It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 14
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 12:19 PM
reply to post by daskakik

Im not asking the market to police itself, nor am i asking for socialist policies.

I never asked for "pure capitalism". I want capitalism with laws and restraints that curb corporate powers and abuses. Im not sure why you keep assuming i want unrestricted, rampant capitalism with no obstructions.

posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 12:58 PM
reply to post by nightbringr

A level playing field is a socialist policy. Just like minimum wage, workers rights and government agencies that monitor the operations of businesses in a country. They are all examples of the state interfering with the market.

"Capitalism with laws and restraints that curb corporate powers and abuses", isn't capitalism.

The OP says asking for anything but capitalism means your a traitor.

posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 01:09 PM

Originally posted by daskakik
"Capitalism with laws and restraints that curb corporate powers and abuses", isn't capitalism.

Sure it is. Its simply not "pure" capitalism. Pure would be reckless beyond belief. Thats not what im advocating.

posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 01:45 PM
reply to post by nightbringr

I agree but why throw a blanket accusation against social policies when you're actually for some of them?

Why not place the blame that corresponds to capitalism on capitalism instead of pointing at socialism all day long?

posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 07:11 PM
reply to post by bigrex

Yes, you are correct. I'm posting an update to clarify some of the misconceptions I knew would arise.

posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 10:08 PM

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

I appreciate everyone's opinion, however divergent they may be, but the knee jerk reactions from some, simply indicate that they did not comprehend the specific wording of the thread. Hope the following can add some clarity to the discussion.

1. The formation of this nation, thru the Declaration of Independence, was specifically designed to thwart the tyranny imposed on the population by the European Noble Elite of the day, and to guarantee that such future tyrannies could not gain a foothold.

2. America declared the sovereignty of the individual thru a statement defined in the bill of rights, and that those rights were inalienably granted (indisputable and "not" to be questioned) as a basic tenant of the constitution. The preamble lays out the intent of the framers as they formed the constitution. I defy anyone to dispute the morality of that intent.

3. When the engineering of the constitution was being discussed, as many of the rights of divergent philosophies as possible were included, to lay the ground work for a system that would protect the rights of all people.(freedom of speech, of the press, to dissent, and to prosper and to hold the government accountable etc.

4. Thus, we had a document where free men were to be placed in control of government.and not the other way around. Perhaps for the first time in history. The founders recognized that it would be a daunting task and deliberately instituted a system of checks and balances, with emphasis on Limited governmental powers, knowing full well that some, with the lust for greed and power would try to usurp the principals so enumerated and attempt to reconstruct a government to "their" advantage.

5. The trust of an educated, moral populace to protect and defend this document, was repeatedly emphasized as THE PRIMARY safeguard of liberty and freedom, not only for us, but for all mankind. The great hope was for America to be an example for how people and nations could live in peace.

6. Considering the state of the nation and the world, we the people, as the trustees and guardians of the original document, have been derelict to the extreme. We have allowed the very enemy's we despise, to infiltrate our government. What we see now is (not) America. It is not what the citizens of this nation wanted. It is not what America set out to become.

7. The reasons and methods used to deceive us are many and very sophisticated. The high-jacking of our educational, financial, and political systems by outside and insider philosophies, who's "ideals" and agenda sound good to the ill informed, are predicated on the notion that America is the problem, and that "their" solution is to re-interpret or destroy the very document, that allows them to express their opinions.

8. All still have the right to their opinions, but when elected representatives of the people, who take an oath to protect and defend the constitution, intentionally and overtly attempt to thwart, subvert or destroy the very basis of our government, I call it treason.

9. For those who advocate socialism, and communism in it's "purest" form, I say this. Go ahead and live your lives as you see fit. Nothing in the constitution prohibits it. If you want to form a commune, and live collectively you are allowed
to do so. In fact, there is a commune called The Farm, not far from where I live. It's been there since the 60's, and the folks there get along very well with the local population. They work outside the collective, doing many useful jobs and providing services, engage in capitalism to purchase items they want or need. No problem. The difference is that they never tried to force anyone to believe the way they do. They have that freedom, because of our constitution, not in spite of it

10. For those of you outside the US, who are happy with a socialist government and if it works for you, have at it. This thread is about OUR system of government and philosophy and we prefer to try to work within the framework established by OUR constitution. How would you feel if we attempted to (force) our form of government on you.

11. We all agree that global Corporatism is one, if not THE root cause of the worlds financial problems. The fact that the headquarters of the World Bank, IMF, WTO, UN, and the illegal Federal Reserve are located here is not an indictment of our form of gov. These entities are internationalists and have no allegiance to any nation or peoples. They do as much damage to us as they do to you. Maybe we all can focus our attention on the real problem, instead of playing the blame game. How can you defeat an enemy who hides behind smoking mirrors, recruits operatives from every political party world wide, lies to everyone, and buys off the opposition.

There have been some highly informative reply,s , with highly informative links provided for your consideration. If we keep bantering ideologies, we simply play into the hands of the global elite. Division, contention, distraction and disinformation are the tools they use to hold on to their power structure. Fight back with knowledge and wisdom.

posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 11:27 PM

Originally posted by nightstalker46
10. For those of you outside the US, who are happy with a socialist government and if it works for you, have at it. This thread is about OUR system of government and philosophy and we prefer to try to work within the framework established by OUR constitution. How would you feel if we attempted to (force) our form of government on you.

I agree with most of the points you put forward. I do disagree with #10. The constitution does not really go into detail about economic policies.

I know that many equate socialism with communism and totalitarionism but the truth is that socialism is an economic system that can exist within different government types.

Don't remember if it was in this thread but I read in the last couple of days that, except for healthcare, Canada is no more socialist than the US. I couldn't help but think that except for healthcare and free higher education the US is no less socialist than many socialist countries.

edit on 23-8-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 09:12 PM

Originally posted by nightbringr

Originally posted by Kokatsi
If any CEO has any conscience in a modern corporation, he/she is fired.

Of course. The bottom line for these companies is profit. Nothing else. I know this, you know this, the CEOs certainly know this. Whats your point?

Originally posted by Kokatsi
If any investor wants to disinvest because of ethical reasons, the same is the result.

No its not. I have invested time and time again on the stock market. When i pull my money to invest elsewhere, a company does not fire me. How could they, im not employed, quite the opposite, they work for me (or my money).

Im not sure why you posted that all to me. I have said in my last post i agree, there are many things wrong with corporations, governments and business in general that need to be fixed. Im not disagreeing.

But as i like to do, id like to post this question to you. What would YOU do to fix the system? Most here seem to be implying that our governments are behind the wrongdoings or could fix them. And i agree. But id love to see how you would fix it. I think many anti-corporationists here want to scrap our governments and start anew. Is this what you propose? And if so i think its hopelessly naive to think any new government (especially a socialist one), to have your best interests at heart. Do you trust your government absolutely?

For the largest investors, they cannot track where they invested before the monthly closing. With a divaricated profile, your broker will handle that and it is streamlined for the company. If, say, you want to invest in bananas grown with fair trade, and you entrust your banker to find out how much you have in bananas first of all it takes several months. Second, probably they will inform you that this company does NOT have a profile of good trade anything. You stick to your guns and then you get a letter please disinvest. After that, the CEO informs you that they have not enough interest and would you please keep it up or withdraw and they can easiy arrange another firm that takes that into demand. For less profits and anyway you would hate to part with the family gold etc. In other words, they tell you either you pull out or face that you have lost your investment freedom here... Unless you take them to court, blackmail and force is what they use to remove you.
Same with large investors with a controlling share. They either face an imminent buyout or withdraw their absurd fair trade or environmental demands. And transfer all your assets within 24 hours please.
Making less money is the elast of the blackmail. So yes, technicaly you are not kicked out, but in every sense you are.

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 09:18 PM
I don't trust my government completely, but would trust it sooner than a private corporation I did not elect. At least the government is a somewhat corrupt but semi-democratic organization, along with supervisions (overseeing buddies), whereas the corporation is a legal entity which is thoroughly undemocratic and holds its charter sacrosanct, not the US Consitution. The funny thing is that even CEO.s or investors can't tell what the corporation shouldor should not do. With the exception of a few well-meaning responsible corporations, the usual setup is like the Soviet System. Nobody believes in what we do (except during business training) but what we do here is a tacit agreement to stick with the corporation (less than in Japan) and to maximize profit. Short-term gain always defets longer-term gain in that mentality. See Fukushima and TEPCO. Better than Clinton, Bush or the Supervision of Financial Affairs? Or the Better Business Bureau?

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 11:12 PM
Interesting commentary in this thread I think

Lets look at the recent report according to the latest global liveability survey from the Economist Intelligence Unit regarding the best cities in the world to live in

Cities are scored on political and social stability, crime rates and access to quality health care.

The survey also measures the diversity and standard of cultural events and the natural environment; education; and the standard of infrastructure, including public transport

Melbourne topped the biannual ranking of 140 cities with a score of 97.5 per cent

Vienna at 97.4 per cent

Vancouver 97.3 per cent.

The top 10 included three other Australian and two further Canadian cities:


The general conditions required for a location to be awarded a high liveability ranking continue to be well reflected in Australian and Canadian cities."

Communism? Socialism? Marxism? or any other 'ism'?

Is it communism, socialism or marxism for countries to have universial health care, good education, supporting infrastructure to serve its citizenary?

I dont think so

Infact some countries believe tax payers funds should be distributed back in to society; universial health care, education, infrastructure etc for the betterment of the nation and the betterment of its citizenary

Some people seem to be simply terrified of such a concept

It seems the only way these people can justifed their position on such a concept (as distribution of tax payers funding going back into society) is to distract, input fear/confusion/anxiety when they use words such as communism, socialism or marxism.

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 01:08 PM
Treason? A government system based upon the ideas of supplying everyone with the basic needs they must have and providing them with strong security instead of personal freedom is far from treasonous. capitalism took its roots from the wrong tree in my opinion. A society based on the belief that everthing is equal, but you have to kick and fight each other to claim it for ones self? I truthfully don't need to say the flaws of capitalism. look at the current economic state and there are some pretty evident points against it actually. Communism today can barely show its face in the world because of a long and bloody ideological feud that took two super powers from the top of the food chain and has nearly destroyed them both.

Thomas Hobbes wrote a book called Leviathan. It stated that in the best interest of the people, all citizens or subjects should bow down to the rule of one man, whom they chose as the single person of power. "The Leviathan" would be responisble for the taking care of and well being of all those in his rule. Absolute power would come at a cost though. To the people who gave leviathan his complete control, they pay the price of personal freedom, and eternal vigilance. Leviathan, seated in the position of power is eternally a slave to those he rules because they are the source of his power. If leviathan uses his appointed power for a reason other than the well being of his subjects, he must be removed from power immediately. (Hitler works as a perfect example of how quickly things go wrong if people don't stay vigilante. By obtaining absolute power before Germany could stop him Hitler quickly set up his own defences so no man could remove him from power)

I refer to Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan when stating my opinions on left wing politics because I believe in theory a monarchy or polyarchy would be the most efficient communist government. I must be careful about what I say because I realize the USSR was a polyarchy that was utilized with devastating results. If it was possible to create a small autonomous test country where political and civil ideologies could be tested... oh what a world it would be.

I plan on watching what people say on the subject. This debate hasn't died since it was born a century ago

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 01:11 PM
reply to post by Jobeycool

I would disagree only because I believe that the world's entire currency and banking system are the true downfalls to modern day society. Look at the US right now, they sure as hell ain't communist and they have spent themselves into one of the world's biggest debts

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 02:34 PM
reply to post by CanuckTruthSeeker

Your advocating that all power be concentrated into one set of hands. Are you crazy?

Any one person with that much power will use it to shore up their leadership as quickly as you mentioned Hitler did. The old saying, absolute power corrupts absolutely, i believe to be very true. This is a recipe for disaster, as the one person holding the reins will always be able to circumnavigate any failsafes put in place to prevent their removability. I will never trust one man in charge of everything. I think the world will be formed exactly the way that person wants it, and the opinions of all others would be disreguarded.

It is quite obvious you are willing to sacrifice all your freedoms for what you deem to be security, but im very much on the other side. I will never sacrifice my freedom for security. "I" will decide how i live my life. "I" will decide where i want to live, what job i will work, who I marry and how many children i have. The government has no right whatsoever meddling in the daily affairs of its citizens.

The only thing i want my government doing is collecting taxes to provide needed services such as running water, sewage, infrastructure, policing and a military to protect our borders.

posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 11:56 AM

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


Why should people be imprisoned for believing what they want to believe.

That seems pretty anti-freedom right?

posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 03:49 PM
reply to post by nightbringr

I think thats a totally valid opinion and way of thinking. But giving all control to one man does not make him the ruler of all, quite contrary. He is simply responisble for those that place him in charge. I believe all power belongs to the people because they choose what kind of person they decide to lead. The US, Canada all have a figurehead like the President and Prime minister respectively, but they meet so much opposition they see very little change take place during their term.
This picture is extremely black and white when we compare major left wing politics to right wing, or freedom vs security. But we all know life isn't black and white.
I feel its time for people to start looking at different ways to govern state. Todays politics work to a degree, but i believe Winston Churchill said, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." I don't want to bash democracy for not working, just not well enough. A radical point sometimes must be taken so we can compare it to what will actually work. I know as well as most communism will fail, democracy will fail, socialism will fail, monarchy will fail. So why aren't we trying to think of something that won't fail?

posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:39 AM
Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is.
Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has—as is well known—been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior.
But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called “the predatory phase” of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.
Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and—if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous—are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.
For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society.
Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supra-national organization would offer protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: “Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?”
I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?
It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas.
Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept “society” means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society—in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence—that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is “society” which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word “society.”
It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished—just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human being which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.
Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society. Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.
If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly-centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time—which, looking back, seems so idyllic—is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption.
I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.
The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.
For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call “workers” all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production—although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. Insofar as the labor contract is “free,” what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists’ requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.
Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.
The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the “free labor contract” for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from “pure” capitalism.
Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers’ goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.
This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?
Clarity about the aims and problems of socialism is of greatest significance in our age of transition. Since, under present circumstances, free and unhindered discussion of these problems has come under a powerful taboo,

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 11:03 PM
reply to post by daskakik

You are correct that the constitution does not specify economic policy nor is this thread really about economics as much as it was intended to reflect the erosion of the constitutional principals of limited government, and consequentially limiting personal freedoms, by those who use socialism and its variants as a method of greatly expanding the power and scope of government. The constitution does not prohibit the enactment of "social" policies either. IMO we have a very well orchestrated dichotomy of seemingly opposing forces working toward the same endgame which is global economic slavery. The pure capitalist philosophy has led to a corporate oligarchy that rules the global politic, that in turn finances radical social "idealist " to do their dirty work. George Soros is a good example. He supports a number of "socialist" organizations while raking in billions. So you have to ask yourself why a devout capitalist would finance so called socialist organizations. Simple. The corporate monopolies now control virtually all the goods and services that the working man requires to survive. When government decides that a particular social policy becomes a "right" as in a national health care system, the corporate owned healthcare providers, (hospitals, insurance companies, pharmaceutical. etc.) get richer, at the expense of those who are taxed to pay for it. The collusion between government agencies and corporations is legendary. FDA and big pharma, military industrial complex, EPA and government contractors etc..The bottom line is the little guy get the shaft the more the government expands, while the corporations fight for continuing quarterly profits. Again, IMHO, I would eliminate corporations completely, and if an enterprising individual or group, operating as a sole proprietorship, produced a product or service that made them rich (a relative term I know), good for them. That is what capitalism really is. Obviously, this is overly simplified, but this monopolist global corporate oligarchy is a bastardized form of capitalism at best.and maybe pure evil at worst. So I guess we're back to the basic misconceptions of the definitions we each place on our ideology. LOL.

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 11:34 PM
reply to post by bittersocialist

I think I said something like this on my last post????I think???maybe?????

posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 12:04 AM

Originally posted by Gakus
People have done a great deal of evil in this country for the sake of capitalism as well. No one should be declared a treason for their views on an economic system, that's ignorance.

I hear you, but I hear the OP too.

It's like, on one hand -- arresting these people for treason... by default you are violating the very same concept you are trying to protect. Freedom. Free speech.

On the other hand -- we are talking decision makers in government with ideology contrary to the entire premiss of the land's ideology they've sworn to uphold... and by definition, that IS treason.

So.... yeah -- it's a proper catch 22.

P.S. Am I in the twilight zone? A universe with a second internet where people don't know how to break a line?

It's the "Enter" key, on some really old keyboards -- it might say "Return." Use it. Paragraphs exist for a reason, line breaks exist for a reason... it's called readability.
edit on 21-9-2011 by Laokin because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 08:34 AM

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

Calling for people to be thrown in jail for thought crime adheres to which constitutional principle exactly?

What were you saying about treason?

<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in