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: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConservativeJack
the difference is, in USA, our poor people are rich compared to the middle classes of everywhere else


I explained this already, you're more wealthy than the rest of the world because the US, the British Empire, the Dutch East India Company etc., stole resources from other countries such as Africa, India (where BE policies caused the starvation of 30million), China etc., and used slavery, to create the wealth the west now enjoys.

It's not because you're smarter, or capitalism is better, it's because a few western 'christian' companies had no morals and exploited everything and everyone they could. Greed drove them, capitalism gave them the power to do it.

Yes it is capitalism that has made you 'wealthy' but I ask again, AT WHAT EXPENSE? The expense of the rest of the world.

So supporting capitalism is like supporting a mass-murderer because he makes your life a bit more comfortable than those he is killing.

Appropriating resources through force from other countries, at the expense of the natives, is ONLY needed under capitalism because capitalism requires ever ending markets. Companies produce more than they can sell and go bankrupt etc. New companies and new markets have to be continually opened, otherwise capitalism fails. Under socialism pgoods would only be produced for what is needed, no overproduction, or wasting valuable resources to just make someone 'profits'. No more 40 hour weeks to produce goods, at a minimum wage, that the worker will not benefit from.

We should stop competing with each other and cooperate to make the world a better place to live, FOR ALL.

For example, what is the point of a store that sells womens purses for $500 a piece? When your very own infrastructure is collapsing, and the majority of the world is in poverty, isn't this a crass waste of resources? All the labour and time to produce a product designed simply to make someone with more money than sense think they HAVE to have it, so they can make money that goes to do nothing but fatten someones bank account.

If that purse had never been produced, would there still be a demand for it?
Of course not, capitalism creates suedo-demand through advertising (another waste of resources) and other media such as TV shows and movies. A demand is created for a product that is not needed or even desired in the first place, products that do nothing to better anything.

It's a waste of the labour and time of those that both produce and consume that product. It's capitalism that traps us in this cycle of wasted energy and resources. If those resources were better managed we could all be working a very few hours a week to produce what we need. Then if you want to have a $500 purse, you can appropriate this on your own free time through private arrangements. But who would bother? Without that desire for suedo-wealth created by advertising etc., our time and efforts could be put to a better more creative use.

Go look at history and what was done, is still being done, with coffee, sugar, tea, oil, opium etc... Products acquired through force to be enjoyed by the wealthy west, both in product and profit. What happened to the countries these resources were taken from? POVERTY! Complete and utter poverty. They were left with nothing but their religions and customs. The resources they needed it live on, sold to you and me, and the profits going into western bank accounts. And you all wonder why the rest of the world is the way it is.

Edit; oh yea, and you wonder why I might be a bit 'hateful' towards capitalism


If you think I'm just making this all up please at least give me the respect of taking some time and researching this, if you reply in a couple of hours with 'you're full of it' then I'm not going to waste my time with a reply to you...

[edit on 2/12/2009 by ANOK]




posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Karlhungis

I also have a hard time seeing what is going on as "socialism." It looks a lot more like fascism to me as well.


Amen to that. Giving trillions of $ to bankers is not socialism. It's just plain corruption. Every congressgangster who voted for the bailout is getting a kickback in the millions. I bet barney frank is getting 50 mill.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   
actually I would like to create a new word for what's really going on it's called "Mafiaism" It's neither Socialist nor Fascist, but reflects the reality of the situation.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Socialism is not so much inevitable as it is a fait accompli IMO. Here in the West, the USA is supposedly the least socialist of all the first world industrialized nations. But is that really saying much?


Goals, "Communist Manifesto"
(from The Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in 1848.)

Goals of Communism (page 94)
1.Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2.A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3.Abolition of all right of inheritance.

4.Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5.Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6.Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7.Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8.Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9.Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

10.Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc., etc.


www.citizenreviewonline.org...

1 is not fully accomplished, but with property taxes, we essentially rent private property from the gov, giving it the power to take your property. Throw in the expanded 'eminent domain' powers and we're on our way.

2 is fully realized.

3 is partially accomplished through the death tax.

4 is partially accomplished through ‘zero tolerance’ laws. The county of Kaufman has had a vehicle of mine with hundreds of dollars of tools and equipment in it for 16 months now without so much as a scrap of paperwork being given me.

5 The Fed.

6 is only slightly in place through regulations. Regulations that are ever increasing of course. FCC, etc.

7 same as above. Department of Interior, etc.

8 is a pretty extreme plank. Some of it happened under FDR, and we may see more of it under Obama. Most of this is accomplished through economic policy (keeping people so poor they'll do anything to survive), which is why Mexico never needed slaves.

9 is largely accomplished. Monsanto, ADR et al now dominate agriculture, with the family farm going the way of the buggy whip.

10 Done and done.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



Did you learn all of this at one of our state run educational institutions? Capitalism is always seen as an exploitative operation there. They teach jaded viewpoints and contempt for everything western.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK






Please explain how the economy will keep working if there wasn't a poverty class and unemployment to keep inflation from going out of control. You can criticize me all day, but unless you show me where I'm 'whacked out' then your insult is just an empty waste of bandwidth.



Well really its the consumer "class" that keeps the ball rolling. It just fits the Marxist blow to harp about the "poverty class", thats mostly on the dole anyway, becouse they need victims not willing participants.

And WOW this idea that unemployment is a necessary governor of inflation is some very simple economic interpretation. That the system promotes unemployment to meet some technical balance is simply an example of poor Maoist/socialist economic interpretation.

The primary tools that control inflation have to do with the consumer class that accounts for about say 70% of the population in degrees, not really the say 7% unemployed.

What effects the value of the dollar locally is when a working man has to compete with food stamps and government funded housing and day care.

The primary reason day care is so expensive is because of the amount the government pays per child for mothers on programs. Then mr and mrs working joe blow needs days care and find out its as much as one of their incomes per week. Thats an inflationary screw job. Socialist governmental policies undermining the dollar and the working man.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife


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.



Strangely in any economy the tools of trade and barter are only as strong as they are becouse of need and possession. This is a reality that some have been trying to escape for centuries.

Yes passing out a million to everyone would mess up the value of the dollar and basically enslave everybody but the elites. Just look at Stalinist USSR. Thousands starved to death under the collectivist experiment.

In our current situation the working man is more of a slave by far to those that receive government assistance than he is to the capitalist. And the fact is making capital the slave of the whole isn't going to serve anybody but the dole and completely screw up the economy and make slaves out of the working man.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by resistor
 



Marx had an idea from the confusion of his head
Then there were a thousand more waiting to be led
The books are sold, the quotes are bought
You learn them well and then you're caught
Anothers left, anothers right
Anothers peace, anothers fight
Who's your leader? Which is your flock?...Crass


Well that sums up what I think of Marx.

Socialism does not mean supporting Marx and his communist manifesto.
There are two sides to socialism, those of who support liberty and those that support authority. IMO true socialism has to be 'state free' libertarian.

The communist manifesto was a reaction to the events of the time, where class divisions were far more obvious and coercive than now, it was very obviously a rich mans world.

Socialism is simply the 'workers ownership of the means of production'. How the community will be controlled and organise should be the responsibility of those that live and work in that community, not by a bureaucracy thousand of miles away, or a manifesto written 150 yrs ago.

Socialism does NOT mean supporting the communist manifesto, that was just the ideas of Marx written 150 years ago, it has no relevance now.. There are obviously common grounds, but that can be said for all political ideals.

If you want to read anything by Marx read 'Capital' (Das Kapital). It's far more relevant for even todays times.


The natural course of capitalism is towards greater concentration of wealth and power. Continuous increases in productivity cause overproduction, squeeze profits, cause periodic economic crises, and make "redundant" an ever enlarging "reserve army" of unemployed and underemployed workers. Capitalists respond to these factors by mercilessly imposing ever harsher working conditions and by squeezing more labor for lower wages from their workers. Marx, Das Kapital


Is that not the truth? Look around you...

[edit on 2/16/2009 by ANOK]



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


Sorry but that is a very naive and simplistic argument.

You are basically trying to blame the poor when you fail to understand without a poverty class there is NO financial wealth for the few.

And not every one in poverty is on welfare or receiving food stamps. There are millions in the third world whose resources were stolen by the west, it has nothing to do with them collecting welfare.

Why do you keep wanting to blame those who need assistance when it's the system you support that creates that need?

Please explain to me what would happen if jobs were easily available for everyone? It would be nice but capitalism would never allow this to happen for obvious reason that I already explained, did you read all my posts?

Here it is again in a simple example...

You live on an island with 100 residence. There are ten employers and 90 workers. All 90 are employed, but there is a shortage of workers because the employers are short handed. So employer one offers $1 more an hour and employees from the other firms go work for him. Now the other firms are short of workers, so to fill there quota they have to increase there pay to bring employees back. So now what happens, the cycle continues until the employees can no longer afford to increase wages and start to lose money, as their profits all go to pay their workers, so they increase prices.
The workers can no longer afford the goods, so they demand higher wages. What does that lead to? Bankruptcy, lay offs, unemployment. It's a cycle that cannot be stopped. That's why jobs are scarce. If it was not decremental to the system then jobs would be in abundance.

What do you expect the system to do with it's poverty class? What is your alternative? And no, getting a job is not the answer, as I've pointed out the jobs are simply not available for all to be employed at a livable wage.

Poverty class is inevitable under capitalism...It's not the fault of those trapped in this cycle, but those that orchestrate it. So it's capitalism that requires welfare, not socialism. Socialist, under capitalism, see this reality and the need for help for those who capitalism turn into victims. Whether it's there own fault or not, someone has to be poor for someone to be rich.
Most people don't choose to be poor, but those who own 50% of the world wealth sure chose to allow that poverty.

[edit on 2/16/2009 by ANOK]



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
The Way Home or Face the Fire -

www.jahtruth.co.uk...



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by ConservativeJack
the difference is, in USA, our poor people are rich compared to the middle classes of everywhere else



If you think I'm just making this all up please at least give me the respect of taking some time and researching this, if you reply in a couple of hours with 'you're full of it' then I'm not going to waste my time with a reply to you...

[edit on 2/12/2009 by ANOK]



It may surprise you but I sat under Marxist and New Left college professors during the 80's and 90's for a few years at the state run university and so am familiar with most of the arguments you present. You in fact remind me of some of their products.

Although I understand what you are saying I just cant stand economic interpretations of mans rights nor his essence. Although it is dammed near impossible to operate outside of any prevailing system but some try. Guys like me end trapped in the middle somewhere. Folks in the middle zone see everybody with a hand out wanting something. Nobody bailing my ass out and not on the dole, bad place to be right now.

If we were in a idealistic socialist agrarian society I would still probably be doing the work of several men and trying to explain why I needed two horses when everybody else has one.

In the current situation I would be trying to keep two horse as the government would want one to give someone that didn't have.

Anyway it should be clear that we live in sort of a hybrid form of government/economic system that taxes the sucks off the guy in the middle. Robin Hood that collects tax and keeps a large cut for himself bailing out select money machines and casting gold and silver like a retard into the streets. And they still want the middle guy to buy cars from the company they just had to bail out with his money while at the same time creating jobs with his money. Oh thats right, we really dont have any money its all theirs anyway and anything we have is at their largess. The only smart people here are those that want nothing and those that want it all. The middle class is dragged down by the one and held up by the other. One armed with guns, congressman and courts, the others armed with fancy ideas and philosophy.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   
It's interesting to see peoples' ideas of socialism -- especially those living in the US where big business owns and runs the country. That's a very perculiar type of socialism, quite abstract from my understanding. All these 'isms', communism, fascism, socialism -- with the exception of capitalism -- never work in their purest forms anyway so it's useless debating them.
The term 'socialism' has become the scare tactic of the big end of town any time there's a hint of any social reform to help the sick and the needy with hospitals, schools, welfare, health care etc -- and when private enterprise gets their greedy hands on these institutions they become institutions of the privileged. I didn't see too much socialism in New Orleans when hurricane Katrina struck.
Bailing out big business with the taxpayers' money put a very nasty taste in a lot of peoples' mouths, especially when it came to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who, let's face it, were involved in the catastrophic subprime (junk) mortgage loans. It was big-business companies that were screaming out for government intervention including bail-outs -- hardly like Castro or Stalin marching in and converting private institutions into government institutions under a socialist regime.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fahrenheit451
.... hardly like Castro or Stalin marching in and converting private institutions into government institutions under a socialist regime.


Yes, in this case its more like sugar daddy come save us. And you still have basically the same justifications i.e. that these corporations serve the greater whole of the society, they are propped up by the government ect.

Not a perfect comparison by any means. Maybe more like Great Britain?



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Points well taken, but the proof is in the pudding. In what direction are we consistently moving? Toward an empowerment of the people, or of the gov? The answer is obvious. Apply whatever label you like, tyranny is impending. Is a socialist tyranny preferable to a fascist one? An oligarchy preferable to a monarchy? Tyranny is all the same, labels notwithstanding.

'It's a rich man's world'. Yes, I think we agree much more than not. We just seem to define our terms a bit different.


edittide

[edit on 16-2-2009 by resistor]



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   
American news (or gov) loves to create some new monster from time to time... I remember the old the evil communists, the evil vietcongs, the evil russians, the evils terrorists... now the got to "the evil" socialists. I am just wondering what will be the next big evil thing... Fear mongering at its best performance.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by blackcube
American news (or gov) loves to create some new monster from time to time... I remember the old the evil communists, the evil vietcongs, the evil russians, the evils terrorists... now the got to "the evil" socialists. I am just wondering what will be the next big evil thing... Fear mongering at its best performance.



Dude, people have been complying about the socialist monster for decades. FDR, Johnson, Clinton. Whatever it is its nothing new.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fahrenheit451
All these 'isms', communism, fascism, socialism -- with the exception of capitalism -- never work in their purest forms anyway so it's useless debating them.


What gives you this idea?

I don't see millions of people starving, an economy that is extremely fragile, constant wars, a federal government, NWO etc., as being successful...


Capitalism in it's purest form would be suicide for the Human race. The capitalists would destroy their own labour pool, how would they keep workers? Capitalism without government oversight would destroy the planet. That's why for true liberty, and no government, the WORKERS must be in control of their own destiny, thus socialism (workers ownership of the means of production). Simply put, instead of you working for a private owner, YOU would be the 'owner'. What is so evil about that?

Socialism is NOT a blueprint for society, it doesn't tell you how to run your life. It's simply when the power is in the hands of us all instead of a few wealthy banking families that manipulate the market, and culture, so as to maintain their power.

America is not a purely capitalist country, it can never be. Human populations are to diverse to expect everyone to be, or want to be, a capitalist.

And as there has NEVER been a socialist country, how can you claim it has failed?

It's pretty ironic that the very things you claim socialism would bring are what we get from capitalism. War, poverty, control, class divisions, theft, welfare...

You all listen to idiots on the radio too much I think...

This from Limbaugh to explain why he thinks social programs (which is NOT socialism btw) are bad, 'a 4.0 GPA student is asked to sacrifice one point so that she and her 2.0 GPA friend will both have a 3.0 GPA.'

A better analogy would be...'it’s like asking a few billionaires to give up their second yacht, so that a few hundred drowning people can buy life jackets.'

Limbaugh is just stupid. Socialism takes nothing from anybody, it just gives those at the bottom of the capitalist 'pyramid' the power over their own lives.
It means those at the bottom can now refuse to work for you at the minimum wage you're willing to give, and the long hours your capitalism requires to survive. Those that suffer will be the owners only if they refuse to become collectives because they won't have any employees, who would work for them?

You all seem to think without capital then we would have nothing. That's just a myth, we have enough people and resources to feed the world 10 times over, but it's capitalism that keeps those resources scars to keep prices up. People now employed in making unnecessary products ($500 purses) simply for profit could be put to work creating more useful products such as food etc...

Democracy brings liberty not capitalism. Capitalism creates barriers that cannot be passed by those at the bottom. It forces you to work 40 hours a week. It is highly corruptible by those who have wealth, allowing them to make for themselves even more wealth, at the expense of everyone else. If you have wealth you can buy people, pay off the right person, recruit the right group, and you can control people. It's not ethical. It gives a select few the power to control the many, and if you think they don't you need to wake up. Those with wealth control the very government that is supposed to control them, but the government is used to control the system that ultimately controls us through economic slavery. This allows the wealthy to do whatever they wish.

(by wealthy I mean the top 1% that own 50% of the worlds wealth)

Feed your need, not your greed!



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



There is really no reason to believe that a company owned by the workers would be any less exploitative to its suppliers than single or joint owners "are" to their labor.

And from what history has shown collective ownership wold run themselves right out of a job.

Some idea that a collective ownership means a more compassionate and understanding, self regulated in the highest ethics for the greatest good of company and mankind is just not reality.

Just look at the way shareholder driven companies can run themselves into the ground with demands for higher profits.

With a labor owned company you would have 200 fat cats instead of a handful.


[edit on 22-2-2009 by Logarock]



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
There is really no reason to believe that a company owned by the workers would be any less exploitative to its suppliers than single or joint owners "are" to their labor.


People can only be exploited if they allow themselves to be. A system of 'owners' and workers is exploitative from the get go.

Explain how a collective could be exploited by it's suppliers?


And from what history has shown collective ownership wold run themselves right out of a job.


What history? Please supply evidence.


Some idea that a collective ownership means a more compassionate and understanding, self regulated in the highest ethics for the greatest good of company and mankind is just not reality.


Care to explain why? Your opinion is not enough without an explanation.

But no one is claiming what you say anyway. You seem to think any system, other than capitalism, that is not 'perfect' will fail. Incredible logic!

No one is claiming socialism, or collective ownership is perfect, it's just more fare than capitalism and main point is it gives you LIBERTY to do what you want. Don't want to join a collective, you don't have to. Unlike in this system where you have no choice but be part of this system.


Just look at the way shareholder driven companies can run themselves into the ground with demands for higher profits.


What has that to do with collectives and socialism? Shareholders are not workers and are motivated by completely different reasons. Just as many companies are ran into the ground by private owners. BTW shareholders are private owners, completely different to worker ownership. We're not talking 'public owned' here were talking about the workers who work at the specific company owning that company they work for.


With a labor owned company you would have 200 fat cats instead of a handful.


Why should only one person be the 'fat cat'. We should ALL be fat cats, that's the point.

Maybe you should go research coops, and collectives, before you make up claim that are just not true.

Coop Myths



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join