Why do Americans hate Socialism/Communism?

page: 17
19
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Rob37n
Why is Liberal such a dirty word in America?
 

Why is liberalism a dirty work in America? Well, maybe it's because some of us believe involuntary servitude, slavery, are immoral!!!

How anyone can justify living/mooching off others, which is constitutionally illegal too ("involuntary servitude"), is beyond my comprehension. It's disgusting, immoral, sinful, criminal.

Think of all that NEGATIVE karma them liberals/socialists are heaping upon themselves with that kind of wicked abusive mindset. Surely a socialist is bound for hell or whatever a boat load of bad karma gets them. I'm against liberalism/socialism because it's wrong AND I don't want to go to hell nor live a life with a load of negative karma hanging over MY head.

I couldn't bring myself to enslaving another human being for personal gain and benefit. I'm just not into slavery but I can see there's still many that feel it's okey-dokey. (BARF!) For the same reasons I stated above, I also don't use other sentient lifeforms to satisfy my hunger cravings (I'm vegetarian). Call me Mr. Nice Guy, ha.

I sure hope them commies can respect MY beliefs and leave me out of their commie scheming games ... for their sake. Say, why don't we divide the US into two independent nations, one for all the commies, and the other for us freedom lovers. Then we can compare the two after .. well, I don't know, 20 years maybe, and see how each half are doing.


Oh, BTW, when things go wrong for people, and they need financial help, THAT's when they are suppose to go to the bank for a loan, whip out the credit card ... NOT when they want a shiny new iPOD or them fancy designer pants or any other crap they don't really NEED. People that think they are "entitled" to pick someone else's pockets for personal gain (involuntary servitude) are no different than a common thief. Charity MUST be voluntary, otherwise it's a theft of freedom, an enslavement, immoral! FACT! Socialism will only bring about a dark cloud upon America and send a lot of souls to hell if this crap continues.
edit on 15-12-2010 by Shamanistical because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Shamanistical
 


Your rant is based on a misunderstanding of what socialism is.

It's not mooching off anyone. That is what capitalism does, it mooches off the wealth that we create through our labour. Capitalists produce nothing.

Socialism is not free stuff from a government. How many more times, government is not necessary for socialism. Anarchism has traditionally supported socialism as it's economic system, for the very reason it requires no government.


(a) capitalist owned: One guy owns it and earns $1,000,000/year. His 50 workers are paid minimum wage $15,000/year.

(b) socialist (worker) owned: no rich guy: the 50 workers now earn his salary of $1,000,000/50 = $20,000 each.
Each worker now averages 15,000 + 20,000 = $35,000, more than double his meager capitalistic wages.

expertvoter.org...

It's as simple as that.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Wally Hope
 


Well, regardless of what anyone wants to call it, or how they want to define it, all we need to remember is this: involuntary servitude is unconstitutional.

Now, try to make this liberalism, socialism, communism, enslavement, whatever crap work without breaking the 13th amendment. ??

The only way socialism will work is if it is entirely voluntary. If socialism depends upon my mandatory participation in order to make it work, I'll hurl myself off a cliff and bring socialism to it's knees, ha.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Wally Hope
 

As long as the means of production are privately owned then it is capitalism.
No, that would then be fascism.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Wally Hope
 

Actually, it isn't. You have forgotten all about human nature. If everybody gets paid the same, then why do anything more than the absolute minimum? How do companies get formed in your socialists paradise? Certainly no entrepreneurs arise, where is their motivation? How do new inventions come about? If the scientist/inventor sees no personal incentive, then why would he invest the time out of his life? Socialism leads to stagnation, it destroys the soul.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
reply to post by Wally Hope
 

As long as the means of production are privately owned then it is capitalism.
No, that would then be fascism.


No, that would be freedom.

There are two primary methods/forms of production in the US right now, publicly owned/traded and privately owned businesses.

There's nothing wrong with privately owned businesses. I myself am owner of a manufacturing business and those are the businesses that WORK because the CEO owns and run the place. They have a personal vested interest in the business because they OWN it, it's theirs. Thus, it would be impossible for a CEO of a privately owned business to scam, steal, or defraud himself because the owner would be steal and defrauding only him or herself.

The problem in America is with publicly held/owned business. You see, the CEOs of those publicly owned businesses do not have a real personal vested interest in the company itself. They are not ruined if the business fails, not even if it fails because they walked off with all of the profits. The stock holders got the shaft because they are the owners, not the CEO, so they loose.

The only way things will work and work honestly is when the CEO at the helm OWNS the ship. Privately owned and operated. What does a CEO care if the ship sinks if they can loot the thing before it sinks. That doesn't happen when the business is privately owned .. an owner of a business can't steal or defraud themselves, that's impossible (how would that work? Take my money out of my right pocket and put it in my left pocket?).


The problem with America is PUBLICLY owned businesses.
edit on 15-12-2010 by Shamanistical because: sp



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shamanistical
No, that would be freedom.


Nope, that would be wage slavery.



There's nothing wrong with privately owned businesses. I myself am owner of a manufacturing business and those are the businesses that WORK because the CEO owns and run the place. They have a personal vested interest in the business because they OWN it, it's theirs. Thus, it would be impossible for a CEO of a privately owned business to scam, steal, or defraud himself because the owner would be steal and defrauding only him or herself.


Privately owned businesses are exploitative. The worker is paid a fixed hourly wage, a small percentage of the wealth created. It's fine for the owner. A socialist/cooperative workplace distributes the wealth earned more fairly. The workers have more vested interest in the company because they are directly affected by it's success or failure, other than yearly pay raises or redundancy.


The problem in America is with publicly held/owned business. You see, the CEOs of those publicly owned businesses do not have a real personal vested interest in the company itself. They are not ruined if the business fails, not even if it fails because they walked off with all of the profits. The stock holders got the shaft because they are the owners, not the CEO, so they loose.


When a company is worker owned the workers have direct personal interest in the company. They are more motivated to work harder as it directly effects their income. In capitalism the workers is only motivated to do what they need to keep their job, if they can get away with slacking it does not effect their income.


The only way things will work and work honestly is when the CEO at the helm OWNS the ship. Privately owned and operated. What does a CEO care if the ship sinks if they can loot the thing before it sinks. That doesn't happen when the business is privately owned .. an owner of a business can't steal or defraud themselves, that's impossible (how would that work? Take my money out of my right pocket and put it in my left pocket?).


The 'CEO' (there wouldn't be a CEO but..) would be directly effected by the companies income as his income comes from the company just like in capitalism. Cooperative owned doesn't mean government, or public owned, it means it's owned by those that work at the company.

It's not all about the CEO! The workers are far more important, without them the CEO has no job.


The problem with America is PUBLICLY owned businesses.


That maybe but it's a different argument than the one we've been having. Socialism is not 'publicly owned' in the same way it is under capitalism, which is really government owned, nationalism. Socialism is not publicly owned in the sense you assume. It's not government ran. In socialism you would be part owner of the company you work for, we have cooperatives now and they work very well, and the workers are the happiest you'll find at any company.

The biggest problem we have here is a failure to understand. Obviously the system works fine for you, as a private owner, but the 80% of the world living on less than $10 a day might feel different. If you ran your company as a cooperative you would be part of the solution, instead of part of the problem.

Try again though, no one has been able to convince me of the merits of capitalism.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
reply to post by Wally Hope
 

Actually, it isn't. You have forgotten all about human nature. If everybody gets paid the same, then why do anything more than the absolute minimum? How do companies get formed in your socialists paradise? Certainly no entrepreneurs arise, where is their motivation? How do new inventions come about? If the scientist/inventor sees no personal incentive, then why would he invest the time out of his life? Socialism leads to stagnation, it destroys the soul.


Who say everyone gets paid the same?

You'll get paid depending on how much the company you work for makes. The only difference is instead of a private owner taking most of what is made from your production, you would get a bigger pay check.

The workers are motivated because the better they work they more they will make.

Also why do you think money is the only motivator, this is a naive view. I would rather have no inventors, or whatever, than ones motivated by personal greed. But peoples motivation are directed by the type of system they live in. Capitalism motivates scientists to create weapons, for example, it should motivate them to better life not destroy it.

Capitalists don't like socialism because they are greedy and want it all for themselves.

Is Socialism against Human nature
edit on 15-12-2010 by Wally Hope because: typo



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by JonoEnglish

Originally posted by Mykahel
reply to post by Rob37n
 


Because the worker deserves his wages. No person has any right to take what does not belong to them and give it to others. Communism/Socialism is the government sponsored theft of peoples' property.
.


Do you see all taxation as theft?
Yes. Forceful taking of my money. Sounds like theft to me.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigFrigginAl
reply to post by AdAbsurdum
 


See...you do not even practice what you preach...here I am, in need (of vital info) (how to insert a quote), where is my handout??? (instructions on how to insert said quote) LOL
You can use html quote tags [ quote ] what you want to post as a quote [ /quote ] Just remove the spaces I put between the "quote" and the brackets "[]".
The / in front of the quote means to end that particular "quote". Also in the upper right corner of the post you are reading and may want to quote from, you will see 2 options, "reply to" which creates a link to the post you are answering, and "quote" which is hopefully self explanatory.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wally Hope
Privately owned businesses are exploitative. The worker is paid a fixed hourly wage, a small percentage of the wealth created. It's fine for the owner. A socialist/cooperative workplace distributes the wealth earned more fairly. The workers have more vested interest in the company because they are directly affected by it's success or failure, other than yearly pay raises or redundancy.

What?

First off, a worker is paid whatever wage THEY agreed to at hiring. Nobody is forced to work for less than what they feel they need, want, or deserve.

I myself have turned down many jobs in the past because they were beneath my qualifications, experience, talents, skills, and income requirements. I've also NOT been offered jobs at wages I desired because I was NOT QUALIFIED or either not the best candidate. That's the way it is suppose to work, it's all voluntary you know. You also have the option to start your own business and run it any way you want and pay your employees whatever pleases them too. Or just work for yourself and hire nobody and keep all the net income for yourself.

Anyhow, what you seem to want already exists. If you want to share in the profit of publicly held/owned companies, buy some stock in them. You can do that tomorrow and achieve your desire to reap more rewards.

And oh yeah, if you think you are entitled to some of the profit of a publicly held business, then you must also be willing to share in the risks and losses too, because THAT is how it is suppose to work for publicly owned businesses. If you choose not to share in the ownership of a business, you are not entitled to any of the profit. Profit is return on capital investment. You must have a capital investment in a business in order to receive a return/profit on it. Banks don't send out interest payments to you when you have no money deposited/invested with the bank, does it? Profit is a return on investment.

As for privately owned businesses, nobody is entitled to any of the PROFITS except the owner(s) because it's THEIR capital that's invested in the business that's at risk, not any employees, and he/she can do with it as they please because it's all theirs. Period.


When a company is worker owned the workers have direct personal interest in the company. They are more motivated to work harder as it directly effects their income. In capitalism the workers is only motivated to do what they need to keep their job, if they can get away with slacking it does not effect their income.

That's right, and fortunately you live in a country which has both to offer you. Again, if you want to share in the profit and looses of a business, go for it, you can do that today by becoming part owner of any of many many thousands of publicly held/owned corporations. As far as privately owned business, well, THAT is privately OWNED, just like your home, your car, your cloths, your bank account, etc.


Try again though, no one has been able to convince me of the merits of capitalism.

Have you ever tried to own and operate your own business and make a profit for yourself? THAT is how you convince YOURSELF. Why should it be someone else's responsibility to convince you of this or that? You don't seem to believe me and what I have to say, and I speak from experience. I guess you'll have to prove this for yourself and until you've sat in the CEOs seat of your own privately own business, you really don't know what you are talking about, you lack experience.

Oh, also, a JOB is NOT a RIGHT. And neither is a "desire" income. A "right" can not and must not impose a demand upon another to DO something for YOU in order to create/fulfill that (so-called) "right" for you. And besides, how can you make such demands of others? Maybe I can do the same and demand you do this and that for me. Come on, ha, make me a job I will like, and pay me what "I" have determined to be fair for me, ha. Come on, you've made such demands of others, can we not make the same demands of you?



Freedom, man, it's great for those that can handle it. Sounds like it sucks though for those that can't deal with so much freedom and responsibility for themselves and their lives.

added:
Oh, BTW, the day I can earn a larger return on my net worth by merely depositing it in a bank than running a small business, that will be the day 28 people loose their job, I auction everything off, and put my eggs in the bank.
edit on 15-12-2010 by Shamanistical because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Shamanistical
(talking to myself now: ) Ya know, I keep hearing about these (so-called) haves and have-nots, and I swear, with each passing day, I am more and more convinced this has nothing to do with money or wealth .. and that it has everything to do with BRAINS!"


(talking to the humons now: ) Honestly, all I ask of my authoritarian government is to let me be free to do my best .. or worst ,, and protect my freedom to be so .. from the likes of those superstitious/religious extremists/terrorists and the socialists, commies, thieves, and murderers. That's it, that's all I ask! The rest I can manage, handle, and deal-with for myself by myself, because MY life is MY responsibility.

Please, you socialists, communists, lovers of involuntary servitude, I ask you nicely .. PLEASE, leave me the hell alone .. and we will have peace. I am NOT here to serve and service YOUR personal needs. Stay out of my life and I'll not muck yours up either. Okay? Deal?


oh man, I so hate humans, especially the thieving kind, ha.
edit on 15-12-2010 by Shamanistical because: typo



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   
Look it comes down to this. "A government big enough to supply all of your wants and needs is big enough to take it all away"(Don't know who said it first or I would credit them), therefore it stands to reason that government should be weak, small, and starving.
There is a better idea, Imagine: A society with no income taxation (people keep everything they earn and there was no infernal revenue service to do anything about it). No Social Security, no Medicare, no Medicaid, no Welfare, no Foreign Aid, no systems of public (federal government controlled) schooling, no drug laws, no immigration controls, no central bank, no legal-tender laws, few economic regulations, no gun control, no torture, no huge standing army, no going abroad to spread democracy with bombs, missiles, and bullets. Can you imagine such a society? That is as close to true freedom as we have ever been, and something we should try to return to.
edit on 16-12-2010 by sonofliberty1776 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 06:00 AM
link   
Basically, you have right-wingers like Alex Jones speaking out against the banks.

But then when it comes to solutions, they say, everyone needs less taxes, including the banks.

Remember, Ron Paul is the guy who said he wants zero income tax.

What we are dealing with on the far-right are fascist libertarians who think the free market will sort everything out.

Government regulation and public services have been proven to lead to happier, healthier, wealthier nations.

Just look at so-called European "socialist" country like Denmark. Very happy, very equal.

Then look at the United States. Huge poverty, privatized prisons, poor job benefits, can barely even get healthcare for 9/11 rescue heroes.

The US is incredibly right wing, and these Tea Partiers are trying to say that the US is socialist! It's insane.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shamanistical
What?
First off, a worker is paid whatever wage THEY agreed to at hiring. Nobody is forced to work for less than what they feel they need, want, or deserve.


Really? You either haven't been in the job world very long, or you have a skill that is highly in demand.

Do you really think unskilled labour gets to negotiate their wage? In what fantasy world does that happen?
So all the folks that work minimum wage jobs are doing it because they want, or deserve, minimum wage?

Capitalism creates an artificial scarcity of work, and needed resources, in order to maintain their control of the economy. Workers are not in a position to make demands (the reason we had unions in the first place). People are coerced to work far more than they need to because of the artificial scarcity of resources.

p2pfoundation.net...


I myself have turned down many jobs in the past because they were beneath my qualifications, experience, talents, skills, and income requirements.


Well woopty doo you for you. You are obviously not one of the 80% of the world population earning less than $10 a day. You are simply lucky. Capitalism does not guarantee you work, or freedom.


I've also NOT been offered jobs at wages I desired because I was NOT QUALIFIED or either not the best candidate. That's the way it is suppose to work, it's all voluntary you know. You also have the option to start your own business and run it any way you want and pay your employees whatever pleases them too. Or just work for yourself and hire nobody and keep all the net income for yourself.


I'm not sure what all this has to do with what I've been saying. I, and you, also have the option to start a worker owned cooperative business, and be part of the solution to the problems of our economy.

I hope you realise that not everyone can own a business right? I hear a lot of people who think this. I'd like to know who is going to work for you if everyone owns their own business.


Anyhow, what you seem to want already exists. If you want to share in the profit of publicly held/owned companies, buy some stock in them. You can do that tomorrow and achieve your desire to reap more rewards.


No that is not what I want. You seem to be unable to conceive of a system that is beneficial for us all, not just what YOU can get out of it by exploiting others (paying them whatever pleases YOU).

Profits made by labour should go to labour, not share holders or private owners. They are parasites living off of others labour imo. People who don't contribute to society but suck off of it, exploiting people and situations, not to help improve the world but to simply feed their own ego and greed.


And oh yeah, if you think you are entitled to some of the profit of a publicly held business, then you must also be willing to share in the risks and losses too, because THAT is how it is suppose to work for publicly owned businesses.


I don't think I am entitled to anything, it's not about me honey.

'Publicly owned business' in a capitalist system is not the same as a worker ran cooperative business under socialism. The socialism I talk about is nothing to do with the capitalist term of 'public ownership' meaning government owned, I call that nationalism. Again socialism is simply an economic system whereby companies are cooperatively worker owned and ran. This means more people benefit from the profits made. The 'private owner' (capitalist who makes their living from their capital and the exploitation of labour) is not necessary. They are just sucking us all dry.

A worker ran cooperative business means all employees are responsible for the risks of the business they cooperatively run. You do know what a cooperative is right?


As for privately owned businesses, nobody is entitled to any of the PROFITS except the owner(s) because it's THEIR capital that's invested in the business that's at risk, not any employees, and he/she can do with it as they please because it's all theirs. Period.


Their capital that was created through exploitation of labour/people. Capital doesn't come out of thin air, capitalists do not do any labour to create wealth from capital, they HAVE to exploit labour in order to make profit from their capital. So is it really THEIR capital? Most of the wealth that made America the wealthy country it is came from slave labour, and war. Without that exploitation of people YOU might not have been lucky enough to turn down work, period. It's not because capitalism is so great.


Have you ever tried to own and operate your own business and make a profit for yourself? THAT is how you convince YOURSELF. Why should it be someone else's responsibility to convince you of this or that? You don't seem to believe me and what I have to say, and I speak from experience. I guess you'll have to prove this for yourself and until you've sat in the CEOs seat of your own privately own business, you really don't know what you are talking about, you lack experience.


Running your own business is NOT capitalism. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production.

If I was to start a business it would a cooperative, part of the solution not the problem. I have no desire to make myself wealthy exploiting others. Wealth is a ghetto.


Oh, also, a JOB is NOT a RIGHT. And neither is a "desire" income. A "right" can not and must not impose a demand upon another to DO something for YOU in order to create/fulfill that (so-called) "right" for you. And besides, how can you make such demands of others? Maybe I can do the same and demand you do this and that for me. Come on, ha, make me a job I will like, and pay me what "I" have determined to be fair for me, ha. Come on, you've made such demands of others, can we not make the same demands of you?


Oh dear, no one ever said it was. No one is demanding anything. Again do you know how a cooperative works? No single private owner, all workers own the company and are all equally responsible.
It's simply a more fair way to distribute the profits made from the market that we all are part of.




Freedom, man, it's great for those that can handle it. Sounds like it sucks though for those that can't deal with so much freedom and responsibility for themselves and their lives.


What is that supposed to mean? Do you really think you're free, why, because you're told you are?

Capitalism is a private form of state where the owners get to determine what happens with their 'property' therefore having a monopoly of power and control.



Oh, BTW, the day I can earn a larger return on my net worth by merely depositing it in a bank than running a small business, that will be the day 28 people loose their job, I auction everything off, and put my eggs in the bank.


Great for you eh?

Not so great for the 28 laid off.
edit on 24-12-2010 by Wally Hope because: typo



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum

Originally posted by MikeNice81
How is it ever justified to kill ten year old children and starve 10 million people to maintain luxury for the ruling elite.


Interesting point....

That is the sort of thing that is taking place due to globalism nowadays. It's a gulag with invisible walls and if people can't see it than they can pretend it isn't there.

I'm glad you brought this up. It shows where we are currently headed.


I agree that globalism as lead by the IMF, WTO, and World Bank has lead to a disaster equal to or greater than any single communist government. Living as a global village seems like a good idea. However, it is too easy to corrupt and the size ensures the powerful are magnitudes larger.

I really don't have the answers to fix the world's problems. I have enough trouble figuring out what to do for America. I am scared of the future my child will be a part of.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Because in the minds of sane Human Beings freedom is always stronger than Socialism and Communism. The operators of Socialism and Communism want to control every aspect of your life. Mankind values freedom over some one telling them what they can do every minute of the day. Yes a civilized society has laws that humanity abides by but being a totally controlled Guinea Pig in a cage is a different matter. Freedom rules. ^Y^



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by amari
Because in the minds of sane Human Beings freedom is always stronger than Socialism and Communism. The operators of Socialism and Communism want to control every aspect of your life. Mankind values freedom over some one telling them what they can do every minute of the day. Yes a civilized society has laws that humanity abides by but being a totally controlled Guinea Pig in a cage is a different matter. Freedom rules. ^Y^


You are not free, however much you think you are. How would you know, have you ever not been where you are? You only think you are free because you are told you are.

Capitalism is not freedom, and socialism is not love. Capitalism is not free-markets, the economy is controlled by the few at the expense of the many.

Capitalism is not concerned with your freedom, if locking people up makes profit they would, hey wait...


The recent escapes from the Kingman AZ prison have brought to light significant concerns about for-profit prison corporations in a state with the nation’s sixth highest incarceration rate and which houses 20 percent of those prisoners in for-profit facilities. The AFSC’s Caroline Isaacs has tracked the for-profit prison industry for years.

afsc.org...

Do you think the Chinese are free? China is a capitalist country. If capitalism is so good why isn't it working for Mexico, why do they want to come to the states?

I wish you folks would really research this instead of just taking the party line. Capitalism is not politics, it's a way of organizing the economy that benefit the few at the expense of the many. It does not guarantee you freedom.

Socialism does not have to be authoritarian, Anarchists generally support a socialist economy. Socialism is of the people, not governments or self imposed authority.


Why "Libertarian"?
It is recognized that there are authoritarian systems and behavior, distinct from libertarian, or non-authoritarian ones. Since capitalism's early beginnings in Europe, and it's authoritarian trend of wage-slavery for the majority of people (working class) by a smaller, elite group (a ruling, or, capitalist class) who own the "means of production": machines, land, factories, there was a liberatory movement in response to capitalism known as "Socialism". In almost every case, the socialist movement has been divided along authoritarian, and libertarian lines. The anarchists on the libertarian side, and the Jacobins, Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists, and reformist state-socialists on the authoritarian side. (And liberals more or less split down the middle.)

There was also a movement called "Propaganda by deed", around the late 1800's to early 1900's, in which some anarchists (Such as the Italian Anarchist Luigi Galleani (1861-1931)), believed that violence was the best strategy for opposing the state. This proved a disaster, alienating anarchists from the general population and exposing them to negative characterizations by the press... the "bomb-toting anarchist" is for the most part a creation of the corporate media- before this stigma anarchism was recognized as an anti-authoritarian socialist movement.

Many anarchist groups and publications used the word "libertarian" instead of "anarchist" to avoid state repression and the negative association of the former term. Libertarian Socialism differentiates itself from "Anarchy" as a movement only in that it specifically focuses on working class organisation and education in order to achieve human emancipation from the fetters of capitalism.

Why "Socialism"?
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...





new topics
top topics
 
19
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join