917 was not socialist.

www.worldsocialism.org...

(posted for reference only, I have no affiliation with the WSM, but their definition is correct).

It can work, and has worked. It's right that no country has ever been socialist, but during the revolution/civil war in Spain in the 30's, large groups of 'anarchist' farm workers, and others, formed collectives and established workers control of production and distribution of goods (socialism) and were successful at it for a period of time...


However throughout the history of the 20th century ordinary working people have succeeded in taking things into their own hands and making a go of it. Nowhere, however, has come closer to a fully self-managed anarchist society then large areas of "republican" Spain during the Spanish Civil War.

Here, for a short space of a few years, both on the land and in the factories workers and peasants demonstrated that far from chaos anarchism was an efficient, desirable and realisable method of running society.


Socialism requires no government, so socialism and anarchism are very closely tied, as is libertarianism (not the US version).

[edit on 1/27/2009 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 03:02 AM
link   
The last time I checked the population of the United States was 306,000,000.

has anybody heard diferently?

Now how many people in that 306 million represent the middle class?



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Doomsday 2029
 


'Middle class' has become a political slogan used to make people feel like they're the ones being taken care of.

'I'm looking out for the middle class', makes for a much wider reaching audience, especially when they've been convinced they're middle class first, than 'I'm looking our for the poor, or the rich'.

At a guess I'd say about 20% of the population are truly 'middle class'.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 04:56 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


People like to call themselves middle class because they aren't poor.

I should mention the fact that no socialist nation has ever truly worked. You could say that European socialism used to work but now you can't say that anymore.

Socialism is means of government control and forcing people into doing things which they don't want to for the potential glorification of the state.

People should have economic freedom, however, socialism takes that away.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Socialism inevitably causes beurocracy to swell. You say that it means workers control over their lives/work places. Well, who are those workers that will make important desicions?? Someone has to make final desicion. If everyone is in control - no one is in control. So some positions will become more important then others and instead of capitalist making money on account of the people we will see beurocrat doing all he can to increase his power and influence so he will be able to make more money on account of the people. And at least usually capitalist is directly responsible for his mistakes and pays for them (unlike current crysis and bailouts) but beurocrats have no responsibility since everyone is supposed to own/control the property, and their mistakes are payed only by general public.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
People like to call themselves middle class because they aren't poor.


The working class aren't necessarily poor either. Being working class doesn't mean you're poor, it means you sell your labour for a living.
Why do Americans have such a stigma with being poor? Bunch of snobs lol.


I should mention the fact that no socialist nation has ever truly worked. You could say that European socialism used to work but now you can't say that anymore.


What European socialism? Did you read all my post, it is quit clear to socialists that there has never been a socialist country. If a governmental body claims it's socialist (russia, germany etc) it's a lie. Government controlled resources is NATIONALISM not socialism. That's why hitlers term 'national socialist' is an oxymoron. You can't have both, they contradict each other. But this is a typical tactic of the right in order to fool the working class into submission, so the capitalist classes can compete with no opposition from the people.


Socialism is means of government control and forcing people into doing things which they don't want to for the potential glorification of the state.


No it's not did you read my posts, or just skim through?

Here it is again from another source....(pls read thw whole quote)


Socialism is the collective ownership by all the people of the factories, mills, mines, railroads, land and all other instruments of production....Socialism does not mean government or state ownership. It does not mean a closed party-run system without democratic rights. Those things are the very opposite of socialism.

www.slp.org...

It is a big misconception that socialism means more government, this lie is told you by GOVERNMENT through the media. The government will never give you liberty.


People should have economic freedom, however, socialism takes that away.


There is no such thing as economic freedom. It's a myth. Most of the world population is under the slavery of capitalism. The only people that it brings freedom to are the capitalist class (upper class/ruling class). Those that earn a living by selling their labour (most of us) are under economic slavery. Re-read my post, capitalism does not being freedom, it promises it, but rarely delivers.

The freedom you speak of is just the freedom to exploit others for personal gain, to me that's not freedom at all. I want true liberty, freedom on Human terms not economic.


06/20/06 "Information Clearing House" --- When George Bush and other capitalists speak of bringing freedom to the world you must understand that they do not mean freedom in the sense that most of us understand it. We must realize that they are speaking from the perverted, oddly-skewed language of capitalism. By freedom they do not mean the spread of democracy or the liberation of oppressed peoples. They mean the unfettered access to markets through the use of coercive military and economic force. The majority of the world conceives of freedom in human terms. Capitalists conceive of freedom in terms of corporate personhood, access to markets by any necessary means and absolute dictatorial rule. This is the face of free markets and fair trade as it relates to human beings.

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

It's all a scam, and a lot of people are learning that right now as they lose their jobs, and houses, because wall street gambled the economy away using your money. You call that freedom? Your wealth is not even yours, it can be taken away with the stroke of a pen. Go study what caused the first depression.

[edit on 1/27/2009 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   
I'm a champagne socialist, does this make me a class traitor or something?



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by jBrereton
 



Gauche caviar? Really? You admit to that?

I don't know about class traitor but I wouldn't call you a socialist. If you are really a champagne socialist then you're not a true socialist. It's a derogatory term that real socialists call those who call themselves socialist, but in reality support capitalism.

I would consider all so called European socialist countries as champagne socialist...


Why would someone call themselves that?



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Why would someone call themselves that?

Because I'm more intellectually honest than most?

The idea of the Soziale Marktwirtschaft is a good one. It protects society's worst-off and lets everyone else succeed in peace. What's wrong with that?



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jBrereton
Because I'm more intellectually honest than most?


OK fair enough lol, honest in your contradiction...;-


The idea of the Soziale Marktwirtschaft is a good one. It protects society's worst-off and lets everyone else succeed in peace. What's wrong with that?


But others success is someone else's downfall.

So basically what you're admitting to is what the right thinks most socialists are. Why prove them right? Either be a true socialist, or admit to what you really are, a capitalist in socialist clothing.

This is the socialism of guilt, you feel uncomfortable admitting you're a capitalist, so you hide behind the term socialism to appear as one of the people. Are you a politician? Cause that's what they do to fool the people into voting for them...



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

OK fair enough lol, honest in your contradiction...;-

Quite.

But others success is someone else's downfall.

True enough, but you can limit the effects of that downfall, taking away only the most vulgar excesses of 'success'. That's what really matters.

So basically what you're admitting to is what the right thinks most socialists are. Why prove them right? Either be a true socialist, or admit to what you really are, a capitalist in socialist clothing.

As you say, someone's success is another's downfall. Do you really support the downfall of so many successful people to build an inherently mediocre society?

This is the socialism of guilt, you feel uncomfortable admitting you're a capitalist, so you hide behind the term socialism to appear as one of the people.

No, it's the socialism of understanding the economy and people. If you let people get into incredible poverty, they cannot contribute to the economy in any positive manner. The working class are a drain on the economy, always will be, and this is about managing that drain sensibly rather than leaving them to suffer and lower the quality of life for those that do succeed through crime.

Are you a politician? Cause that's what they do to fool the people into voting for them...

Only of a very minor sort.

[edit on 27-1-2009 by jBrereton]



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jBrereton
As you say, someone's success is another's downfall. Do you really support the downfall of so many successful people to build an inherently mediocre society?


Well the evil side of me says YES let them live in poverty, and let them experience what their system did to millions of people through history. Let them go live in mud huts in Africa, while their houses are given to the starving millions. (isn't that Jesus' plan, earth inherited by the meek?)

So many successful people? At the expense of billions more 'unsuccessful people'? I guess you see life as winners and losers?

But the practical side of me says, let them keep what they have because once the workers gain control of their own lives they will not allow themselves to be exploited anymore.

You have to realise this system is not necessary because there are enough resources in the world for us ALL to be 'successful', or at least live happy comfortable lives. Resources are kept artificially scarce, so they make money on the market. Our natural tendency to compete is exploited to pit us against each other for financial survival, and ultimately our physical survival. Our energies could be better served making the world a safe clean place to live. Not fighting endless wars to create new markets to keep the legal gambling going. Yes capitalism is legal gambling, and the capitalists now have almost all of you addicted.

What do you mean mediocre society? Maybe you don't see the same thing I do? I don't see a society where ordinary working class people have full control over their own lives as mediocre. A society where you are no longer a slave to the system. A society where people will have the freedom and time to pursue more personal desires. A society where personal creativity is perpetuated for personal growth instead of financial. A society that doesn't tell you what to, or not to, put into your own body. A society that doesn't invade other countries for market expansion. I could go on all day. Doesn't sound mediocre to me.

Your imagination, and desire, is only limited by the system you allow to control you.

The perpetual struggle for wealth is helping NO ONE. It erodes our true Human abilities, our strength, our uniqueness, our ability to adapt, our intelligence. Those most obedient to the system, those most willing to conform to the roles that the system prescribed for them, are rewarded.
The system turns people into a population of mass produced products.

You have to realise that MONEY is not what should make the world go around. We should be developing as Humans, not as collectors of wealth and property. Financial wealth is a ghetto.

As consumers we're doing extremely well, as people we suck! And we get worse with each passing year.


No, it's the socialism of understanding the economy and people. If you let people get into incredible poverty, they cannot contribute to the economy in any positive manner. The working class are a drain on the economy, always will be, and this is about managing that drain sensibly rather than leaving them to suffer and lower the quality of life for those that do succeed through crime.


Huh? The working class are the back-bone of any society. Without the working class, who produces anything? A country that doesn't produce will not last very long in this economic system.


Only of a very minor sort.


I knew it. Your language gives you away.

[edit on 1/27/2009 by ANOK]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join