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.

 

What Capitalism Isn't

page: 10
40
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

I just did.


I knew you would like a good Socialist, or worse, revisionist of history...



Originally posted by ANOK
Oh dear.

Need more?


...oh dear indeed... I know very well what Capitalism is.. BTW, where do you live and where were you born?

In capitalism people can improve their lives in socialism you can't because the state, which is claimed ( like you keep claiming) to represent the people, owns it all... Not to mention that since individualism is frowned upon and instead collectivism is the "common goal", individual rights can be trampled "for the good of the collective" which essentially tramples the rights of the mayority and only the minority, which is the state, get to reap the benefits of Socialism.



Originally posted by ANOK
Again they are not socialist or communist countries (and they can't be both btw).


...Every Communist country has Socialist programs, and laws, which is why they call themselves Socialists also.. Even Marx himself stated that Socialism is but a stage from transforming a capitalist country into the final goal of communism... Socialism is a transitional stage...

Communism is a SOCIALIST ideology...and you should know that, unless once again you are trying to rewrite history and prey on those who are ignorant of such history.



Originally posted by ANOK
Again you are basing your opinion on what you are told is socialism, not what it actually is.


... No, I am basing my statements on my experiences of the Socialist ideology known as "Communism"... The one who obviously has been brainwashed by books is you...



Originally posted by ANOK
Again there are no socialist countries and the fact they have sweatshops proves that. Why if the system was worker ran would they put themselves in sweatshops? They are there because the capitalist system forces workers to compete for jobs, they are in sweatshop because they are competing with western companies.


... No, they are there because it is good "for the collective" and to hell with their individual rights... The collective is what matters in ALL Socialist ideologies hence individual rights can be trampled for the good of the collective....



Originally posted by ANOK
No you didn't, you probably lived in a dictatorship.


I find it ironic that people who have never experienced the dictatorships of Socialism always try to tell us what system we were under...



Originally posted by ANOK
Again there are no socialist/communist nations.


No matter how many times you try to deny it it won't make it true...sorry, there ARE, and have been MANY Socialist/Communist nations, and EVERY ONE of them have been dictatorships...



Originally posted by ANOK
Nope that is what we have now. In a socialist system government, state is not required.


Even Marx himself said that in the first stages the state, under a Socialist leadership, would have to take over which is where Socialist dictatorships get stucked...and they will NEVER give any power to the people because again the COLLECTIVE is what is important and not the individual or individual rights....



Originally posted by ANOK
Socialism is an economic system and requires no state or government, it is purely worker ran.


...which AGAIN is not viable simply because everyone would have a different idea on what needs to be done, hence why you have a small group of Socialists taking over and dictating to the "proletariat" what to do "for the good of the collective"...

When you, and the rest of the Socialists/Communists wake up and realize this and get off you misconceptions that "al the workers have power in the nation, then you would see why EVERY nation which has accepted entiurely the Socialist doctrine has become a dictatorship...



Originally posted by ANOK
No you don't, the owner of where you work owns it.


Tell that to people who have invented things, and those who own land, which btw "for the good of the collective" laws and rules" have been made which make even farmers be controlled by the government...

The United States was doing fine until Socialists, and "Progressive Democrats like Woodrow Wilson decided to give power to the rich elites who have been slowly transforming this antion into socialism...



Originally posted by ANOK
Again capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production and nothing to do with you owning things.


Again you are wrong, first of all you show more and more that you are unfamiliar with the writtings of Marx, Engels and the other thugs... In Socialist ideology ALL private property is abolished....

Second of all capitalism is the economic system that allows people to own things...



Originally posted by ANOK
Corporations are capitalistic unless they are owned by the government, and fascism uses a mixture of both.


Even socialist/communist systems, and countries use capitalism simply because they realize they need capital to keep their failed ideologies afloat...



Originally posted by ANOK
And just above you said it doesn't need capitalism? Again you need to learn capitalism is not markets unless there is private ownership of the means of production.


I said it is not capitalism but rather that they USE it.. and here I though capitalizing the word USE would make clear my point.



Originally posted by ANOK
Or so called socialist countries. Again this is because of capitalism and the workers being forced to compete for jobs.


No, this is because "it is for the good of the collective, and individuality, and individual rights do not matter in socialist ideology because the collective is ALWAYS first...




Originally posted by ANOK
Capitalism creates an artificial economy where resources are kept artificially scarce in order to make profit for the private owner. If this wasn't the case then we wouldn't have to compete for jobs in order to purchase what we need.


Capitalism has existed for millenia and it does not necessarily need any artifical economy.. Goods have been traded for other goods or services in capitalistic ways since the dawn of mankind...

The system that creates an artificial economy is socialism because there is no trade since people don't own anything...

A socialist society would be similar to ants, where they work to death for the "good of the collective" and they even get killed if they do not produce anything, or if they are lame, similar to the idea of eugenics.

In socialism individuality, and individual rights do not matter because ALWAYS the collective comes first...



[edit on 28-7-2010 by ElectricUniverse]




posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 05:43 AM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...

what's all about ?



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 05:48 AM
link   
www.ernestmandel.org...

the better explanations here .....



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 05:49 AM
link   
www.ernestmandel.org...

all kind of wisdom here.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
American rewritting history BS, the United States was started under the auspices of limited government, it has been with the implementation of Socialist policies that the government has grown so much.


It's the capitalist system, that you support, that creates the need for 'social policies'. In a truly socialist system, the workers ownership of the means of production, there would no need for the workers to require any kind of government hand outs. Also though your capitalists buddies won't either, how much did they get in government handouts?...


Mussolini's authoritarian government included SOCIAL REFORM, which goes against "rightwing ideology"... not to mention that HItler WAS A SOCIALIST, and not a rightwing, but that is a Socialist rewritting history he obviously doens't know about.


Lol you really need to read some books other then teh net dude.

What you consider 'right wing ideology' is not the same thing it was in the 1930's.

Social reform can mean anything, just going to a fascist system would require social reform.

I think you are under the impression anything that says 'social' is socialist lol??


Every policy of Hitler was Socialist...heck he was even an environmentalist...


Rubbish. Whoever said environmentalism is anything to do with socialism? Why can't a fascist be an environmentalist? Hitler was also a vegetarian, does that make him a socialist also? I'm not a vege, must make me a fascist huh?

If Hitler was a socialist why was he in Spain fighting the socialists to help to instate the fascism system that become Francos dictatorship?

You insult the history of thousands of people with that claim.

National socialism is not 'left' socialism, it is a nationalistic authoritarian system based on corporate and government ownership. It's another name for right wing fascism. Just like libertarian socialism is another name for Anarchism.


German Nationalsozialismus, also called Nazism or Naziism

totalitarian movement led by Adolf Hitler as head of the Nazi Party in Germany. In its intense nationalism, mass appeal, and dictatorial rule, National Socialism shared many elements with Italian fascism. However, Nazism was far more extreme both in its ideas and in its practice. In almost every respect it was an anti-intellectual and atheoretical movement, emphasizing the will of the charismatic dictator as the sole source of inspiration of a people and a nation, as well as a vision of annihilation of all enemies of the Aryan.

www.britannica.com...

The ONLY thing that is required for socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production, that is all it is. Anything else equated to it are other peoples opinions from their own agendas, and you all suck it up like dense sponges with no real concept of the reality.


The only one in that group which might be viewed as "rightwing" was Franco, and his ideology has NOTHING to do with Republicanism...


LOL Mussolini INVENTED fascism, Hitler based his fascism on the fascism of Mussolini, Franco came later. It's even an Italian word. Fascism is right wing. Who ever mentioned 'republicanism'?


Fascism is a form of extreme right-wing ideology [what was that? ANOK] that celebrates the nation or the race as an organic community transcending all other loyalties. It emphasizes a myth of national or racial rebirth after a period of decline or destruction.

www.publiceye.org...

Lol not even gonna bother with the rest, go back and read through the thread...



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 05:54 AM
link   
www.ernestmandel.org...

Mandel was one of the most important theorists of Trotskism and a famous economist, he was Belgian, professor and known all over the world but not by the masses.
He was one of the leading people of the 4° ( socialist ) International.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Sunlionspirit
 


Riiight...enlightement from a Marxist... pleeeease....


Enlightenment never comes from any socialist ideology, in fact such socialist ideologies are always spiritually lacking, and very materialistic but they claim the contrary.

Enlightenment and socialism do not go together...

[edit on 28-7-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


here we speak about ECONOMICS, scientifical, not about enlightment or other bull#, just theory !!!
economical theory !!! things must have a name and be clear for understanding !!!
Here we speak about Trotskism, that man Trotsky was KILLED by STALIN !!! doesn't that say a lot yet ???



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
...Every Communist country has Socialist programs, and laws, which is why they call themselves Socialists also.


I'm only going to respond to this part because its obvious from this you have no idea what socialism is.

What is a 'socialist program'?

Do you mean a social program?

Socialism is not social programs.

Why would a communist society, where everything is already free, need 'socialist [sic] programs?

If you want to call that stuff 'socialism' that's fine, but just be aware that is not the definition I use and is a separate issue. If you want to discus my points then you have to realise that the definition my points refer to is, the workers ownership of the means of production. Nothing to do with government or their 'social programs'.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

It's the capitalist system, that you support, that creates the need for 'social policies'. In a truly socialist system, the workers ownership of the means of production, there would no need for the workers to require any kind of government hand outs. Also though your capitalists buddies won't either, how much did they get in government handouts?...


My buddies?... What "buddies" are those?.... Obama took over a private corporation known as "gm" that is a SOCIALIST move, and not a capitalist move... and I do not have any "rich buddies"... but like always when people like you have no explanation why would someone say no to your brainwashing you want to imply they must be rich....
...

Again, you need to live life instead of being brainwashed by books written by socialists and communists...

In socialism there is ALWAYS government handouts/rationing because no one can own anything, so how do people buy food?... How is everything handled in a socialist/communist government?...



Originally posted by ANOK
Lol you really need to read some books other then teh net dude.


I don't need to read the book from socialists and communists which have brainwashed you...you however need to go live for a while in one of the many SOCIALIST dictatorships that exist today and you claim don't exist...

If you want I can set you up to live with my family in Cuba, as a regular Cuban would live, but of course you do need money despite the claims of socialists/communists that you don't need money...





Originally posted by ANOK

What you consider 'right wing ideology' is not the same thing it was in the 1930's.


....rightwing is political conservatism, and traditional values... I am a republican and a conservative because I know, like the forefathers of the United States that capitalism, and a Republic are the best forms of economy and government for the United States..

If you live outside the United States you can choose whatever form of economy you want to follow, but like always socialists/communists try to spread their ideologies by brainwashing the people who don't know history...


Originally posted by ANOK

Social reform can mean anything, just going to a fascist system would require social reform.


Any fascist government which institutes social reforms, and implements socialist programs is another form of socialist dictatorship...




Originally posted by ANOK

I think you are under the impression anything that says 'social' is socialist lol??


I don't think you have read ANY books at all, you probably just heard some socialist or communist claim such systems are great and you believed it...

Socialist ideology is always looking for social reform because they try to transform countries like the United States from a capitalist nation into a socialist one...and you need social reform for such transition... in such social reforms they introduce socialist policies and programs, which is what is happening in the U.S.



Originally posted by ANOK

Rubbish.


i even gave you a speech of Hitler and you want to claim it is rubbish?...
.



Originally posted by ANOK

Whoever said environmentalism is anything to do with socialism?


Where did i say that it does?... however it is a fact that Hitler was both a socialist, and an environmentalist...




Originally posted by ANOK
If Hitler was a socialist why was he in Spain fighting the socialists to help to instate the fascism system that become Francos dictatorship?


Because like always socialists with different ideals, and different goals fight against each other and don't see eye to eye...

Why do you think castro got rid of Camilo Cienfuegos?...

Why were Stalin and Trosky antagonistic against each other?...



Originally posted by ANOK

You insult the history of thousands of people with that claim.


Sure i insult the memory of thousands of brainwashed Socialists/communists , but not the memory of millions which suffered under your utopia...




Originally posted by ANOK
The ONLY thing that is required for socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production, that is all it is. Anything else equated to it are other peoples opinions from their own agendas, and you all suck it up like dense sponges with no real concept of the reality.


... It is not... that's why there are so MANY BRANCHES OF SOCIALISM....




Originally posted by ANOK
LOL Mussolini INVENTED fascism, Hitler based his fascism on the fascism of Mussolini, Franco came later. It's even an Italian word. Fascism is right wing. Who ever mentioned 'republicanism'?


wow...you sure are a revisionist of history...

Tell us Anok...what was then Stalin who believed in national socialism/communism?...or his thesis of SOCIALISM IN ONE COUNTRY?...

Lenin on the other hand believed that socialism/communism must be international and should be spread to other nations like castro and other socialists/communists also believe...

I guess Lenin was a rightwing too?...



Socialism in one Country

Theory developed by Bukharin and Stalin and intended as a rebuttal of Trotsky's model of permanent revolution. Despite the failure of European revolutions, Russia could still build socialism through control over the commanding heights of the economy and under the political leadership of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

www.answers.com...



Originally posted by ANOK
Lol not even gonna bother with the rest, go back and read through the thread...


I can actually give you a link to a real educational essay that shows that fascism is socialism and not a rightwing ideology...


Socialism and Fascism

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In my recent article on Tony Kushner, I suggested that his socialist views were somehow akin to fascism. Predictably enough, the knee-jerk reaction to this statement was the reassertion of an old historical fallacy: the notion that socialism and fascism are somehow opposed to each other, that they have been historical rivals, that there is nothing but difference between the two -- and that I must have been ignorant of this historical fact. I did not, however, make this comparison glibly. Taken in full historical context, with full consideration of philosophic principle, socialism and fascism are essentially the same.

To know what socialism and fascism are, let us begin by examining some historical examples of each. Fascist states have included Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Tojo's Japan, Franco's Spain, Pinochet's Chile, and possibly Peron's Argentina. If we were to focus on each of these concretes, we would observe numerous differences. For instance, Hitler's Fascism was racist. Mussolini's was not. Mussolini's fascism involved belligerent nationalism. Franco's did not. What unites each of these concretes into a group of similars can be seen in a common definition of fascism: "A governmental system with strong centralized power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs of the nation (industrial, commercial, etc.)" (American College Dictionary, New York: Random House, 1957).

Socialist states have included the USSR(1), Communist China, socialist Sweden, socialist England, Cuba, North Korea, and a handful of lesser regimes in Eastern Europe, East Africa, and Southeast Asia. Once again, there is a prima facie difficulty in determining what factor these various states held in common. After all, some socialist regimes (like Sweden's and England's) were elected democratically. Others, like the USSR's and the PRC's, were the result of popular violent revolutions. Still others were the product of either military coup (Cuba, Ethiopia, Vietnam) or foreign invasion (the Eastern Bloc). The trait common to all of these is provided, once again by the definition of socialism: "a theory or system of social organization which advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means or production, capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole" (American College Dictionary).

Now that we have these two concepts (socialism and fascism) squarely on the table, we can spell out their differences and similarities. It is obvious that there are numerous differences between socialism and fascism, the most obvious of which concerns their view of private property. Socialism abolishes the institution entirely; fascism does not. For instance, in the Soviet Union, citizens had to wait years for their names to come up on a list to receive a car from the government. At the same time, everyone is familiar with the existence of wealthy property owners like Oskar Schindler who lived under the Nazi regime. This difference in ideology did in fact manifest itself in actual historical practice. The communists and Social Democrats were, in fact, the main opponents of the rise of Nazi power in Weimar Germany; Nazi Germany and Socialist Russia were at each other's throats in World War II.
...

www.lawrence.edu...

For some reason the forums cut in half what is exceprted, so here it is again in full...


Taken in full historical context, with full consideration of philosophic principle, socialism and fascism are essentially the same.


Again, tell us where are you living, and where were you born?




[edit on 28-7-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

I'm only going to respond to this part because its obvious from this you have no idea what socialism is.




Originally posted by ANOK

What is a 'socialist program'?



a theory or system of social organization which advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means or production, capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole



Originally posted by ANOK

Do you mean a social program?



a theory or system of social organization which advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means or production, capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole



Originally posted by ANOK

Socialism is not social programs.



a theory or system of social organization which advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means or production, capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole




Originally posted by ANOK
Why would a communist society, where everything is already free, need 'socialist [sic] programs?



there is NOTHING free in communism... another myth created by the new socialists/communists which has no base on reality whatsoever...



Originally posted by ANOK
If you want to call that stuff 'socialism' that's fine, but just be aware that is not the definition I use and is a separate issue. If you want to discus my points then you have to realise that the definition my points refer to is, the workers ownership of the means of production. Nothing to do with government or their 'social programs'.


Your definitions have NOTHING to do with reality...

You CAN'T have a nation where everyone is in power, either people select representatives, or there are dictators in place...

Your points CANNOT be discussed because they are based on fantasy and myths which have NOTHING to do with reality...

[edit on 28-7-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join