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.

 

This is not Socialism...it is Corporatism

page: 3
25
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted 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.


Once again ANOTHER HOME RUN...

This OP is the embodiment what many of you claim to want, a real BS FREE look at how
this mess is perpetuated.

I mean look, the OP is somewhat "conservative" by his own omission and I am pretty left and here we are talking and agreeing. This is what America needs, this the movement everyone is clamoring for, D has worked very hard this past year and here is the fruits of his labor. Proof in that I am here and I am not being a prick, but rather learning from his journey of discovery...




posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 02:50 AM
link   
Communism (Ultra-socialism)---Socialism---Centrism---Capitalism---Corporatism (Ultra-capitalism)

Communism: Government rules business and people

Centrism: People rule business and government

Corporatism: Business rules government and people

Corruption becomes more prevalent the further you move either left or right, this is because the more power/influence a group has, either government or corporate, the easier it is for corruption to flourish. Centrism is all about finding a balance between the two.

The collapse of the USSR showed that communism doesn't work and the collapse of the USA showed that corporatism doesn't work.

CORRUPTION is the problem, not communism or corporatism. It's just that both these extreme philosophies foster corruption.

[edit on 13/7/09 by Cthulwho]



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted 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.


Word and then you have NEWS CORP selling the BS war in IRAQ, but that kinda only went to the VP, friends and the presidents cabinet so thats ok, not the same thing...



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted 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.


I think you are missing the premise of what I am saying. Governments are corrupt. Government business will be corrupt. The enemy is big government.


Hell I would be okay with a government ran farming to feed anyone that could not afford to feed themselves.


What is the difference between a government run farm and the government partially owning a farm?

That is what you are missing. Governments are corrupt. They always have been and always we will be. There is not really a difference between corporatism and socialism other than a semantics issue.


Socialism would seek to give those in society help so that they may enjoy life, liberty, and property without undue burden.


At the sacrifice of others life, liberty and property. So the people that earned it has to forcefully give up their property and liberty.

What I'm trying to explain is the the USA already has these programs, Section 8, welfare, WIC, etc. But it comes at the expense of everyone that pays taxes, as the population grows it costs more liberty and property to keep these programs going, because the costs only rise.

The USA is already semi-Socialist. The government owns stake in two car companies and a bank, they own Amtrak. In fact there is a law that states nobody can open a business to compete with Amtrak. And the taxpayer sinks billions of dollars a year into Amtrak because it is not profitable.

The more taxes the government takes the more freedom people lose. I'll repeat this again. Socialism, Corporatism there really isn't a difference only one semantics who on paper the owner is.

Edit to add -

The main point I'm trying to make is that everybody has their price. The government is made up of people. Big business and big government go hand and hand. It all turns into corporatism. Because the politicians want to get rich.

That is the connection that I'm and trying to get you to make, is that governments are corrupt and in any system Big business will always win when you depend upon somebody else to bring down a business i.e. the government.

It always ends the same way, corrupt. The money will always move to the top.

The government can not provide Life liberty and property with out taking away those things from somebody else. The government is force.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 


I agree with what you are saying. I voted for Ron Paul...so that should give you some indications of how I would enjoy seeing our country. However, over the past year I have unlocked myself from the left/right ideology instead preferring to visual a new way forward.

You mentioned that a government ran agriculture farm couldn't succeed and I say you are correct, in so far as long as the current system is in place. However, if you allowed government to hire farm workers (the cost of which would be cheaper than printing food stamps that go to corporations), and farm in which all produce would be given out to those in need without question, at the same time allow anyone to sell their own garden food to vendors without regulation, you would have an immediate influx in local farming versus corporate farming. This would be terrible news for corporate farmers, in would cut trucking shipments worldwide, oil profits would plunge, the economy would suffer as people locally become more self sufficient and able to earn a little extra income by selling their personal products. I say this whole system is designed around keeping the biggest people in business, as they are the only ones that can afford to keep current of regulations, and compliance of the government. And all this could be done at a fraction of the cost of current spending, and because food is given to all in need there is no need for applications and administrative staff to document and control this.

You want a health care plan? Get rid off all the administration of who qualifies for what. Make a simple plan called basic health care plan, no documentation needed you walk in and get treated. All hospital visits, diagnosis, prescriptions, are FREE. Certain common surgeries are free as well. You want anything for than that you need to buy insurance. There should be no regulations over doctors. You require all companies to pay for this as part of a benefits package; convert the existing insurance policies making it illegal for an insurance company to carry more than one type of insurance of one person. In other words, the company doesn't have to have worker's compensation insurance on every employee, as it would be taken care of through the medical plan. (just some ideas) Corporations would throw a fit over these ideas; however, they truly would benefit the whole country, and it would be available to all without question. Our current system requires that you "qualify" for these things, in my mind that isn't right to have to qualify for anything that you pay taxes into.

If our goal is to continue to prop up the current system then I guess my above ideas are worthless. If our goal is to want it totally our way then we have to acknowledge that our country is already split, but their may be an agreeable form of governing that is totally for the people at all costs and not in a forceful manner. If we want to mend this country we have to look at both sides of the issues, the concerns and merits and dream a little bit about what we can create that would match all of our needs without conceding our principles.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 



However, over the past year I have unlocked myself from the left/right ideology instead preferring to visual a new way forward.


I'm going to show you your ideas are conflicted with reality.


However, if you allowed government to hire farm workers (the cost of which would be cheaper than printing food stamps that go to corporations), and farm in which all produce would be given out to those in need without question, at the same time allow anyone to sell their own garden food to vendors without regulation, you would have an immediate influx in local farming versus corporate farming.


That is not reality. The government is force, that is what I'm trying to get you to understand. The government will tax people and the government run farm will be a huge financial black hole. It takes money to run the farm.

You cannot operate a business at a loss. When people find out the farm is giving out free food everybody will go to that farm and put the other farmers out of business. It will never work in any way shape or form.


the economy would suffer as people locally become more self sufficient and able to earn a little extra income by selling their personal products.


The economy would suffer in its current form, but there is one major flaw. The government can not give out free food, and then expect people to become more self sufficient. Giving people things creates dependency.


And all this could be done at a fraction of the cost of current spending, and because food is given to all in need there is no need for applications and administrative staff to document and control this.


The cost would sky rocket. No government transparency, how does that work? It doesn't.

And who are these people that are in need? People that are able body and can work if they need too? Those people aren't in need those people are dependent.


All hospital visits, diagnosis, prescriptions, are FREE. Certain common surgeries are free as well.


Who's going to pay for this "free" health care and surgeries? The doctors and nurses aren't going to work for free, the electric company isn't going to provide electricity for free, the suppliers of pills and stuff are not going to provide it for free.

There is no such thing as free. Then even if they all did those doctors and nurses and companies would be people in "need" because they are able to work and yet they are not getting paid. The burden the lye's upon the people that work and make money. They will get taxed to death in order to prop up all this free stuff, and in turn they are in need themselves because they are working but the government is taking away everything they earn.


There should be no regulations over doctors.


Would you want the Bernie Madoff of the health care world operating and treating you? Or how about Dr. Kavorcian(sp?)?


In other words, the company doesn't have to have worker's compensation insurance on every employee, as it would be taken care of through the medical plan.


So who is going to pay the salary of the construction worker who fell off the roof and is unable to work for a few months because if injuries sustained? You expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab for that too? There goes more people that are "truly in need".


Our current system requires that you "qualify" for these things, in my mind that isn't right to have to qualify for anything that you pay taxes into.


Well we all pay taxes into welfare, should we all be able to apply for welfare?


If our goal is to continue to prop up the current system then I guess my above ideas are worthless.


No, the reason why your idea's won't work is because it is not the system it is the corruption in the system. Your idea's also apply to some fantasy world where money grows on trees.


If our goal is to want it totally our way then we have to acknowledge that our country is already split, but their may be an agreeable form of governing that is totally for the people at all costs and not in a forceful manner.


How is that working out for us now? The system you are talking about is called Democracy and it is what we have now. The government is and will always be force. They are the ones that makes the rules. It will always be like that. Especially when you promote a system of "government provided this and government provided that."


If we want to mend this country we have to look at both sides of the issues, the concerns and merits and dream a little bit about what we can create that would match all of our needs without conceding our principles.


Welcome to the government form of a Republic. Where personal responsibility is key. When you get government involved people are going to have to concede their principles. Because as has been mentioned many times, government is force.

The only way we are ever going to be free, is by educating people that people are different and under a republican form of government there are set amount of laws. That apply to everybody. When people are intolerant and start to change the system because something offends them, then the government legislates a law, then it over rules somebody else principles.

The only way to be free is realize that personal responsibility is the only solution. The false right left paradigm you speak of is not false at all.

The false right left paradigm is that Republicans and Democrats are at odds in the upper levels of government.

To the right you have freedom, to the left you have authoritarianism. Which one do you choose? I choose to be closer to the right because it is freedom. With every new government rule and regulation you move closer to authoritarianism. I.e. Corporatism or Socialism.

The only way we are ever going to have a better world is when people realize you can not provide for the lowest common denominator. You can not provide for people that are "in need" when in fact they are fully capable to provide for themselves.

You can not delegate your duty of personal responsibility to a government, the government is always corrupt. Always has been and always will be.

I know those were just idea's you were talking about, but until everybody realizes that they are responsible for themselves then we are going to continue in this corrupt corporate ruled world.

The power is with the people not the government. If you want to provide for people that you think are in need then you should do so out of your own pocket, because what you think are people in need is completely different than what I think.

The only assistance we should provide is for the truly unable to work and provide for themselves, the physically and mentally handicapped.

We need certain regulations, and laws, but ultimately it up to us to make sure the government does not exceed it bounds. When you start wanting the government to provide for people that are not in need, it snowballs into being corrupt.

Just the way it is. There will always be people that try to cheat the system and get one over on somebody. People will always be corrupt and the government is made up by people.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by mental modulator
This is where the right and left can find common ground...


Indeed! This thought is expressed in another recent ATS thread

Instead of being told to fight each other, citizens need to come together to fight the common enemy.

Instead of electing Ralph Nader as POTUS, we need to join organizations he started, and similar groups that come FROM THE PEOPLE, not the corporations.

We can sit around and debate whether or not this is a NWO conspiracy, but debating won't change the fact that American citizens/taxpayers have been screwed by corporations that are not doing business in our best interest, yet claim to...false advertising!.

This is not a witchhunt against corporations per say, but against the idea that corps should be gaining power and dollars through the use of govt. We the People...not We the Corporations.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Cthulwho
 


What you are saying is true of socialism in a one state solution but not of communism which agrees that there should be no government, particularly anarchist communism which in itself believes that any form of Hierarchichal power, government or otherwise is wrong and will always lead to oppression.

The term communism is often thrown around with its meaning not truly understood - the original forms of communism always advocated that the state be done away with.

The state in itself demands a power structure which will always become corrupt and this is why both capitalism and a socialist organised state will and always have failed - hence Trotsky's idea of permanent revolution by the proletariat to continuously remove all elements of the state - always!

The attempts to introduce true communism have always failed for this reason - the initial revolution was not followed up by the next revolution needed to finally remove the state.

For this reason I have moved more and more towards the anarchist communist position over the years - remove all hierarchy immediately.

The US constitution in its original form was very close to this position - believing in little government but again, the state has corrupted itself over the years.

Again, the same is true of Europe where with the attempt to force the Lisbon Treaty upon the masses is an attempt to centralise power in the hands of the corporations - why? - because currently many European societies have too many laws protecting ordinary people both in work and outside which means the corporations have too little power for their liking.

So what is the solution - for the masses to organise once again into the Trade union movement - this movement was able to break the back of the corporations in the early parts of this century all over the world.

But as worker conditions rose the need for this movement among many workers minds seem to be not necessary. What was the result - workers rights (I include all small business owners in this) were eroded.

The mass corporations reduced wages where possible and if not shipped the manufacturing overseas to exploit the poor economic circumstances of other workers in other countries and then use this outsourcing to blame us the workers left behind for being cause of losing our jobs. We were not economically viable.

This is rubbish, we all know of profitable companies who shut their businesses so that they could outsource overseas to achieve more profit.

Everyday with this rampant march towards even great corporatism throughout the world under the guise of globalism we are forced more and more to take this crap.

I only realised in the past year of the truths behind the corporatism of the world we live in and as such have become an anarchist communist and an ardent believe in the organisation of ordinary working people throughout the world to defeat this. A one country solution will not work due to the outsourcing factor described above. We need to organise the trade unions on a global basis to combat the corporations who without the workers are nothing.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Thank you for the interest in this thread. For anyone who has followed my post over the last year...they know how this contradicts much of what I have stated in the past.

I admit it. I didn't see it...maybe I didnt want to...and for that....I do apologize.

And now to be completely off topic....

I just welcomed my baby daughter into the world as of 1:43 this morning. She is absolutely beautiful and I couldn't have asked for a more perfect girl. She has big gorgeous blue eyes!!

No one can ruin today for me....this is what life is all about..

Remember people...never forget about what truly matters!!!

Family....it's always family!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Protect the little ones and let's make a better world for them.

A day like today showed me just how great the spectacle of human life is....

Many of us have seemed to have lost it...

Let's get it back!!!!!



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Hey, Dad, congratulations!!

And thanks for making the time to share your thoughts at ATS.


Originally posted by David9176
Protect the little ones and let's make a better world for them.


Maybe that's what Life is all about, when all is said and done. To make a better world for the next generation to inherit from us. Take care of them now, but never miss the opportunity to work towards a better future for them.

At times Life can seem so dark, but that does not mean the future must be dark. We must walk through Life, not always staring at our feet for fear of stumbling, but lifting our head up to see the road beyond, to see if we are on the right path, or to judge if we must walk a new path. If we can walk with others down this path, then truly we are blessed.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   
CONGRATS D!!!

YES SIR, heres to long, happy and prosperous life to you and yours!!!



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


Congratulations David.

All the best to you and your family in the future!



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


All sounds pretty sound in principle.

However, your ideas are reminiscient of the inception of the British Welfare State, whereby 'health, education and social welfare services that are second to none' are paid for via a system of national insurance and administered by the state, are free at the point of delivery.

I totally agree that Earth's bounty has been sequestered by corporatism and that the 'machine' is orchestrated to benefit the few. I don't agree that a socialist redistribution of this bounty will lead to a fairer society. I think such redistribution will be labelled socialist so as to make it palatable to the socialistas and proles.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


Congratulations David!!!

Is this your first born?



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


Congratulations David!!!

oops! double post!

[edit on 14/7/2009 by teapot]



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by teapot
 


Well you would be happy to know as well as the other guy above (and both of you are correct when coming from the prospective of the current system)...that I do not accept the function and role of government that would allow socialism to bankrupt a country, nor corporations to get rich off the distribution of these. In the real world no system would function how I envision it working as greed is the end all that defines a person in our society.

If we take the ideas I expressed above and think, what would happen if immediately our whole system crumbled. I can see my neighbors and I working in a group each having a job, and each contributing to the whole through that. There may be someone that is an engineer, he could go around repairing the communities stuff. The other guy is a farmer. The older people maybe provide babysitting while the other adults do the labor. In all no money is ever exchanged as each is a part doing the other a service. Nobody is without a job. Nobody is ever rich, all are rich when someone makes their job in that community require no work at all. If they innovate their position to make it so easy it frees up time all benefit. This is in stark difference to our current structure that says if you make it too easy you lose your job. Or if it looks too easy that employees position isn't justified.

In closing, greed has ruined corporations. They have lost sight of how to take care of their people as part of a community, instead having the exact opposite approach at destroying the community to accumulate a bigger piece of the pie.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 04:47 AM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


I believe societies with work exchange and economic systems such as that you suggest already exist, mainly in the USA.

ie, The Amish and Shakers



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by teapot
 


Yes, you are absolutely correct! Each of them provides a hand to the whole, because they recognize shared values. Maybe I should become Amish, but that whole beard thing drives me away



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Yeah, it's definitely weird, the whole beard no tash thing!

And the way the women have to dress!

And all of them in monochrome only.

Going back to beards, did you know that in Scotland it is still illegal for a man with a beard to laugh in church on Sunday?



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   
I just thought I'd revive this thread as it kinda died due to me having a baby...so I'm going to continue as I feel it's important.

Every day, for the most part, I listen to Glenn Beck and then Thom Hartmann. Both of them blame the opposite idealogy for all of the problems in the country but say they speak for everyone. Glenn Beck blames the "Progressive movement" and Hartmann blames "Conservative right wingers" for most faults on this country.

Lately though, they are starting to agree on things. Much of it is the Federal Reserve and why it needs to be audited...but amazingly...both are highly against the Trans-national Corporations that have a stranglehold on our country.

Hartmann is the closest to the truth in my opinion as he knows both sides are bought by corporate power through the influence of lobbyist. The problem with Beck is that, himself being a capitalist, he defends the rights of corporate power in the United States.

I'm telling everyone, we will NEVER! get to the point that we actually have the political system working for us until we stop corporate influence on our politicians.

Something has to be done....and until then....any major issue that your heart tends to will be tainted by corporate power...whether it be Health Care or any other major issue as those in power always have something to be gained (mainly wealth) over the loss of your rights.

As i listened to Hartmann today...he announced he was having Ron Paul on his radio show tomorrow. He even said he was a GOOD MAN. Yes, the TOP progressive radio host in the country said this about him...even though they have vast differences in ideology.

This is what we need. There are just a scant few on both sides of the isle that are really fighting for you...the rest of them are all bought.

We need Campaign finance reform.....It's a necessity and vital to getting corporate influence out of our political structure.

A corporation is not a person and NEVER WILL BE. They do not have the same rights that an individual has. I believe in capitalism, but it needs to be capped with ANTI-TRUST LAWS and a new amendment to repeal NAFTA. ALso, the Federal Reserve HAS TO BE TRANSPARENT.

These 4 things are absolutely vital before any change can occur...

It's time for all of us to come together on this and shape a better future for all of us.

Right now we have little to no impact on our future..someone else controls it.

We need to take it back before all chances have slipped away.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join