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.

 

Then men with the fattest pockets become our Government.

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Captains of Industry
Big businessmen, not politicians, controlled the new industrialized America of the Gilded Age. Whereas past generations sent their best men into public service, in the last decades of the 1800s, young men were enticed by the private sector, where with a little persistence, hard work, and ruthlessness, one could reap enormous profits. These so-called “captains of industry” were not regulated by the government and did whatever they could to make as much money as possible. These industrialists’ business practices were sometimes so unscrupulous that they were given the name “robber barons.”



www.sparknotes.com...


This proves our government is too weak to overcome the big businessmen. From the railroad to the Banking industries. We need a real government that has a strict interpretation to what it says it will do and not find a curve.

edit on 17-3-2011 by HeldHostage14 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Err..
How about NO government, rather? Society discusts me.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by vivalarevolution
 


Simply no 'government' is not the answer. The government is just a tool used by the capitalists (those who own the means of production) to maintain their power and exploitation of us, the people. You need something to replace the whole present system, government and economy. Those that control and own the economy own and control the government.

Capitalism is the problem, a minority of people owning the means of production, they have a monopoly on making wealth, a monopoly on our economy. If you own no capital you only have your labour to sell, which the capitalists take advantage of by coercing you to work for them for next to nothing so they can make massive profits.

If the workers owned the means of production, and work places were cooperatives/collectives, all the workers would share in the profits made. More money would be in everyone's pockets, instead of a few wealthy owners of capital.

It's this massive collection of wealth in the hands of the few that allows them to send us to war to increase their control over us, all of us Americans, Muslims, Iraqis, etc., WE are on the same side, the government wants us to be enemies because it makes it easier for them to control us, and allow them to continue their agenda of global control.

We need a system whereby we all benefit from a true free market (capitalism is not free-markets, as other system allow this), not just the few.

Libertarian socialism...


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.


Don't be fooled by the MSM, they are as confused as anyone, and they lie to you.

The term 'libertarian' was stolen from the left by the right in America in the 1950's. First person to call themselves a libertarian was French communist-anarchist Joseph Déjacque, in his book La Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social.

anarchism.pageabode.com...


edit on 3/17/2011 by ANOK because: "Get yer Class war here, eight out of ten rich bastards said their slaves preferred it "



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I agree with you all the way. There must be a government in some sort of way or fashion and Anarchy can make society a living hell. I support your post.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by HeldHostage14
reply to post by ANOK
 


I agree with you all the way. There must be a government in some sort of way or fashion and Anarchy can make society a living hell. I support your post.


But wait, I think you misunderstood, I didn't say there must be government.

I support Anarchism, Libertarian Socialism is Anarchism.

I was saying government by itself is not the whole problem. We can't get rid of government while maintaining the present capitalist economy, that would be hell for the people. We need to rid ourselves of the government, capitalism, and the state system created to protect it all. But we have to have something to replace them with, otherwise it would be chaos. This is why I support libertarian socialism.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


why self governing self sufficient people could change this world overnight. but someone always has to be the boss, that's why everytime someone tries to "rise up" "to lead" , they would be brought back to the real world, where we're all humans.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   
I vote for NO government. Who has any right, ANY right to rule someone else? No one. No one has any right to rule over anyone else.

No one has any ownership of this world or the bodies we came into it with.

To get there, we need mutual respect and a whole lotta love. We WILL get there.

Check out the Plan at the bottom of my posts.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   
That is true as shown with the Mayans dominating smaller tribes. By the way sorry for the broken link i fixed it now. Alex Jones is the man!



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


I do support self governing i just believe it is alittle hard to acheive. There will always be someone who thinks they are superior.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


socialism removes economic freedom.

hence, libertarian socialism is an oxymoron.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by HeldHostage14
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


I do support self governing i just believe it is alittle hard to acheive. There will always be someone who thinks they are superior.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by HeldHostage14
I do support self governing i just believe it is alittle hard to acheive. There will always be someone who thinks they are superior.


Those who think they are superior, are soon to be humbled. Those who are humble, will be the leaders of the future, for they are the ones who will be followed.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


Hopefully what you say can be acheived you are talking about a world without evil or chaos, i sense you are a religeous man. Therefore when God alters this world the Devil will still exist. I think we should just wipe the slate clean from our government and just start new constitutions and so forth. Create a government that is open, where demands are met, and people are not ignored.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by vivalarevolution
reply to post by ANOK
 


why self governing self sufficient people could change this world overnight. but someone always has to be the boss, that's why everytime someone tries to "rise up" "to lead" , they would be brought back to the real world, where we're all humans.


I disagree. Nothing wrong with leaders, as long as people are not coerced and are completely voluntary. There is a difference between leading people for their benefit and leading people in order to exploit them.

In a none capitalist system it would be harder for anyone to do that because the people would be aware, and would not allow themselves to be coerced to work for them when they already have good jobs making good money. We are only lead because we allow ourselves to be. We are only exploited because we allow ourselves to be.
Problem is most people don't realise, or don't want to realise, they are being exploited.

If the population is educated, and not having the wool pulled over their eyes constantly by the state media, then we could learn to not allow anyone to 'rise up' and take over. We have to stay aware, something that we have lost.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by HeldHostage14
Hopefully what you say can be acheived you are talking about a world without evil or chaos, i sense you are a religeous man. Therefore when God alters this world the Devil will still exist. I think we should just wipe the slate clean from our government and just start new constitutions and so forth. Create a government that is open, where demands are met, and people are not ignored.


The problem with government is that it will always become corrupt there simply is no way to avoid it. Once the corruption sets in, the few begin to enslave the man by stripping more and more freedoms from them.

I am not religious, but I understand what you mean. I am one with the creator, and soon all will be. We just have to get past all the illusions we have created like the belief in ownership of property and control over each other. This isn't my doing, but I can tell you the creator is waking his children up one at a time.

The disasters you see going on in the world are a shaking for those in the deepest sleep. They will intensify and the world markets will fall. After them, governments will fall. There will be a last ditch effort to stifle the opposition to control, but when it falls it will fall fast.

Then we will come together as one people under God to clean up the mess and build the kingdom of Heaven this world was supposed to be.

By the end of this year and shortly into the next, you will know my words are true.



With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by ANOK
 


socialism removes economic freedom.

hence, libertarian socialism is an oxymoron.



Oh for peats sake, do you have a short memory or what?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Do you want me to repeat all that again here?

You are misinformed about what socialism is. You abandoned your thread after I proved that over and over. I spent a lot of time typing out that stuff from my book collection because you kept rejecting anything I linked to saying the same thing, and you disappeared. This is the first post I've seen from you since then.

Don't listen to this guy folks, read that ATS page above. Socialism was excepted as an economic system by all the traditional anarchists. How would that be so if what mnemeth1 is claiming was true? This is the guy who calls Einstein a moron, as well as classical anarchists theorists, as you'll see if you look at that thread.


As Socialism in general, Anarchism was born among the people; and it will continue to be full of life and creative power only as long as it remains a thing of the people.


From the book 'Modern Science and Anarchism' p.5, Peter Kropotkin, 1908


Is it necessary to repeat here the irrefutable arguments of Socialism which no bourgeois
economist has yet succeeded in disproving? What is property, what is capital in their present form?
For the capitalist and the property owner they mean the power and the right, guaranteed by the
State, to live without working. And since neither property nor capital produces anything when not
fertilized by labor - that means the power and the right to live by exploiting the work of someone
else, the right to exploit the work of those who possess neither property nor capital and who thus are
forced to sell their productive power to the lucky owners of both.


From 'The Capitalist System' p.1, Michael Bakunin 1814-1876, Anarcho-Collectivist.


Convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice and that Socialism without
freedom is slavery and brutality.
The League [for Peace and Freedom] loudly proclaims the necessity of a radical social and
economic reconstruction, having for its aim the emancipation of people's labor from the yoke of
capital and property owners, a reconstruction based upon strict justice - neither juridical nor
theological nor metaphysical justice, but simply human justice - upon positive science and upon the
widest freedom.


From 'Stateless Socialism: Anarchism', Mikhail Bakunin 1814-1876, Anarcho-Collectivist.


edit on 3/17/2011 by ANOK because: "Get yer Class war here, eight out of ten rich bastards said their slaves preferred it "



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
libertarian socialism is an oxymoron.


Uh, so is Anarcho-Capitalism...

Just saying,



With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Maybe.. but i feel we're all here, and we've all we need, and nowhere to go. We're on a rock, enjoy, there isn't anywhere really to be led right? except maybe to peace, and honestly, even though I think no gov't would be (insert positive word of your choice here), it would be quite violent, so everyone would have to fill in gaps for lack of (police officers and equivalents) , everyone loves a non-conformist, but some people can be quite the brute.. (not at all referring to anyone here) I'm sleepy, so sorry for any seemed craziness



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAMIAM

Originally posted by mnemeth1
libertarian socialism is an oxymoron.


Uh, so is Anarcho-Capitalism...




'Splain Yourself bro.

You've lost me.

How is anarcho-capitalism an oxymoron?



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

'Splain Yourself bro.

You've lost me.

How is anarcho-capitalism an oxymoron?


I'm not IAMAIM but I'm here, and I'll put my tuppence in.

Anarchism is traditionally a system that does away with the state system.

Capitalism requires a state system to protect its capital.

The mistake most anarcho-capitalists make is arguing capitalism as 'free-markets', but capitalism is not the only system that allows free-markets, and they ignore the problems caused by private ownership of the means of production (this does not mean your personal property but property, or capital assets, used to exploit others for personal gain). They claim to be anti-state but capitalism requires the state, and while we have capitalism so do we.
Without the state system there would no one to protect our rights against abuse in the work place, and how could capitalists claim any right to ownership with a state system to protect those 'rights'.

Why would people work for a fixed wage, while the owner makes huge profits, if they could simply take over and run the place themselves? How would the owner stop this? Capitalists created this state system in the first place, without it they would never have been able to exploit the people for so long. History is full of the people trying to revolt against the capitalist system and have come every close to winning, Spain in 1936 for example. If there was no capitalists state system then there would have been no fight because the people would not have had to let themselves be exploited in the first place. People back then were far more politically aware btw.

They ignore the fact that the only reason capitalists don't still have us in sweat shops, and outright use slaves is because of the efforts of the labour movement, and those efforts are protected by the state system.

They also take the dictionary term of Anarchy, as simply meaning no government, but anarchism is a political system that means far more than just no government. No government is not an answer to anything, and you can't have an economic system with no form of order or organization.

The only way we can do away with the state system is to do away with capitalism. Anarcho-capitalists are capitalists, they can believe in anarchy all they want, but they can not be anarchists.


edit on 3/18/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join