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.

 

Extreme Left is COMPLETE TOTALITARIAN/ Extreme Right is COMPLETE ANARCHY

page: 6
4
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Seriously... do your homework or STOP spouting uneducated propaganda bout this.

Some of the MOST SUCCESSFUL AND PROSPEROUS countries are partially socialist. Look at the Scandinavian countries...



Its not him who is spouting uneducated Propaganda. These European countries are far from socialist. They are actually centrist with both left-center and right-center taking turns governing.

If you are looking for socialist countries look at Zimbabwe, North Korea and other mass-murdering regimes.




posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
He would, why not? Stalin was certainly totalitarian in economic aspect, but communism as a system was pretty tolerant of personal freedoms such as abortion rights, gay rights, minority races anti-discrimination.. Of course, it was a dictatorship, so you had your personal liberty only if you didnt threaten the establishment in some way, but compared to right-wing dictatorships, personal freedoms in key issues which we debate now were better (abortions, gays/lesbians, racism, separation of religion and state..).


Russia was never communist. The fact that it was a dictatorship proves that. Tolerance to the people does not make it communism.

A communist system would not have a central government or state system. Russia was as capitalist as the US.
The problem is your system has convinced you that capitalism means something it's not. Capitalism is not freedom, it is the private ownership of the means of production. In capitalism the only people who are truly free are those who own and make their living from their ownership of capital and it's exploitation of the rest of us.
The US is no more 'free' than the USSR was. Just because our dictator changes every four years to keep the illusion of change, doesn't mean it's any better than Russia, or China. You are all just lucky your country is more wealthy due to more aggressive capitalism and exploitation of other nations. The real differences are cultural not economical.

I really wish you folks would actually go learn something instead of assuming based on what your own state system has conditioned you to believe.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


YOU, keep bringing into the argument FALSEHOODS.

First off, you never mention the individual right to own PROPERTY.

In the US, the government has taken away that right. They tax us on property we SUPPOSEDLY own. Which is NOT ownership. Capitalism and communism you keep talking about means of production.

That is obfuscation. If I am not allowed to run a business without being licensed, insured, taxed, etc etc etc this is NOT capitalism. It is a mixture of socialism or communism with capitalism.

Hmmm, wonder why the US is going down hill?



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
If you are looking for socialist countries look at Zimbabwe, North Korea and other mass-murdering regimes.


No they are not socialist countries.

Socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production.


Socialism, in it's traditional and true definition, means "the workers democratic ownership and/or control of the means of production". Such a definition implies that rather than a government bureaucracy for managing such means, there is a focus on highly democratic organisation, education and awareness, and every individual is encouraged to become an active, rather than passive participant in that which effect their lives. Only the workers themselves bear the knowledge of what their own freedom and liberty means, and only they know what is best for themselves, ultimately. Advocates of the state, be they on the left, or the right, have repeatedly defined the meaning of "socialism" to mean arbitrary rule by a set of "leaders", or a political con-game in which socialism is no more than capitalism with a few token adjustments for bearability.

flag.blackened.net...

That is what socialist want.

North Korea has a capitalist economy. There are no socialist or communist countries, never have been. The closest ever was during the Spanish revolution when the workers collectivized industry and farms, increased productivity by 20% and re-built the infrastructure. We have had a world wide capitalist system since the industrial revolution.

This continuous comparison with other countries is exactly what the capitalist class (TPTB) want. They pit people against people, country against country, to stop us realising we are all the same and who our real enemy is. WWII was the ultimate example of this, as it was a reaction to the workers becoming too organised and powerful in Europe. The whole fight was over worker control (socialism) and the establishment (capitalists/fascism), a fight born out of the industrial revolution and atrocious working conditions. The PTB destroyed the working class by sending them to war. Then after the war they used psychological control to keep us from becoming organised, and thus a threat to them, again. TV was their biggest weapon.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by ANOK
 


YOU, keep bringing into the argument FALSEHOODS.

First off, you never mention the individual right to own PROPERTY.

In the US, the government has taken away that right. They tax us on property we SUPPOSEDLY own. Which is NOT ownership. Capitalism and communism you keep talking about means of production.

That is obfuscation. If I am not allowed to run a business without being licensed, insured, taxed, etc etc etc this is NOT capitalism. It is a mixture of socialism or communism with capitalism.

Hmmm, wonder why the US is going down hill?


Oh dear I did not talk about 'the individual right to own PROPERTY'.

You misunderstand, like everything else it seems.

Socialists are against the private ownership OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION. In other words people owning the machinery required for the necessities of life, and using that machinery to exploit people to make 'profit' for the private owner. It has nothing to do with your private property.

Unless you use your private property to exploit labour you have nothing to lose. And yes it is exploitation when workers could own the means of production themselves, and not have most of their labour financing the privileged life of a few.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Seriously... do your homework or STOP spouting uneducated propaganda bout this.

Some of the MOST SUCCESSFUL AND PROSPEROUS countries are partially socialist. Look at the Scandinavian countries...



Its not him who is spouting uneducated Propaganda. These European countries are far from socialist. They are actually centrist with both left-center and right-center taking turns governing.

If you are looking for socialist countries look at Zimbabwe, North Korea and other mass-murdering regimes.


Notice how I said "partially" socialist? I was referring to the decent social programs put in place by those countries such as universal health care, free/subsidized college, paid maternity leave, paid vacations, etc. These provisions for the populace cannot be argued against because they create a better society for the most people, it's common sense government if you're placing the interests of the populace on any kind of priority list.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production.

Or the government, on behalf of the workers.


so·cial·ism

–noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

2.
procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.


dictionary.reference.com...


That is what socialist want.

Yeah, good luck getting that without a central authority to enforce it.


North Korea has a capitalist economy.

They have private ownership of the means of production?


There are no socialist or communist countries, never have been.

Untrue. There have never been any decent socialist nations. That's not to say there can't be, only that so far there haven't been.


The closest ever was during the Spanish revolution when the workers collectivized industry and farms, increased productivity by 20% and re-built the infrastructure.

...And were then destroyed.


The whole fight was over worker control (socialism) and the establishment (capitalists/fascism)

Not really, no.


Then after the war they used psychological control to keep us from becoming organised, and thus a threat to them, again. TV was their biggest weapon.

No, they gave various concessions such as the creation of the welfare state, which fixed the problem of 'atrocious working conditions'.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 

Whilst the system of government clearly seen throughout the Nordic countries is essentially my dream government, I'd have to point out that their success is largely underpinned by having small populations, large amounts of land and wealth of natural resources (north sea oil, etc.)

A one size fits all solution simply doesn't exist. What works here for those of us in the UK won't necessarily work for other nations. Social attitudes and many, many other factors play a large part.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftWingLarry

Originally posted by ANOK
Socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production.

Or the government, on behalf of the workers.


No that is not socialism. Socialism is worker controlled not government. This is real socialism not the statist definition you often see in dictionaries, or Marxist propaganda...


Socialism, in it's traditional and true definition, means "the workers democratic ownership and/or control of the means of production". Such a definition implies that rather than a government bureaucracy for managing such means, there is a focus on highly democratic organisation, education and awareness, and every individual is encouraged to become an active, rather than passive participant in that which effect their lives. Only the workers themselves bear the knowledge of what their own freedom and liberty means, and only they know what is best for themselves, ultimately. Advocates of the state, be they on the left, or the right, have repeatedly defined the meaning of "socialism" to mean arbitrary rule by a set of "leaders", or a political con-game in which socialism is no more than capitalism with a few token adjustments for bearability.




Yeah, good luck getting that without a central authority to enforce it.


Socialism is a choice no need to enforce it. Given the choice between working for a worker controlled company where you make more money and have more say, or work for a private owner at the hourly wage they pay, I know what I'd choose.



Untrue. There have never been any decent socialist nations. That's not to say there can't be, only that so far there haven't been.


Name one socialist country, then show me how their economy was worker owned and controlled. And no the welfare state is not socialism, it is a reaction to capitalism. Socialism requires no welfare state as the distribution of wealth created is different.



...And were then destroyed.


But that had nothing to do with the workers or the revolution. It failed because they were also fighting the fascists, Hitler was bombing their cities everyday, there own fascist government and Italy also fighting them. The WWII broke out and the PTB sent the working class to war.

The revolution WAS a success, as production increased 20%, and they re-built their infrastructure.

Remember these are people like you and me, not politician or power mongers, ordinary working people trying to improve the system for themselves.


No, they gave various concessions such as the creation of the welfare state, which fixed the problem of 'atrocious working conditions'.


No they didn't give us the welfare state, that was fought for also by working people and it doesn't negate the other reality I pointed out. It also put the working class in a state of false security, just another way to keep us passified and unquestioning consumers.

You can say socialism is this or that, but what matters is what socialists want and it's not a totalitarian state system, we already have that, you just don't realise it.

BTW why do you call yourself 'left wing' Larry is that a joke or something, you seem to argue against everything 'left wing'?



edit on 9/9/2010 by ANOK because: to add content



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
Notice how I said "partially" socialist? I was referring to the decent social programs put in place by those countries such as universal health care, free/subsidized college, paid maternity leave, paid vacations, etc. These provisions for the populace cannot be argued against because they create a better society for the most people, it's common sense government if you're placing the interests of the populace on any kind of priority list.


There is no partial socialism.

Socialism is not social programs. They are social programs not socialist programs.

Socialism is 'the workers ownership of the means of production'. The term social simply means it pertains to a group of people, or a community as a whole.

It's not socialism unless the economy is owned and controlled by those who supply the labour, as apposed to capitalism where the economy is owned and controlled by private entities. So there are only capitalist or socialist economies, they can not mix as they are polar opposites.

A capitalist system requires a welfare state, or you end up with dead people all over your side walks, I don't think even capitalists want to step over dead people to get to their car in the morning. It doesn't make it socialism.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Perhaps Social Democracy or Democratic Socialism would be a more appropriate term to describe such social programs then?



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 02:35 AM
link   
I have been careful in my title. You see, extreme left as totalitarian and right as anarchy has nothing to do with communism or capitalism....

You see, totalitarianism vs anarchy stuff, you study in sociology or political science...

Communism vs capitalism is stuff, you study in economics....

I separate the two things completely as they are two complete different things.

So don't mix and match...?


edit on 10-9-2010 by saabacura because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Maslo
He would, why not? Stalin was certainly totalitarian in economic aspect, but communism as a system was pretty tolerant of personal freedoms such as abortion rights, gay rights, minority races anti-discrimination.. Of course, it was a dictatorship, so you had your personal liberty only if you didnt threaten the establishment in some way, but compared to right-wing dictatorships, personal freedoms in key issues which we debate now were better (abortions, gays/lesbians, racism, separation of religion and state..).


Russia was never communist. The fact that it was a dictatorship proves that. Tolerance to the people does not make it communism.

A communist system would not have a central government or state system. Russia was as capitalist as the US.
The problem is your system has convinced you that capitalism means something it's not. Capitalism is not freedom, it is the private ownership of the means of production. In capitalism the only people who are truly free are those who own and make their living from their ownership of capital and it's exploitation of the rest of us.
The US is no more 'free' than the USSR was. Just because our dictator changes every four years to keep the illusion of change, doesn't mean it's any better than Russia, or China. You are all just lucky your country is more wealthy due to more aggressive capitalism and exploitation of other nations. The real differences are cultural not economical.

I really wish you folks would actually go learn something instead of assuming based on what your own state system has conditioned you to believe.


In some sense, I can agree with you on your version of capitalism. Some components of your idea on capitalism are really are true. Such as, the one with the capital rules..while the other with none, a slave... Yeah I kind of see that.

But I think you are spewing only the negatives of capitalism.

You see, I know you live in a capitalistic society... is there anything good about capitalism??



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 02:50 AM
link   
Sometimes, I really do admire European socialistic societies. (Only the ones that work!! Not Greece, Spain, Italy, Iceland..etc)

I would not mind living in a socialistic societies that actually works.

Remember people, socialism does not mean NO CAPITALISM.

Please don't confuse social studies with economics


edit on 10-9-2010 by saabacura because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
No that is not socialism. Socialism is worker controlled not government. This is real socialism not the statist definition you often see in dictionaries, or Marxist propaganda...

No true Scotsman fallacy. It is the means of production controlled by the community as a whole, whether that be the workers or a government which claims to work on their behalf.

Specifically, you seem to be referring to Syndicalism, which I would agree is far more desirable than USSR style Socialism but will take longer to implement.


Socialism is a choice no need to enforce it. Given the choice between working for a worker controlled company where you make more money and have more say, or work for a private owner at the hourly wage they pay, I know what I'd choose.

Who ensures you have that choice?


Name one socialist country, then show me how their economy was worker owned and controlled. And no the welfare state is not socialism, it is a reaction to capitalism. Socialism requires no welfare state as the distribution of wealth created is different.

There were plenty of the state-controlled variety. The only worker controlled Socialist state was (to my knowledge) that of the Spanish anarchists, which was extremely short lived.


But that had nothing to do with the workers or the revolution. It failed because they were also fighting the fascists, Hitler was bombing their cities everyday, there own fascist government and Italy also fighting them. The WWII broke out and the PTB sent the working class to war.

There was also infighting between the Communist and Anarchist groups.

en.wikipedia.org...


The revolution WAS a success, as production increased 20%, and they re-built their infrastructure.

And yet it was extremely short-lived, because they couldn't match the power of their attackers and couldn't even keep themselves as a coherent group.


Remember these are people like you and me, not politician or power mongers, ordinary working people trying to improve the system for themselves.

Yes, they were.


No they didn't give us the welfare state, that was fought for also by working people and it doesn't negate the other reality I pointed out. It also put the working class in a state of false security, just another way to keep us passified and unquestioning consumers.

In my country, it was given once Labour was voted into power following WW2.


You can say socialism is this or that, but what matters is what socialists want and it's not a totalitarian state system, we already have that, you just don't realise it.

Not what you want, perhaps. Enlighten me on how we have anything 'totalitarian'.


BTW why do you call yourself 'left wing' Larry is that a joke or something, you seem to argue against everything 'left wing'?

I'm a Social Democrat, not an extremist. I also argue against many things 'right wing', as users such as Neo_Serf could testify.

I'm just not an ideologue.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by saabacura
Sometimes, I really do admire European socialistic societies. (Only the ones that work!! Not Greece, Spain, Italy, Iceland..etc)

I would not mind living in a socialistic societies that actually works.

Remember people, socialism does not mean NO CAPITALISM.

Please don't confuse social studies with economics


edit on 10-9-2010 by saabacura because: (no reason given)



Well actually... Iceland was doing really well until the world economy tanked while they were tied so deeply in with British banks. The British banks essentially screwed Iceland over... I don't know if it was inevitable or not, but it sure is tragic to see.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by saabacura
There are many countries that fail because of being too left,

But there are no country, in my recollection, of being too right.

There has been no country that has been TOO RIGHT.

Never existed.


Nazi Germany....



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ignorance_Defier

Originally posted by saabacura
There are many countries that fail because of being too left,

But there are no country, in my recollection, of being too right.

There has been no country that has been TOO RIGHT.

Never existed.


Nazi Germany....


Yeah also Italy under Mussolini, the creator of fascism. Spain under Franco. Japan under Tojo. Hungary under Szálasi. Yugoslavia, the Croatians embraced fascism.

People learn some darn history. Right wing fascism was very popular in western Europe before WWII, the left was fighting the fascists in Spain while also forming a socialist economy, where the workers collectivized farms and industry and raised production by 20%, and improved their infrastructure. WWII was a result of the struggle between the right wing establishment and the left wing working classes. The right wing establishment won obviously, and fascism was implemented world wide. The founding fathers of fascism were used as scapegoats as all major political changes start violently, and the first wave of participants are usually of the extreme replaced later by more moderates when the population is satisfactorily passified .


edit on 9/11/2010 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by saabacura
 


Appolgies for not reading the previous posts that are surely enlightening and render my post redundant.

In regards to the premise of the thread, I must object. Anarchy is undefinable on a political spectrum because Anarchy is A-political. Anarchy is defined as a stateless society, ie a society where no person or entity posseses the ability to initiate force. To slap anarchy somewhere conveniently on some arbitrary scale thats function is to gage the intention of some person or party who wishes to participate in, and wield the power of unlimited violence, is similar to classifying a romantic man of pure intentions on the same scale as those who belong on a list of sexual offenders. The sexual offenders range in their dangers to people from relatively harmless statutory rapists to hardcore child molesters, but they all seek to use force in order to satify their needs, just as the Statist of any stripe seeks to weild the violence of the state to force its victims into pacified uniformity and thus easy prey.

Whereas the romantic tends to woo his quarry through incentive and mutual trade, free of coersion through voluntary exchages,(flowers, dinners, favours ect) just as the anachist proposes...the statist rapes his victim and thus needs no incentive or mutual exhange in order to get what he desires. He simply uses the unlimited force of the governenment to bind his victim in order take what he wants, with no regard to the other party in the exchange. Thus the romantic anarchist offers mutual benfit and thus gain for all while the statist rapist offers nothings except justifacations for his evil actions and engages in a zero sum game where one party gains temporarily while the victim loses permanently.

So your scale is better defined in the context of violence or no violence. You can argue as to the amount of violence and who the violence is directed towards, and you can label these differences as 'wings' if you must. But since anarchy proposes non aggression, it cannot fall on a scale thats purpose is essentially to gage the degree of force and to who the force is directed towards, as anachy proposes no sanctioned aggressive violence and thus no aggressive force.

Just to add: Extreme anything = extreme power to some group which, as we all know, = extreme corruption. Same posion, different flavours.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
Anarchy is defined as a stateless society, ie a society where no person or entity posseses the ability to initiate force.

Without a government people suddenly lose the ability to initiate force?


edit on 13-9-2010 by LeftWingLarry because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
4
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join