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.

 

Communism, Socialism, and Marxism should be declared Treason:

page: 11
13
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddio

Originally posted by nightstalker46
Considering that all three philosophies, as forms of governance, are contrary to the basic intent of personal freedoms, liberties and sovereignty of the individual, as established by the Constitution: Why do we allow anyone, who professes or proselytizes those belief's, to become involved in government at any level. And why should those who openly advocate the overthrow of those Constitutional principals, not be charged and prosecuted as traitors. What greater threat to liberty than that from within. This should be interesting


First off, the Constitution is a corporate contract, that's it, the Decleration of Independence is the REAL document we should be professing here!! Second, this country is and has been, since Lincoln, a Socialist Democracy!! Yes, the civil war was not about being civil, it was about installing a socialist regime and keeping it going, the 13th Amendment is the slavery amendment, and NOT the anti-slavery amendment. The original 13th Amendment was removed and replaced. People need to do some homework and pull their heads out of their butts!!!!!
edit on 21-8-2011 by daddio because: (no reason given)


[ For the third time on this thread, I repeat, I am perfectly aware of Corp US, and have included links for those who wish to know more about it.
But we are not, nor have we ever have, been a "Socialist Democracy". We were a Representative Republic.
You are also wrong about the civil war. The over riding issue that led up to the war, was the matter of states rights, based upon the wording of the constitution " all other powers not specifically granted to the federal government by the constitution, shall be relegated to the states." There were years of heated arguments over this issue before secession. The 13th amendment was only changed with the incorporation of Corp US.
By your own statement, the push for a Socialist Democracy cost our nation 4.5 million lives. So much for socialism.
You just made my point! Who's head is where???




posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Socialism and communism will bankrupt every nation who does it eventually.History repeating itself because it thinks it can out smart everyone else with thier own money and individual responsibilty but it is never realy true.
Exactly why Social Security is going bankrupt.cannot possibly afford everyone.Why Europe is going bankrupt and anyone who is attached to Europe.How hard is this concept to understand.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by crimvelvet
Again you are mistaking "Corporatism" for Capitalism.


Yes but so is the OP because he seems to think the US of A was actually started off as capitalist, in more than just name, when it was Cronyism from the start. Which turned into Corporatism 100 years down the road.

Also a quick question is Corporatism left or right?


edit on 21-8-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   
A video exposing the real perpetrators behind the most evil , genocidal ideology to ever exist.




posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 




And how does that differ from the slavery of unbridled capitalism???

After all ther has been plenty of REAL slavery under capitalism - and the drive for lower wages/reducing the "rights of workers" is still well with us - eg Wisconsin recently....


Again you are mistaking "Corporatism" for Capitalism.


No, I am not.

Real slavery existed in the western world up until the 1860's - throughout the middle ages, etc - long before



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by nightstalker46
 


OP that was lame sorry lol...

EVERY political paradigm works on an idealistic level, but the difference between ideals and reality is the corruption, greed and power of men. Every part of every political agenda has a place, and if we were to meet somewhere in the middle, I would guess everyone could benefit.

The problem with your capitalistic society at the moment, is that your freedoms are evapourating - and those freedoms relate to the financial system. Capitalism was supposed to free everyone from Poverty... here we are many years later and its safe to say all its done is increase the divide between rich and everyone else.

I admire Ron Paul's message, and the purity of his intent, without corruption. With his pure vision, even me, a pro socialist, could easily be somewhat converted to his thinking. The problem is, the rest of your country is rotten at the core of its financial system, capitalism should really be tried for treason, as it has robbed the present and future of your once great country.

Perhaps we need to focus less on political leaning, and cut through all of them to address serious issues. For example the costs of education, who benefits the most from an educated workforce? The employee or the employer? Who then should foot the bill for creating a highly educated workforce??? Should health care be left to benefit shareholders and their dividends??? Or should be set-up under non profit schemes so that peoples health comes before the health of a shareholders bank account...

You see there is much to gain from a system of collective benefit, and the concept of freedom should be at the heart of it also - but you cannot claim some are treasonous without first looking at the system you promote with critical thinking. No system is perfect, no matter how perfect the ideals at the core.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   
The answer is that we need a blend of all forms of government.

We need to be socialist in respect to the essentials needed in life. That includes shelter, food, water, etc. I would also extend that to critical infrastructure required for a person to 'compete" adequately in today's society. That would include energy, transportation and telecommunication infrastructure. I would like to see national ownership of these assets, guaranteeing a high level of service Nationwide. The infrastructure would then be leased out to private companies who would be required to offer a basic plan at a set price. Extra's would be for the capitalists to reign over. Revenues from this ownership would go a long way to eliminating or reducing taxes.

Once you get past the basic needs in society, you can leave all the wants to the capitalists.

Natural resources are another issue. I think the nation should own and control all natural resources. Again, once the nation owns them, lease them out to the capitalist, and require they offer a set base price and profit margin. I know this happens to some degree already, but what is owned and collected is a small % of what's out there.

A man full of hunger will give away all he has in order to eat. Why should we allow the greedy capitalist to subject anyone to this trade-off?

You simply can't allowed needs to be controlled as they are under the capitalist system. Greed needs to be eliminated from that equation.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Socialism only works if it is administered by an uncorrupt government and a very "perfect" people that are each willing to give a hard day's work for the collective good. If you have any stragglers that get lazy and live off the other hard workers, the validity of socialism suffers. If you have a corrupt government administering socialism or the redistribution of wealth, it will not work efficiently. Any corrupt government can easily manipulate socialism in order to help grow a massive bureaucracy and give the side benefit back to the masses at an exorbitant cost.

The government put in place by the forefathers at the founding of the United States was a more full-proof form of government in comparison to socialism. It's design is very much less idealistic than socialism and therefore is more practical in our imperfect world. The very limited powers originally allotted to an American government in conjunction with the balance of power provided by it's organization helped to keep government out of people's lives and out of their checkbooks. Some might say socialism is the altruistic ideal, but being idealistic, it is generally less practical in our world. It is only applicative under more limited, ideal conditions of the heart. Unfortunately, socialism does not stress the importance of private property and I believe that is where it errs. If all people were of a very high caliber a modified version of socialism that stressed private ownership and personal volition it would do better at providing for our basic needs and for some of the conveniences of life. Socialism will always fail as soon as it rewards laziness and not hard work. That is the kind of socialism we see that is destroying Europe. As I have said, the reason it has not worked well historically speaking is due to corruption, therefore, it is not very practical, especially with a large population and a wide variety of people in a melting pot environment.

I am going to offer a kind of weird analogy, but I think it works for my purposes here. The checks and balances provided by the separation of powers and limited power given to the U.S. government could be likened to the design of an AK-47, because the original U.S. government blueprint, like the genius of the Kalashnikov design were both made to be commandeered by those with limited skill, operated in the worst conditions, and still function reliably. That is also the genius of the government as outlined by the founding fathers of the United States and that is why it still will work today, with no inherent need for major modification of the basic design. It can be modified, but there is a chance that would compromise reliability. We see that compromise of reliability as foolish (get it wasn't quite "fool-proof") politicians seek to enact laws and enact taxes they do not really have a right to legislate under authority granted by the U.S. Constitution.

The founding fathers told the people they have provided a Republic if they can keep it. Unfortunately, the United States not been doing a very good job of keeping it for quite some time. Nevertheless, I would say that type of government is as close to full-proof as a government can probably come, if it is adhered to. If not adhered to, we will dissolve into the kind entitlement based government that is sapping the strength of nations such as Spain and Britain as they are taxed into oblivion to feed a population of freeloaders, while elite fat-cats laugh as they extort money from the masses through financial markets and corporations. This levels the once prosperous middle class into subjection of poverty under an iron fist. It perverts the philosophical ideals found in socialism and will end in communism and tyranny, not personal freedom or prosperity.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   
I lived in Moscow for 5 years and I can say that you are full of the brown stuff. The idea of Communism is good. The implementation is where we fail.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


I agree. All forms of socialism should be done at the local level for the reasons you stated. I want nothing more then my neighbors to have food on their tables, and a roof over their heads. Having these services available for those in need benefits myself and my community. I think though most people have an issue with the Federalized form of socialism. It creates a lot of waste. I see more benefit in community funded farming that gives the food to the poor in their community. We accomplish much more on a local level, as our response to any situation is much more exact to the issues our communities face.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by cheftim59
 

Isn't Moscow where some of the richer Russians live? When did you live in Moscow, recently or back when communism was not underground like it is nowadays?

edit on 21-8-2011 by bigrex because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   
if the people CHOOSE their government -- then it shouldn't matter what "ism" you call something.

lumping Socialism in with Communism is kind of silly.

The whole point of a Democracy -- Representational Government -- Republic, what have you, is that we can deal with everyone's ideas.

>> When you get a religious group or political system that is intolerant of other ideas -- you've got fundamentalism or totalitarianism running the show. Filtering out ideas of Communism, or KKK for that matter, won't get you the consent of the masses nor will it get you liberty -- because someone has to IMPOSE the "correct" ideas in order for you to exclude the WRONG ones -- and who makes that decision?

If you've got a good idea -- you don't need to protect it, people will steal it.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Deadman's Advocate...
Since many of Obama's followers embrace absolute socialism, the solution to our problem might be something extreme. Instead of fighting against the younger generation, maybe we should embrace the more demonic aspect of such a system. Sometimes people have to touch a stove, so they can learn about the potential dangers.

*shrugs*

Obamacare is the perfect instrument to use for implementing pure socialism. As a result of including a mandate within the law, we can turn such social program into a tool for dictatorship. Since the mandate has become law, we can force many social changes in the name of 'lowering the price of healthcare'. Do you know what the best part of this will be? Democrats legalized a weapon that can be used against its own citizens.

Some of the ways we can lower the price of healthcare through the mandate will include:

(1) Everyone must weigh under 90lbs. Since people over 90lbs are in danger of becoming diabetic, everyone within the population is in serious risk. Punishment for being over 90lbs include: higher taxes, reduction in benefits, and six years in jail.

(2) Everyone must be a natural blonde. Since everyone with alternative hair colors have a high cancer probability, they must be removed from the population immediately.

(3) All religions are banned. Since religious people are in constant threat by rival sects and atheists, they have a high mortality rate than all other social groups. Punishment for belonging to a religion includes: higher taxes, reduction in benefits, ten years in jail, and they must publicly reject religion.

(4) Everyone's hair must be under two inches long. Since longer hair is under the risk of attracting flees, people must have shorter hair to reduce exposure. Punishment for hair longer than two inches includes: higher taxes, reduction of benefits, three years in jail, and public head shaving.

(5) All piercings are banned. Since piercings break the flesh and skin, infections and swelling may occur over a period of time. Punishment for piercings includes: higher taxes, reduction of benefits, three years in jail, and public removal of the piercings.

Etc...

If I can come up with these justifications, how much do you want to bet a socialist could up with more radical ones.

All in the name of reducing the price of healthcare.

People need to rethink the whole socialist and communist perspective quickly, or it will be too late to turn things around. Socialism is a highway to hell just waiting to happen.

edit on 8/21/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by bigrex
 


I lived there recently but a few hundred wealthy people does not affect the millions in Moscow, or the grandmothers on a 10 dollar per month pension. Sorry the argument about the rich doesnt hold much weight.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jobeycool
Socialism and communism will bankrupt every nation who does it eventually.History repeating itself because it thinks it can out smart everyone else with thier own money and individual responsibilty but it is never realy true.
Exactly why Social Security is going bankrupt.cannot possibly afford everyone.Why Europe is going bankrupt and anyone who is attached to Europe.How hard is this concept to understand.


Based on what exactly?

What bankrupts a nation is CORRUPTION.

Capitalism has run amok quite a few times in US history -- and let's be clear - our country after FDR got quite a bit Socialist. You may not like the term -- but all sorts of things that work quite well without a HUGE amount of waste that we take for granted are for the benefit of Society would NOT BE HERE in a pure capitalist system.

Firefighters used to be local and for profit -- until the inevitable situations where people missed a payment and their house burnt down. Unless you want many more than one Fire Department -- you are creating a monoply with a private company -- what happens after that? One fire department can extort the citizens in an area -- and if people start thinking they can "opt out" because the neighbor down the street is paying in -- a "necessary fire" now and then can help any business keep business up.

That's what we've got with these privatized prisons; they lobby for longer punishments, to keep drugs illegal, and there have been cases where judges have gotten kick-backs for putting more people in prison. Which group do you think lobbied for "Three Strikes and Your Out" -- didn't we leave juries and judges the decision of sentencing -- yet more and more laws take the decision away with mandatory sentencing. The bigger the syndicated prisons get -- the MORE power they will have to lobby and make things criminal -- and of course, convince the public that prisoners need to work to pay their way. The road to "slave labor" by another name is not far off. Workers were getting pennies a day to clean up the BP oil spill on the Gulf --- and BP was getting more as a "tax incentive" by the government than they cost. However, they had no OSHA guidelines to require Hazmat suites and prisoners who DECLINED the job could be prevented from a Parole hearing.

>> I mean -- I'm all for the Free Market on some things -- it just depends.

If you want something NOT to become Necessary -- it should be government. Corporations should not be profiting from War, Prison, or making people Sick. If you want MORE of something -- like computers -- well, let private companies make them.

But we want every kid to read -- we have public libraries. No Corporation would have found it profitable to bring electricity, water, and mail to rural communities -- so Government had to collect money from Everybody and redistribute that.


>> This idea of Low Taxes and "States Rights" and all this free market solves everything seems more or a fundamentalist religion these days -- it has gone way too far. The only reason things are not falling down around our ears, is that we had about 40 years of investment in our infrastructure and education to soften the blow. The past 40 years has been "coasting" on this Socialist foundation.

If you left everything up to the States -- they'd do things like "bus the homeless" to another state. Anything that is a problem that can be "shipped on down the road" -- is something that needs to be Federal -- for practical reasons.

But NO REGULATIONS, or NO UNIVERSAL OBLIGATIONS, is like solving the problem of a broken stop light by blowing up EVERY stop light. Can we not agree that having "rules of the road" saves more lives and provides more value to people than having TOTAL LIBERTY of everyone driving anywhere at every speed in any kind of vehicle with no standards?

It's regulations that make sure that the gasoline in one state doesn't ruin your engine when you drive out of your state to visit. ...
... if you STOP and consider everything that requires RULES -- and what would happen if you had NO STANDARDS or merely LOCAL STANDARDS -- nothing could be done. The simple act of calling to another state, or shipping a package, or MOVING somewhere else that might not recognize your agreements would slow progress to a crawl.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Section31
Deadman's Advocate...
Since many of Obama's followers embrace absolute socialism, the solution to our problem might be something extreme....

People need to rethink the whole socialist and communist perspective quickly, or it will be too late to turn things around. Socialism is a highway to hell just waiting to happen.

edit on 8/21/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)


>> All right -- stop right there.

I'm going to say that since George Bush got into office -- and I've seen more and more "free market Conservatives" -- I've now decided I'm a Socialist. No Hippy Liberal could ever have convinced me of that -- it was listening to what passes as "economics debate" from Conservatives that led me to that.

... So I will disavow Obama as a Socialist. This "Obamacare" as you call it -- forces a LOT OF MONEY down the throats of the Health Care providers -- in exchange -- they have to take people who are sick instead of dumping them on the Taxpayer. There are a lot of pages of other stuff -- but it is HARDLY socialist and it helps these so called "private insurers." It's very much the same plan that Bob Dole pushed a decade earlier - is Bob Dole a Socialist?

The OTHER SOCIALIST thing about Obama; he wants to raise 3% more taxes on the wealthy or let the Bush Tax cuts expire. Wow -- that's REALLY EXTREME, right? He almost has as high a taxes on the wealthy as Reagan or Nixon.


So by any yardstick of "regulation" or taxes you could come up with -- there was MORE of it under Nixon or Reagan so by extension; Nixon and Reagan were Socialists. The USA finally became a "free market Democracy" in 2004, and then of course, we had the economic system almost collapse in late 2008 and it required trillions of dollars in money for them to sort out their Ponzi scheme on Wall Street.


>> This "Obama followers embrace absolute Socialism..." -- hyperbole much? Socialism is a mix of Democracy, Regulation, Free Market and such -- it's not an ABSOLUTE ANYTHING. England, France, Germany, Norway and other Northern European nations are considered Socialist -- are THEIR citizens racing to the doors to escape?

The nations that are MORE Free Market than the USA are almost all "failed states." Other than the rare nexus of lots of money flowing through a few docks like we see in Bermuda or Hong Kong (which is STILL a thriving free market after the Chinese took it over -- and they are NOT in the least a Democracy), the other nations that are LESS Socialist than the USA are nothing to brag about.

Honduras and Haiti do NOT have to deal with OSHA, standards, government inspectors, or pesky Liberals. They just had the military throw a President out of office for trying to push for higher wages in the sweat shops in Honduras -- so that all the rich people could be more able to bring JOBS for less than a 25 cents an hour.


>> If your discussion of what damage Socialism COULD DO, is predicated on fantasy catastrophes -- I can show you many worse things that Capitalism without regulations has ALREADY DONE. We don't need to dream up "scary stories" in order to show that prosperity and Liberty for all in the same habitat as Free Markets, is as rare and precious as Unicorns. We had about 40 years in the entire history of the USA where most of the population was doing well and not at war -- and Conservatives act like it wasn't in SPITE of their best efforts.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


I agree. All forms of socialism should be done at the local level for the reasons you stated. I want nothing more then my neighbors to have food on their tables, and a roof over their heads. Having these services available for those in need benefits myself and my community. I think though most people have an issue with the Federalized form of socialism. It creates a lot of waste. I see more benefit in community funded farming that gives the food to the poor in their community. We accomplish much more on a local level, as our response to any situation is much more exact to the issues our communities face.



Hmmm, I thought you were more of a Statist. Seems that you are just more collectivist. Usually collectivists prefer Statism of some kind, that is a strong Central Govt. Perhaps you prefer more of a commune style thing, like a food co-op, like the hippies of the 60's(but without the drugs). I believe there has to be a balance between community and the individual. Communism, and Statism is at one end of the specrum, not valuing the individual rights. I believe our Founding Fathers wanted a government which would respect individual rights and freedoms, yet provide the necessary structure needed to keep society from absolute chaos.
edit on 21-8-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-8-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


You are preaching to the choir then. For some reason I think your ideology is so rigid you are not seeing that I am on the same side of this issue with you.



Since you tend more to the collecivist side, I think we are not exactly on the same side, except perhaps where the Fed is concerned, but maybe for different reasons. I believe in Free Enterprise and the Free Market Economy (not Free Trade, they are not the same thing) and individual rights balanced by a healthy respect for community.
edit on 21-8-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   
So communism - the means of production owned and controlled people for the benefit of the society and its people is somehow less equal and fair than private individuals seizing public goods for their own personal benefit and forcing the costs of that produciton (economic collapse and pollution) onto the people and society in general is somehow better ?

So socialism which takes some of the profits and puts them back into the society so that it can maintain itself and grow in order ot provide more people the opportunity to make said profits, which are derived from that same society, using that societies resources, which was been built and paid for collectively by those people and community, and provides the means to make a profit is less fair and equitable than allowing private individuals to strip the communal wealth of the people and force any associated costs of tripping this wealth back onto those same people, in fact to provide a form of corporate welfare in order to subsidies those same corporations to strip that common wealth which is then distributed around the world to private investors, hedge funds and share holders.

Seems pretty fair and equitable.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by cheftim59
reply to post by bigrex
 


I lived there recently but a few hundred wealthy people does not affect the millions in Moscow, or the grandmothers on a 10 dollar per month pension. Sorry the argument about the rich doesnt hold much weight.


No, I'm just saying go outside of Moscow if you thought things looked hunky dory there, it is much more sparse elsewhere, visit Novosibirsk Siberia for instance, I know people who lived there for a couple years. Just think what it was like before the fall of communism. I hear what little capitalism is on display in Russia, the people of Moscow are some of those who have been greater beneficiaries in comparison to their country cousins.
edit on 21-8-2011 by bigrex because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join