This is not Socialism...it is Corporatism, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 25 times

reply posted on 11-7-2009 @ 04:37 AM by rich23

Mussolini, whom I think we can accept knew a thing or two about fascism, said:

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, marking as it does the merger of state and corporate power."

In response to some of the other posters in this thread...

The US aggressively promotes an ideology in which Socialism=Evil.

A good way of looking at the question is, what should a society do with its surplus production? The US is set up in such a way that that surplus gets concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. It goes to the greediest, the most aggressive, the least moral, the most co-operative.

The alternative is to take some of that surplus and use it for communal things that benefit everybody. Cheap power, good infrastructure, a proper educational and health system.

I would suggest that quite a few countries in Europe have Socialist policies to some extent, particularly in Scandinavia, without recourse to totalitarianism. There was also a study done (sorry, I really con't be bothered to find a link right now) that showed there was more class mobility in Sweden, a country with avowedly Socialist policies, than in America.

I didn't have to pay for my education. I got a good degree. I was lucky. Thatcher and then Blair dismantled that, and by the time someone graduates now the banks have got them by the short and curlies.

If you really think that's progress I feel sorry for you.

reply posted on 11-7-2009 @ 05:01 AM by Neo_Serf

Was about to post Musollinis original term for fascism until the astue poster ^^ beat me to it. Common knowlege to the well read participants in this thread though, i would assume.

David - as a long time lurker and new poster on these forums I must say I watched you awaken along a similar path that I did and seen you make the same logical jumps and adjustments that I went through. If i remember correctly you were basically mainstream with a hint of *WTF?* in you that is always the seed of breaking down the lies and deceptions that surround us 24/7. I enjoy reading your posts and see that I basically agree with your current outlook that isnt tainted, as mine was, with the 'benefit of the doubt'. No more benefits.

For the SGT - basically in awe of your ability to break things logically to their core and tell the truth as you see it without appologies. As a long time scoffer of organized religion in all forms, your well studies posts infused with *real* christianity has forced me to entertain the possibility that the Bible really is more than a collection of folk tales. I look forward to your well researched threads.

Realize I'm off topic and gushing somewhat but thats what 2am drunkeness might lead to. *salute* (not military but respectful) to the guys who keep it real in the face of all the madness that surrounds.

And ya we def live in a worldwide corpratist state that Ron Paul aptly dubbed 'fascism lite'.

reply posted on 11-7-2009 @ 05:07 AM by teapot

Every human constructed and institutionalised socioeconomic system has FAILED.

Each has fallen through economic disaster, war and civil uprising or in the case of apartheid, worldwide condemnation.

I do not believe there is an answer or solution to this. But I bet there are men who do. who will 'sell' their NWO to the masses when the western masses have tired of watching their children starve.

reply posted on 11-7-2009 @ 05:22 AM by Neo_Serf

reply to post by teapot

Its true that humanity has always reverted to the default position of gevernment; ie some top down pyramidial strutcure that must collapse under its own weight, as we are witnessing now. But its also true that weve taken great strides to insitutionalize checks and balances to guard against the eventual and inevitable rise of tyranny, and our last and best crack at is seems to be the American experiment guided by the US constitution.

The founders seemed to realize the trusim that tyranny will always rise to power, and it will always collapse upon itself. They knew that without the eternal vigilance of normal folk that the Republic was doomed to fail, as we are seeing now worldwide. Does that mean we simply are unable to live freely; that freedom and self governence will always erode until it washes away in a never ending cycle of bloodshed and madness? Or can we institue a system that truly serves us all without reverting to that paradigm that every free person has railed against - that might makes right?

Can we break away from what might seem, in our limited scope, the inevitable embrace and deathgrip of tyranny? Must we always struggle and bleed and hope and die like this?

Am I rambling like a fool? Whats the solution?

reply posted on 11-7-2009 @ 06:40 AM by teapot

reply to post by Neo_Serf

Humanity has come a long way, but I fear that much of this just gives scope to the tyrants to create a smokescreen under which we can be more insiduously yoked.

Much of the freedoms we in the west now enjoy were bought with the blood of our forefathers who fought against the tyranny of nazism whilst ignoring the tyranny of Stalinism. All these have fallen and adopted western free market capitalism in some form or another.

I actually believe that none of us are free, just that in the west, we, the proletariate, enjoy comparative freedom from state control not enjoyed elsewhere the world.

I think there is not really a solution in our time. Humanity must further evolve to the point whereby we have made the psychological shift away from our war-likeness (?). The self destruct gene is alive and well!

With the various factions currently competing for control of the world economy via the eventual institution of a global currency, I think it is clear that it won't be long before all currency is abolished and replaced with an electronic trading standard of some sort. This will operate on a socialist backbone, ie, each will receive credits according to NEED as well as CONTRIBUTION (ie, work) and this in itself, will deceive the proletariate into believing that this new system is humane, moral, and fair.

Have you read Orwell's Animal Farm? And no, I don't think you're rambling! And even if you were, there's flesh on them there bones!

reply posted on 11-7-2009 @ 04:15 PM by GorehoundLarry

The administration is out to do one thing: Profit.

That's all the government wants. All politicians have power trips and suffer from our favorite sin: Greed.

reply posted on 11-7-2009 @ 04:25 PM by ExPostFacto

I have no qualms with socialism in it's rawest form. To me socialism if left to providing basic necessities of life, would be a very nice society to live in. Imagine that through a societal contract we agree to take care of each other, by using the wealth of our country so that none may ever starve, be homeless, or die as the result of lack of healthcare for all people that live in this nation. If socialism is left only to those things then I have no reason to not dislike it. However, when the government uses corporations and corporations use the government, and wars are perpetuated abroad. That when our nation has four times the combine total of military might of all nations and squanders it's resources using every dollar to prop up corporations, then I agree with you OP this is not socialism, it is Corporatism.

reply posted on 11-7-2009 @ 04:57 PM by intelinside451

Consider GE runs NBC, CNBC, MSNBC and more. Then you have those stations being ultra liberal, basically winning Obama the presidency. Then you have GE becoming the biggest bailoutee.

Then you have national healthcare, in which we will dump trillions into. Who is the biggest healthcare equipment manufacturer???? Ding Ding, GE with there 1 million dollar CAT scan machine and what not.

I think this country is disguising in every form of the matter. It's absolutely pathetic how the people just sheepishly follow their liberal school teachers and drink the kool aid of their GE owned liberal news outlets.

reply posted on 11-7-2009 @ 05:04 PM by drwizardphd

Fantastic thread David!

Poignant, and knowledgeable.

Socialism would be a godsend compared to what we have in the States right now. If only there wasn't such a strong campaign against it from the media. People throw the term 'socialism' around like they threw 'commie' around in the 60's. I wish more people would open up and understand the differences.

It's about time we stood up to our corporate masters and moved the US into the 21st century. Sadly, seeing what our government is currently doing makes that seem like a pipe dream.

reply posted on 12-7-2009 @ 01:17 AM by David9176

reply to post by intelinside451

I think this country is disguising in every form of the matter. It's absolutely pathetic how the people just sheepishly follow their liberal school teachers and drink the kool aid of their GE owned liberal news outlets.

Right....the problem is Fox and every other stations does the same thing. It's just competing corporate powers....Fox seems to support the military industrial complex....while the others support other businesses such as green energies.....and oddly enough....quite possibly the military industrial complex itself since they have suddenly QUIT QUESTIONING THE WAR.

All of this talk about overspending and everyone seems to "conveniently" forget the costs of keeping up our wars...which by the way...spending is getting bigger and the war is spreading...it hasn't gotten smaller.

reply posted on 12-7-2009 @ 01:19 AM by David9176

reply to post by GorehoundLarry

The administration is out to do one thing: Profit. That's all the government wants. All politicians have power trips and suffer from our favorite sin: Greed.

I agree somewhat. Government doesn't profit though...corporations do. Government is nothing but a corporate mouthpiece. Even the media who reports on our Corporate government is corporate themselves.

This is why it's so hard and difficult to get what we want...and why t he media never seems to report on what truly matters....most of it is garbage and misdirection.

reply posted on 13-7-2009 @ 12:19 AM by ExPostFacto

reply to post by drwizardphd

You are right. Which begs the question is socialism necessarily a government type or a philosophy of what the governments focus should be. Certainly our own constitution has elements of socialism in it. I am convinced that if our government was only concerned about the welfare of it's citizens we could still have a relatively small government with low taxes if any. The problem seems to stem from having a government that is not just worried about helping those that cannot help themselves, but controlling everyone, and putting corporations in charge of assisting in those control mechanisms.

I am currently unemployed and I can't even help myself. I'm sure I could afford some hens and put them in my back yard to get eggs from, but there are laws against it. Maybe I could sell those eggs to others for food, but then the government would want tax. Maybe I could go buy a pack of hotdogs and some buns, pull out my BBQ and bring it downtown and sell hotdogs...oh thats right I don't have a business license or have food safety inspections, although I just bought the hotdogs from a store. Did the hotdogs go bad in transit from the store to the makeshift hotdog stand? I think not.

It is corporatism. Those laws are in place to protect the corporations from individuals realizing they could provide for themselves if it weren't illegal.

reply posted on 13-7-2009 @ 12:32 AM by Hastobemoretolife

reply to post by ExPostFacto

You got it.

It will always be that way in either socialism or capitalism. Remember that the government will still be made up of crooks.

Capitalism will eventually turn into corporatism or communism the same with socialism.

The problem is that the government cannot not provide for the welfare of its citizens, it goes against what government actually is. Government is force. And in most cases the people that scream the loudest get their way.

It will always be like that. Also if you have to remember that there will always be homeless people, there will always be poor people, not matter what kind of system, there will always be haves and have nots.

It is impossible to try to provide people with a certain level of comfort. It breeds dependency. Making people dependent is morally wrong. The only way things will ever work is if people are independent, because then people will be aware of what the government is doing.

Like the situation we are currently in. When the government can't get their way they threaten to cut budgets of services that we need, such as Law Enforcement, Fire, and prisons.

The only way things will ever get better is when people realize that nature is cruel and not everybody is going to make it. It is criminal for 99% of people to suffer for the 1% that does not have the will to be independent. Or seek to better themselves. Of course this does not apply to the truly unable to work i.e. Physically and mentally impaired.

reply posted on 13-7-2009 @ 12:38 AM by mental modulator

reply to post by David9176

AH!!! HomeRUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Out of the ball park...

This is where the right and left can find common ground...

Failing to address this will lead to change... in name only.

The door has been opened and the ONLY real indy I see sticks his head thru

OUR politicians our BOUGHT by the private sector, in turn our government
does their bidding.

YES

S+F= a real

[edit on 13-7-2009 by mental modulator]

reply posted on 13-7-2009 @ 12:41 AM by mental modulator

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by GorehoundLarry

The administration is out to do one thing: Profit. That's all the government wants. All politicians have power trips and suffer from our favorite sin: Greed.

I agree somewhat. Government doesn't profit though...corporations do. Government is nothing but a corporate mouthpiece. Even the media who reports on our Corporate government is corporate themselves.

Ah I'm very happy!

The catch 22 has been caught by DAVID!

reply posted on 13-7-2009 @ 01:11 AM by mental modulator

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by David9176

Well it is a combination of all those things. You are absolutely correct in what you are saying, but how we got to this point is a long and complicated answer, but to sum it up it is government control.

David has it as he does not need ANYTHING to do with partisanship anymore.
We are both de-facto for the big two like it or not... I mean you had to throw in that last line, which is like a claus to protect your ideological heritage AND I had to point that out...

But D skated around all the ideological BS and told it like it is.

The initial string of power starts in the private sector, which is what taints government.
For the PRIVATE sector is the static factor, thus the initial cause of failure of government... They write their own rules, fund the election process and lobby for their own interests. Just like it has been done throughout history...

You see the best things, the true things are free of bulk, they do not need complicated answers.

Cease the corporate power and fix the government, simple, crisp and free of BS.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by mental modulator]

[edit on 13-7-2009 by mental modulator]

reply posted on 13-7-2009 @ 01:14 AM by mental modulator

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by intelinside451

I think this country is disguising in every form of the matter. It's absolutely pathetic how the people just sheepishly follow their liberal school teachers and drink the kool aid of their GE owned liberal news outlets.

Right....the problem is Fox and every other stations does the same thing. It's just competing corporate powers....Fox seems to support the military industrial complex....while the others support other businesses such as green energies.....and oddly enough....quite possibly the military industrial complex itself since they have suddenly QUIT QUESTIONING THE WAR.

All of this talk about overspending and everyone seems to "conveniently" forget the costs of keeping up our wars...which by the way...spending is getting bigger and the war is spreading...it hasn't gotten smaller.

the truth is like wildfire!!!

reply posted on 13-7-2009 @ 01:25 AM by Hastobemoretolife

reply to post by mental modulator

You want the government to dictate the business. It always ends up the same way. The business will always end up controlling the government.

The only way to defeat the corporations is by being knowledgeable of business and how it works. Which is solely to make a profit. Businesses only turn a profit if you give those businesses money.

You want the government to control business so they don't become powerful. Guess what the government will end up doing special favors for those business owners that they are keen with.

You believe in a progressive tax system, do you also believe in salary caps? You do not understand where the power lye's which is with the people.

You want people to be dependent upon the government to make the rules for them. It is like going around your elbow to get to your butt. Cut the middle man out and be knowledgeable and understand how business works.

Government is evil, but necessary for the time being. Until everyone can realize that the power lye's within them and just about everybody can realize that there should be a certain set of rules to abide by then and only then will people be free.

There will always be tons of money floating around the system. There will always be corrupt individuals out for their own gain, governments will always end up corrupt.

As you put it earlier on another thread, it's the human condition. Except people are not dependent on one another, The only time that is the case is when you need to reproduce and raise a child. Then it only takes the mother.

Government is not the answer to anything. In every situation in every socio and economic system a majority of the wealth will always flow to the few. Until people realize that we are individuals, but must agree on a common set of laws it will always be that way.

The ideaological BS is what you are stating.

reply posted on 13-7-2009 @ 02:26 AM by mental modulator

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by mental modulator

You want the government to dictate the business. It always ends up the same way. The business will always end up controlling the government.

Did you even read the dynamics of that sentence HTBMTL?

You want the PERSON to dictate the SENTENCE. It always ends up the same way. The Sentence will always end up controlling the person.

I could have applied many substitute words and in every case the first sentence contradicts the third.

It does not make sense on a simple level and to me it retains the same quality the more complicated it gets. The basis is flawed which is why I think D is on the right path
more so than you.

Watch my sentence work

You want the government to dictate the business. It always ends up the same way. The government will always end up controlling the business.

Watch with substitution

You want the driver to dictate the direction. It always ends up the same way. The driver will always end up controlling the direction.

Mine still works and will always work, I think you have the equation wrong in this whole mess as well.

The only way to defeat the corporations is by being knowledgeable of business and how it works. Which is solely to make a profit. Businesses only turn a profit if you give those businesses money.

Not in our case, the role of modern business is to profit yes. But the path to profit is achieved by consolidating power, gaining influence and imposing that influence, in this case thru lobby.

You want the government to control business so they don't become powerful. Guess what the government will end up doing special favors for those business owners that they are keen with.

I know and politicians will back the issues of those who got them elected. The initial problem as you stated above is the relationship, however in our system this relationship is more dependent on private money getting the official elected in the first place. NOT the other way around, public funding is the first step

You believe in a progressive tax system, do you also believe in salary caps? You do not understand where the power lye's which is with the people.

No on salary caps unless it is public money being used...

I understand, so why would you want to give more power to the entities that influence our government? The GOVERNMENT is intended to be the peoples house, PRIVATE business is not an instrument effected by the people, so why relinquish power away from the people?

You want people to be dependent upon the government to make the rules for them.

YES we are a nation or rules and laws, are elected officials are intended to act on behalf of the citizens, these officials are supposed to set standards that apply to all equally. Unfortunately PRIVATE donations creates the tendency to side with the biggest donors which is rarely WE the PEOPLE.

It is like going around your elbow to get to your butt.

don't know what that means, but I think my ex girl friend would find you a great catch!

Cut the middle man out and be knowledgeable and understand how business works.

MY goal is not to make money the first priority in government, I think that is our FIRST problem.

Until everyone can realize that the power lye's within them and just about everybody can realize that there should be a certain set of rules to abide by then and only then will people be free.

Hell, that is my goal too, unfortunately the rules are dictated to our REPRESENTATIVES by those who donate the most money and time to the cause. This is why I can't rob a store but BIG OIL can fleece an entire nation. IT is clear that things are not equal, this is why I think you perpetuate the problem, the corporation have the power, look at the bailouts, last summers gas extravaganza, the war in IRAQ... WHO benefited?

There will always be tons of money floating around the system. There will always be corrupt individuals out for their own gain, governments will always end up corrupt.

YES and this why WE THE PEOPLE must fund our politicians campaigns and get the LOBBYIST OUT!!!!

As you put it earlier on another thread, it's the human condition. Except people are not dependent on one another, The only time that is the case is when you need to reproduce and raise a child. Then it only takes the mother.

How about when one is mangled in a car on the freeway, how about if you needed to move your giant sofa down a flight of stairs or when you need to discuss your political frustrations.

It is a universal FACT of HUMAN existence, we are social creature by design...
You are trying to go against the flow in so many of these cases H2be.
Nature and "reality" provide the best and most logical foundation for any human endeavor, but all I hear is complicated well read ideals that are based on political idealism. David did not use ANY idealism - he stated a simple cause and effect that
was logical, simple and concurrent with the current world we live in.

. Until people realize that we are individuals,

Once again this is not representatives of the the totality of reality. YES we are individuals
but we also are surrounded by other individuals, each individual comes into contact with the effects, products and creations of other individuals EVERYDAY. As a national we are individuals and a unit, you say "I AM AMERICAN" you do not say I am an individual when you identify yourself when asked what are you??? Like it or not you are a part of a SOCIAL world and system. Remember no matter what is done to you, you are still an individual, that CANNOT BE SEPARATED FROM YOU EVER, it is a given. However it omits a much more important scheme, which is that what you do impacts the reality of others.

The ideological BS is what you are stating.

The same things I say and the same threads we argue upon, the contrary of what I just stated above...

D is floating free of either or but knows and examines both!

reply posted on 13-7-2009 @ 02:31 AM by ExPostFacto

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife

With all due respect I think you may be missing the point of this thread. It's saying that socialism in itself is not the evil we fear...it is corporatism. This isn't really even a debate over left versus right, conservative or liberal. Making someone dependent on the government for help is the result of over regulation to the point it prohibits people from getting up when unemployed and doing something productive. When you can't go shoot a rabbit to eat without breaking the law in the process there is a problem. Socialism would seek to give those in society help so that they may enjoy life, liberty, and property without undue burden. Hell I would be okay with a government ran farming to feed anyone that could not afford to feed themselves. The trick is anyone needs to be able to get the food no questions asked in certain proportions. This requires government allowing competition amongst any corporation including amongst farmers. There are so many regulations on farming that it prevents the average person from doing it, if even on an acre of land.

This really is like the OP said...corporatism. Everything is being designed around profit. It may be just me, but I think there is a whole lot more to life than profit...and I reject the current structure preferring instead to see one where the power is in the peoples hands, not under the thumb of corporations.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^