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.
Originally posted by Bunken Drum
reply to post by arbitureYou know, I agree with much that you just posted, but I have to say I dont believe you have read Das Kapital. At most, I suspect you've seen a few quotes & then read into them what you were taught at an American high school.
Well, apart from my location, 1 way you can tell I'm a European is that I can spell "naive". As for dictatorships, & your earlier reference to state ownership, this is what prompts, & now reinforces my disbelief. Marx believed that the means of production should be owned by the workers. That they should be organised into committees with the minimum of authority necessary to distribute the goods & services produced; in short no state. If you'd read Das Kapital, you'd know this & not confuse the subsequent oligarchies &/dictatorships with Marxism.
No doub't your a nieve European who has never lived in a dictatorship.
Actually, I've got "the f****** gaul" to say much more. For instance: what a typically naive, trite & hackneyed American response. Please explain to us what the USA selling steel to Hitler whilst he rearmed, taking no sanctions against him when he reoccupied the Rhineland, thus significantly boosting his industrial capacity & enabling the construction of the war machine he later unleashed, trading with the Nazis right up until the last minute & not joining the war until the British Empire was mortgaged up to the hilt, has got to do with a discussion about Das Kapital?
The USA saved Europes ass, and you have the f****** gaul...
Originally posted by Mykahel
If people were completely selfless, communism would work wonderfully. Not only would people have to be selfless though, they would have to work and not be lazy. "If you don't work, you don't eat." (
Originally posted by Someone336
reply to post by Bunken Drum
Hey, not to mention the f****** gaul of American companies who financed, in addition to the Nazi party, Mussolini's regime and... the Bolshevik revolution!
Of course, chest beating patriots often ignore these facts.
Originally posted by ladyx
Communism is better than having our tax money go towards bailing out the rich who in turn give themselves BIG bonuses.
You have the progressives at the time to thank for that. They may have been Fascist, National Socialist and Communist but they are all sister ideologies with Progressivism. There were a lot of progressives at the heads of these American companies so they had no problem doing business with their brethren.
Not to be petty but since were calling people out..gaul is a historical name used in the context of Ancient Rome in references to the region of Western Europe approximating present day France, Luxembourg and Belgium. I think you're looking to use the word gall when trying to burn Americans.
Originally posted by Mykahel
[
Even with people having to work to earn their keep and be less selfish in capitalism, there will always be the "haves" and "have nots." Though it would be much better than what weve got now.
I can’t see how any of that is inherent to capitalism though. Greed is greed. Lenin wasn't greedy? Stalin wasn't greedy? Mussolini wasn't greedy? Hitler wasn't greedy? What? Because they said they weren't? Because they said they were looking out for the little guy? Give me a break. I think you need to give them a closer look.
You seem to think they were just a squirrel trying to get a nut in a cruel world controlled by capitalists.
They were being assisted by people in the US that has similar ideologies. Just because they lived in a capitalist society doesn't mean they were capitalist.
In fact yes they were all sister movements of the left. Look at their goals and look at their accomplishments. Communism, Fascisim, and Socialism are all sister movements of the left.
Socialism is just a stepping stone to communism.
National Socialism is nothing more that communism with a racist tinge to it other than that it was also a leftist movement with the same goals of communism. Inherent to these system is after they pick up steam they do eat their own in their never ending pursuit of power. It doesn't surprise me that they would be throwing their own in concentration camps and gulags.
Adolf Hitler advocated that the party should change its name to the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany.
Hitler, therefore redefined socialism by placing the word 'National' before it. He claimed he was only in favour of equality for those who had "German blood". Jews and other "aliens" would lose their rights of citizenship, and immigration of non-Germans should be brought to an end
Socialism is never about socialism.
Communism is never about communism.
Capitalism is about individuality and freedom.
Either you get off of your lazy ass or you get left behind.
Its Darwinian and it follows the natural order of things.
If a politician claims to be a progressive and fully understands what a true progressive is then people shouldn't cast one vote for them.
You can never build a society on Socialism, Communism, Fascism, and progressivism. These are all parasitic systems that latch onto a capitalist host and feed off of it until ultimately everything collapses. How is that not the ultimate evil and greed? You just can’t argue with history. They are the eventual ruin of countries every time they take hold.
Originally posted by Someone336
Page 1....
Hm. I never recall defending these individuals, and I never recall stating that they weren't motivated by greed. Are you saying that capitalism cannot be taken advantage of for greed?
Nope, never said that. Pretty typical around here how people's words and thoughts are taken to an ideological extreme.
I never said that either. Now your doing to me what you were complaining about. I absolutely believe it can with any system.
Can you show me where J.P. Morgan expressed his 'progressive' and left wing views? Can you show where Rockefeller, Carnegie, Vanderbilt and any of the other robber barons disagreed with capitalism?
You'd have to have a sit down with these men and ask them directly their views on things. That said the next best thing is to look at what they've done. They were the emperors of their companies and they had the power to do what they saw fit. Their actions speak for themselves. They are also exactly what De Tocqueville said would happen. You seem to think I'm defending them. They were Oligarchs. Not good.
Ah, the Glenn Beck School of History emerges. Should have seen that coming with the overuse of today's fearsome buzzword.
Who's Glenn Beck? Today's fearsome buzzword has been around for over 100 years
But didn't socialism predate communism? And what kind of socialism are you discussing? Please, specify. None of the various socialist groups share the same ideologies.
I don't know how anyone could know this. They are so close in nature that it would be difficult to argue one way or another on that. I'm sure the argument could be made that Cro Magnon man practiced communism in their small tribes and Neolithic man practiced socialism when they moved into the villages. Suffice it to say they both suck eggs and have no place in a modern world.
Adolf Hitler advocated that the party should change its name to the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany. Hitler, therefore redefined socialism by placing the word 'National' before it. He claimed he was only in favor of equality for those who had "German blood".
I reeealy don't see where this is at odds with what I've said about socialism. He has issues with it to be sure but he knew that it was the fastest and most effective way to rot and collapse the current system (under the guise of hope and change) so he could bring what the Nazi's were really about out into the open. I think we agree here. Like I said, Socialism isn't about the socialism. Its about power and control.
Do you know about the Sturmabteilung? They were socialists who followed Hitler because he was going to eliminate the German Marxists and the trade unionists. Of course, he ended up purging them when they plotted a socialist coup to take over the party.
Not surprising. Like I said Socialism isn't about the socialism.
Continue to page 2....
[edit on 18-2-2010 by Thirty_Foot_Smurf]
[edit on 18-2-2010 by Thirty_Foot_Smurf]
Originally posted by Someone336
reply to post by Thirty_Foot_Smurf
Page 2..
I don't discount the influence of left-wing elements in National Socialism and Italian Fascism. Let me do some shameful self-quoting:
National Socialism and Fascism were sister ideologies in the fact that they were corporatist models, dangerously similar to what is happening today: a strange culture clash consisting of elements of Keynesian and Friedmanite economics; the market is [loosely] regulated by the government, while the government is bowing to the whims of the overlords of the modern marketplace, which is the corporation. Thus we have a left/right mixed economy designed to support a pseudo-fascist neo-capitalist economic system of Privatizing the Wins, Socializing the Losses.
Another point of agreement. We saw eye to eye on this the last post.
"Communism is never about communism."
Well, yeah, I might agree with you there. Unless you're talking about Marx; I find it highly doubtful that he wrote the Manifesto with Stalin in mind.
Well I dont think he did either. The manifesto was published in 1848 and Stalin was born in 1879
"Capitalism is about individuality and freedom."
Haha, that's worked out so well, hasn't it? Let's not forget why socialist movements and labor movements first sprung forth in America.
In fact it has. Besides, these labor movements are nothing more that an attempt to agitate and organize people into voting blocks. Hows that worked out for them so far? Have they promised what they said they would or are they still conveniently fighting the good fight on behalf of the worker?
Should I fully expect you not to draw on unemployment if you happen to lose your job? How about not calling the police if you've been mugged or your house is broken into? Can't call the fire department either if your house is burning down... survival of the fittest! Gotta pave the roads yourself... and I wonder, [if you went] did you take out students loans in college?
I will not have to draw unemployment because I have a savings. I cant ever begin to understand why you believe the police force or fire department is part of and a direct result of anything socialist, communist, fascist, progressive or capitalist system. Why don't you just lump in chiropractors, mds, garbage men etc. Sorry, you just not coming off as cogent here.
" If a politician claims to be a progressive and fully understands what a true progressive is then people shouldn't cast one vote for them."
Who are you to tell people who they should or shouldn't cast a vote for?
I think therefore I am.
Well, somebody better call up Australia, Argentina, Spain, Portugal, Norway, Sweden, German, Austria, Mongolia, Switzerland, Israel, the Netherlands and all other countries with leaders belonging to the Socialist International and warn them!
You prove my point here exactly. With the exception of Australia what are these other rat holes know for? Explain why exactly what makes them great? I have an idea what you're going to say but I just want to hear it from you first. And Mongolia? Did you have a bet with someone to see if you could work that into the conversation? Again, you're just not cogent here.
[edit on 18-2-2010 by Thirty_Foot_Smurf]
You'd have to have a sit down with these men and ask them directly their views on things. That said the next best thing is to look at what they've done. They were the emperors of their companies and they had the power to do what they saw fit. Their actions speak for themselves. They are also exactly what De Tocqueville said would happen. You seem to think I'm defending them. They were Oligarchs. Not good.
Who's Glenn Beck? Today's fearsome buzzword has been around for over 100 years
I don't know how anyone could know this. They are so close in nature that it would be difficult to argue one way or another on that.
In fact it has. Besides, these labor movements are nothing more that an attempt to agitate and organize people into voting blocks. Hows that worked out for them so far? Have they promised what they said they would or are they still conveniently fighting the good fight on behalf of the worker?
I will not have to draw unemployment because I have a savings. I cant ever begin to understand why you believe the police force or fire department is part of and a direct result of anything socialist, communist, fascist, progressive or capitalist system. Why don't you just lump in chiropractors, mds, garbage men etc. Sorry, you just not coming off as cogent here.
With the exception of Australia what are these other rat holes know for? Explain why exactly what makes them great? I have an idea what you're going to say but I just want to hear it from you first.
And Mongolia? Did you have a bet with someone to see if you could work that into the conversation?
Originally posted by Someone336
"I don't know how anyone could know this. They are so close in nature that it would be difficult to argue one way or another on that."
They are quite different when it comes to economic planning, government, etc. For example, social anarchism argues for the socialist collective in the anarchist frame work, and differs from a social democracy, is based a welfare state based on both socialism and capitalism (the EU) and respects the notion of private property. Ricardian socialism believes in free markets as the path to socialism while market-oriented socialism is more akin to China, with the state directing the flow of the market. I could go on.
I very well believe you could. Though there are many federated versions of it in the modern world it doesn't make it any less of a bitter pill to swallow. They are all destructive and bitter. Their ultimate outcome is totalitarianism.
Its like the difference between a fantasy and reality. Lets just say that my fantasy is to have my wife bring another woman home sometime for " coffee ". The thought of it is exciting. And what could go wrong if everyone is consenting? The reality is its get much more complicated once the fantasy becomes a reality. Chances are a whole host of things will happen afterward that will lead to the ruin of my once happy marriage. So all of these are nothing more than different iterations of the same fantasy. An engineered society in one form or another if you will. They are also nothing more than a vehicle to totalitarian ruin once you go down that road. Look at Greece. Its a model for what will probably be the rest of social Europe very very soon.
[edit on 18-2-2010 by Thirty_Foot_Smurf]