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.

 

NewsWeek: We Are All Socialists Now!

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
So who cares that the rest of the industrialized nations pay in tax? They have massive and bloated parasitical socialist pro programs to feed. And for all that no guns.


I agree with you. I used to live in Germany and that's what is happening there. Gas is way more expensive than here, due to tax. They now have a 19% sales tax or "VAT". Try to do that in the States.

After moving to the States and still doing the same job I did in Germany, my standard of living went way up. I just couldn't stand it anymore. Thousands of guys would line up for government money and you'd be surprised what they can get. New furniture, help to pay utilities, education, all kinds of stuff. There are so many people who will openly admit that they choose not to work because they get paid almost as much as going to work. So they rather stay at home.


Valuing my work ethics, I never considered going down that path. So I worked long and hard, but would I be rewarded for it? No. That's when I decided to leave the country. I arrived in the US in 2003 and I loved it. A society that rewards hard working people, not the opposite.

Unfortunately, late last year, this changed. Now I can work my a s s off as much as I want, I am not rewarded for it. Bonuses are deferred, base salaries are frozen for 2009, inflation will go up. It really sucks.

Hey, I still love the US and the people here - I'd never live anywhere else again, no matter what




posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   


And what about those who put in a days work but hardly get compensated because of the SUPER AWESOME COOL RICH PEOPLE SAVIORS


Are you talking about the politicians that pass legislation to tax the living daylights out of us? Or to explode our national debt to insane proportions?

Looking at that sentence, I could easily make this assumption.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConservativeJack
there is a lot of worrying in this thread but think about it, you can go from rags to riches STILL as long as you are a hard worker and innovative and take the risk.

like I said, I started my Health Care Company from scratch with a 50 dollar How-To book and a loan from a stranger.

Now I'm living it up.


See this is the myth that keeps the majority of the planets population in poverty.

You made it, good for you. But for everyone person that makes it, thousand of others can't.

Capitalism requires a poverty class, you cannot get around this fact. It has nothing to do with hard work. I can show you a million people who have worked far harder than you ever have, and are still in poverty.

Capitalism works on the principle of inequality. If I was as wealthy as you and you needed to hire labour, why would I work for you? Why would anyone work for anyone? What would be the incentive to give up my time and labour, for a wage, when I was already wealthy?

This is why under capitalism there will always be the wealthy few, and the rest of us chasing carrots. Chasing carrots has yet to better the world for anybody but the wealthy, as always. It's nice if you can get there, but at what cost for the world you live in? What good is having a few extremely wealthy people, and many extremely poor people? What good is that disparity doing for any of us?

The rich can hide themselves away behind gated communities and pretend they don't have an effect. A few quid to charity once a year to appease the conscience, and a 'cremation of care' ceremony for the truly privileged. While thousands of children starve to death, because the west wanted to exploit their resources to make themselves more wealthy. While thousands die and suffer in wars because the west wanted their oil to again increase their OWN wealth.

MOST OF THE WEALTH THE WEST ENJOYS WAS STOLEN!

If the west had to rely on it's own production to survive financially, we would be a third world country.

And you all wonder why the world is full of criminals and terrorists...



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sestias
Socialism, according to Marx, is when the state owns the means of production.


Quoting Marx and saying that is socialism is not a good idea.

Marx was an authoritarian who tried to pervert socialism to include a 'State'.

Socialists, historically, have always apposed the state preferring to manage their own lives directly. Thus the only true definition of socialism is...

The workers ownership/control of the means of production

In other words, the land, farms, factories, would be owned collectively by those that work them. As apposed to a private owner (capitalism), or government/state (nationalism).

So socialism is neither big government, nor state ownership.

Marx was just another authoritarian like Lenin, or Hitler. Anything he had to say about socialism was his OPINION, but because his socialism supported a 'state' it was excepted by the state and promoted. A system that enslaves the workers, under a dictatorship, is always going to be supported by the state.


Socialism, in it's traditional and true definition, means "the workers democratic ownership and/or control of the means of production". Such a definition implies that rather than a government bureaucracy for managing such means, there is a focus on highly democratic organisation, education and awareness, and every individual is encouraged to become an active, rather than passive participant in that which effect their lives. Only the workers themselves bear the knowledge of what their own freedom and liberty means, and only they know what is best for themselves, ultimately. Advocates of the state, be they on the left, or the right, have repeatedly defined the meaning of "socialism" to mean arbitrary rule by a set of "leaders", or a political con-game in which socialism is no more than capitalism with a few token adjustments for bearability.

flag.blackened.net...

The more you understand the true meaning of political terms, the more you can see through the lies and confusion they call politics. It's done for a reason, to confuse. The 'powers that be' want to maintain that power, no matter what, so lying to their population is only their first line of defense.

Don't trust anyone that claims to bring you liberty, while at the same time being in a position of suedo-authority. The only way to have true liberty is when you own your own life, and don't have to sell it to someone else to be able to eat. We should receive ALL that our labour produces, not what a private party decides to pay us.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
I can show you a million people who have worked far harder than you ever have, and are still in poverty.

Capitalism works on the principle of inequality. If I was as wealthy as you and you needed to hire labor, why would I work for you? Why would anyone work for anyone? What would be the incentive to give up my time and labor, for a wage, when I was already wealthy?

This is why under capitalism there will always be the wealthy few, and the rest of us chasing carrots. Chasing carrots has yet to better the world for anybody but the wealthy, as always. It's nice if you can get there, but at what cost for the world you live in? What good is having a few extremely wealthy people, and many extremely poor people? What good is that disparity doing for any of us?


If I could give you 25 stars here I honestly would, unfortunately I could give you only one


Your post is the real refreshment here, reality check at it's best...

Those inside of the "matrix" cannot see the truth of capitalism often, but I sincerely hope what you posted here will help to at least wake up some



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cio88

Originally posted by Alxandro
reply to post by ImaNutter
 


I agree the Bush bailout was nothing more than Socialism for the big fat corporations at the top.
Now with Obama we have Socialism for the masses which starts at the bottom.
One uses a top down approach, the other will use a bottom up approach.
This is a NWO pincer move.


Sorry , but I'm having a hard time seeing how you think Obama works from the bottom up???

Did we see that with the Bail-Out Mania? I think not. Show me and I will give you some cred.


Well, of course I was referring to the pre-election Obama, when people were under the impression his bottom-up Obamanomic approach was going to be a contrast to Reagans trickle down economics.

It could still happen and people may soon be lining up for vouchers that will allow them to no longer worry about having to "make their car payment or worry about their mortgage".

Now people are witnessing a status quo they don't want to believe in.

More..



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   
America is starting to look like an animal from greek mythology - facist head with a socialist body. Neo conservatives and neo liberals despite a few minor differences are much the same. Both are big government and have no issue with giving trillions to private companies.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cio88

News Weeks stating the obvious, something the media and the left scoffed at during the election, that we're all socialists now. Not that you can lay it on one party, but Obama is now president and will surely catapult us in to full fledged socialism. I hope these people know they are sewing the seeds for a civil war in this country. Many of us will not just stand by as our country is stolen from us. If we wanted a Nanny State, we would move to Great Britain.

biz.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 9-2-2009 by Cio88]


OH the full fledged SOCIALISM - That must be why OBAMA condensed all
the healthcare companies into one company - one car company - one TV network -
ONE paint company - one gun company....

OHHH? wait - he didn't

Talk to me when the above things happen



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alxandro

Originally posted by Cio88

Originally posted by Alxandro
reply to post by ImaNutter
 


I agree the Bush bailout was nothing more than Socialism for the big fat corporations at the top.
Now with Obama we have Socialism for the masses which starts at the bottom.
One uses a top down approach, the other will use a bottom up approach.
This is a NWO pincer move.


Sorry , but I'm having a hard time seeing how you think Obama works from the bottom up???

Did we see that with the Bail-Out Mania? I think not. Show me and I will give you some cred.


Well, of course I was referring to the pre-election Obama, when people were under the impression his bottom-up Obamanomic approach was going to be a contrast to Reagans trickle down economics.

It could still happen and people may soon be lining up for vouchers that will allow them to no longer worry about having to "make their car payment or worry about their mortgage".

Now people are witnessing a status quo they don't want to believe in.

More..


ITS getting tired...

People want to line up to WORK and receive a paycheck for the work they perform.

BUSINESS'S are not willing to take the risk in such a GOP provided environment.
Maybe the Martians will pony up and invest in this crap pile economy.

BTW YOUR line of thought is very anti AMERICAN

Would you like all the newly unemployed to go on unemployment while they are waiting for new jobs to appear from the sky?

Or would you rather people work?

Wait until OBAMA socializes the MILITARY - POLICE - FD - HIGHWAYS...!

You guys keep this distorted, semi retarded rhetoric going and going. You are going to distort the GOP into extinction, please, continue...

VIVA LA SOCIALISMISTS



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 12:13 AM
link   
I always thought facism would occur because of Democrats. Then I saw GW Bush in action. I reconsidered my analysis. Then I met Obama.
GW set the stage, now Democrats will fullfill the facist revolution in the U.S of A.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 12:23 AM
link   
MSM propaganda to distract you from what is really happening: State Capitalism, a form of Fascism.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:03 AM
link   
[

[edit on 10-2-2009 by paradox headache]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:05 AM
link   
please disregard that last post, the computer got all screwy and i started clicking to many things, what i ment to say is that we need a return to true capitalism and a constitutional republic. not embrace socialism or any other "ism" for that matter. watch ron pauls take on things, thats what im driving at.

although i have a feeling a lot of ATSers like ron paul



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Not because of our "Socialist" model, if you can even call it that. American idea's of what is Socialism and what is actually the model in Europe are so off the mark, I hate using the term in their presence, no offence.


On a general point, you would be isolated from any "credit crunch" if you followed a truly socialist model because you would have been so stunted and economically backward in the first place that any recession would have little effect on an already stunted economy





We are badly hit because ALL of our major Banks, which operate in both a retail and commercial environment side by side, invested heavily in the derivatives market coming out of the USA.

When that went south it took our Banks with you, despite the UK being rather economically sound. With the dry up of credit, cause by the excesses in America, came the big crunch that took alot of British business's with it despite them being commercially viable, because they couldn't raise the capital needed to operate on a day to day basis until normal revenue streams (such as Christmas for the retailers) kicked in.

This feeds back into the wider economy, as layoffs spark fear. Otherwise sound companies lay off staff to protect the bottom line, causing more fear. Most of this "crisis" is psychological in nature, spawned by the fear and financial mess coming from the USA.


Partly true, although the reason why the UK may be the worst affected is because our own boom of the last 10 years has been inspired on credit more than any other nation (coupled with the abject lack of goods actually produced in the UK, other than financial)



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder
On a general point, you would be isolated from any "credit crunch" if you followed a truly socialist model because you would have been so stunted and economically backward in the first place that any recession would have little effect on an already stunted economy


Exactly, which kind of proves that this whole fallacy of "socialism" in Europe and or the UK is complete bull.



Originally posted by blueorder
Partly true, although the reason why the UK may be the worst affected is because our own boom of the last 10 years has been inspired on credit more than any other nation (coupled with the abject lack of goods actually produced in the UK, other than financial)


You hit the nail, there. Our main industry in terms of GDP was Financial services. As our banks wallowed in debt bought from the US, this impacted the wider economy.

It is a myth though that the US doesn't manufacture anything though. We do, just not cheap crappy products sold en mass.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:45 AM
link   
This is the way I see it.

There is no difference in practice between any big government structure. Call it Fascism, Socialism, Communism, etc. it doesn't matter.

The point is there will always be a poor, rich, and middle class. There is no way around that. Giving money to people to house, feed, clothe, pretty much support, only gives the facade that they are not poor.

Truth is that they are still poor. The have no job, all they do is have their hand out waiting for their next check. Take that check away from them and they will be living on the street. People that have been supported by the government for most of their lives have no skills to get a job to even give them a leg up to get a decent job.

I'd even go as far as to say that those people are poorer than poor people in America. No skills, no job, and all they know how to do is stick their hand out and say give me.

To me, socialism is just as bad as any other authoritarian government system. The fact you have to give up your freedoms so somebody else can get their 'fair share' is the biggest bunch of houie I've ever heard.

It was stated earlier in the thread that Marx was an authoritarian and socialism is a brain child of Marx. There is no way around that. You can polish a turd but it is still a turd.

None of the big government structures have anything to do with making people more 'equal' it is all about control. All your doing is handing control of your life over to somebody else because you feel that they know better than you what is fair.

Say what you want, but the simple truth of the matter is that we are only intelligent animals.


edit -grammar, spelling

[edit on 10-2-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   
I am not a socialist, regardless of what Comrade Obama says. I believe in the Republic. It shocks me how easily the sheeple are swayed by a smile and BS.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   
I am glad to see that a different title was used for the online article. I was both insulted and a bit confused when I received my weekly magazine in the mail and noted above the headline the following article title, ???The Blackberry President Quitting the Thug Life???. After reading the article and finding no rationale for the use of the term ???thug life???, I decided that maybe it was just time to cancel my subscription.

- subscriber

[edit on 10-2-2009 by unknown known]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by paradox headache
....what i ment to say is that we need a return to true capitalism and a constitutional republic. not embrace socialism or any other "ism" for that matter. watch ron pauls take on things, thats what im driving at.


Capitalism, anyone else catch the irony here?

What is 'true capitalism', please explain?

How does 'true capitalism' deal with it's unemployed?

Are you saying the state shouldn't provide benefits for its unemployed, or the disabled? What is your alternative to this? Are you prepared to allow people to starve on your streets? Have you no compassion for other people? Or do you just not really understand what 'true capitalism' is, and why it requires an unemployed pool of people?

As I said before capitalism requires unemployment, without it capitalism would spiral into chaos, as wage earners would have the power to dictate to the employers what they want to be paid.
If they have the slightest disagreement with management, you could just quit and find a better job. Eventually employers would not be able to keep up with wage demands and would go bankrupt. Wages and prices keep resources artificially scarce, which keeps prices up, this is an unstable system. Thus it leads once again to unemployment, inflation, recession, for the poor.

It's a system that constantly takes us from boom to bust, with those few wealthy families at the top always repeating the benefits, while we ride the roller coaster of financial survival.

And if the economy is kept artificially afloat, like it has been for years now, then we end up with a major depression.

[edit on 2/10/2009 by ANOK]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
The point is there will always be a poor, rich, and middle class. There is no way around that. Giving money to people to house, feed, clothe, pretty much support, only gives the facade that they are not poor.


This is not true, capitalism creates poverty, nothing else. Money creates the class divisions, the collecting of capital is what keeps other people poor.

Capitalism can only work when there is a division in personal wealth, you can't exploit someone who is not worse off than you. If everyone were suddenly a million dollars better off then the economy would adjust and that million dollars would make no difference. It's not how much you have, it's how large the difference in wealth is between people.

If person A has a million $ and person B has $1, then person A has the power to force person B to work for them at a low wage. Now if person C has a million and he needs person B's labour then he has the power to pay him more, leaving person A with no employee. So person A offers person B more pay to stay in his employ. What does person C do? You see the cycle here?

Now if person A was the only wealthy one and person B and C only had $1, then person A could pay BOTH workers the same low wage. This is wage slavery, the modern legal version of slavery. This is why the majority will always be kept poor under capitalism, because without that disparity in wealth capitalism can't work.

So being lazy has NOTHING to do with this system of wage slavery, even if ALL people could, and were willing, to work there would still be unemployment and poverty under capitalism. It's not the fault of the poor, it's the inevitability of capitalism. There is no way around it. The artificial scarcity of resources drives capitalism, and is what creates poverty, and it's the artificial scarcity of work that keeps people unemployed.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join