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.


Job! Jobs! Jobs! Cheering on our own slavery. Employment bubble popped. Fight against work.

page: 13
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 09:57 PM

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by NoHierarchy

Antony Sutton discussed in his book "America's Secret Establishment" how the Dewey system has been implemented to make us all into little specialized cogs in the wheel of society. The individual exists for society, and not the other way around. This is called Statism, and Dewey pushed a Statist ideology. I was just reading last night about Noam Chomsky as someone had posted a vid of him, and it turns out he believes in the Dewey system...Ha, who would have guessed that a self-described anarcho-socialist would subscribe to such a Totalitarian system!!!!

Somehow I highly doubt your conclusions that Chomsky is a statist who subscribes to totalitarianism. He's one of the LEAST totalitarian thinkers (and one of the GREATEST thinkers) on the planet. Please elaborate on exactly how this "Dewey system" (I assume it's not the Dewey decimal system, haha) is totalitarian and exactly how Chomsky supports it AND thus, somehow, supports totalitarianism.

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 09:59 PM

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:08 PM
reply to post by yadda333

Pure communism can't be achieved. I can't believe people actually believe this stuff even after coming down from their bong hit high. Even in a utopian society in which no one is required to work, the people who are actually doing the labor WILL get pissy after a while. They will see those sitting back enjoying life off the backs of others and want to put an end to it, much like people want to end our current welfare system from a lifelong entitlement to one that is more of a temporary assist. Not everyone can be a doctor or lawyer. The world needs ditch diggers too.

As another poster simply stated, who will fix leaking roofs, fix your broken down shoes, etc. Until each and every person is required to contribute equally, only then could we come close to this utopia. Problem is there is no such thing as job equality. Some jobs require higher education or special skills. Why should someone who is only suited for trash pickup duty be rewarded the same as someone who knows how to fly a commercial airliner. But the difficult thing the OP doesn't understand is, that a requirement to perform a task is called work. When your work involves a certain task, it is called a job. Even with no money bub, it is still a job. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it must be. Human nature won't allow that commercial pilot to be content getting the same rewards for his effort as someone who fills the gas tank at the local Exxon.

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:27 PM
What IF we just made money obsolete tomorrow?

That question is really a fascinating look into the human psyche.

Wouldn't people make some changes!

While i think it's true alot of people would quit, I also believe alot of other people would fill in at the socially necessary positions.

No one wants to live in a place with garbage every where, someone would still drive it out of town.

The missing link in this conversation is education!

Educational centers would be rife with furious activity.

Take what you want.

What would you like to know?

What could we acheive then?

A worthy goal, and a worthy thread.

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 11:14 PM
Let's see, $447B, and 137M employed people. That's $3,263 per employee.

Say $447B is divided by the USA average salary of $81,400. That theoretically would be 5,491,400 jobs. But, what will happen is we'll get maybe 200,000 jobs. At a cost of $2,235,000 per job. That's government efficiency for you.

We've seen this movie before. Short term sugar high ('pass this bill'), and a nation that becomes a long term diabetic on a drip from China.

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 11:20 PM
Great thread. S & F for you.
Working and the way money is linked to it is the great illusion that is before us. I totally agree on your points and have thought a great deal about why we work and the whole money issue. Most humans are only productive for 3 or 4 hours of the day as far as work is concerned, this is because we feel trapped and are trying to extend our work tasks so as to seem busy when in fact the job could have been handled in a faster more professional manner. This is because our employers don't want us to stand around doing nothing - how many times have we all been under that pressure to look busy when there has been really nothing to do. It's a sad thing.
There is more than enough food and materials to supply every living person on the planet with a more comfortable life style, we should only be working in the job for a few hours a day to provide what is needed and also have the opportunity to work extra time here and there to get the things we want in life. It's all about NEEDS & WANTS.
Imagine a world that is no longer driven by money, for one our technology, medicines and all research would explode as there would be nothing holding it back, no company that is looking at how to make the most money out of their product or service. This would allow research on such a wide spectrum that would allow us to become advanced beyond measure in a small amount of time. Money is the enslaver and the mega corporations are the slave masters. This has to change, we don't "need" to live like this anymore and it's only the rich that "want" it to stay the way it is.
Growing up you are put into a schooling system that was created initially as a child minding outlet so adults could work, this started around the industrial revolution. The problem is that we were told we had to get educated and choose a career path which most of us had absolutely no idea about. Kids should be taught the very basics early on and then have the choice to continue studies or put them off until their teenage or young adult years, most kids don't want to go to school and would rather be working, travelling or playing and experiencing life. It's not until you are older that you start to crave learning and become interested in creating or serving others.
That brings me to my final point, we need to realize that if we serve each other with love, honour, experience, gratitude and pleasing we will find that the world can be a better place. Freedom is our greatest need and want combined, we deserve it and we should have it. We have arrived at a time and place that will allow us to achieve this and we should persue it with great excitment and understanding.
We are creative beings, take a look around you. Look at all the things that we have created, this has all come from "thought" or the creative human mind. It is no small feat that we have accomplished but the only way forward now is to free ourselves from slavery and release our soul to better things, I'm ready to stand up, are you?

Peace to all

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 11:39 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 11:43 PM
reply to post by buddhasystem

Yes you were and I have done many jobs where I have worked my ass off for 12 to 16 hours as well. That doesn't mean we should, have a look around you or are you blind to people that are less fortunate than you? If you worked for 4 hours and they had the opportunity to work the next 4 hours and get themselves out of poverty wouldn't the world be a better place. It's your ignorance that drives you to work long hours for money so you can feel all better about yourself, wake up dude - the matrix has you

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 11:44 PM
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 11:46 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 11:55 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 11:59 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 12:07 AM
reply to post by buddhasystem

The only capacity I have seen is your ability to derail threads with one sentence statements and then proceed to call me names. I've seen that somewhere before...........oh yea it was in primary school, you know where all the children play. To be honest I don't care for your little insults and assumptions so I won't bother responding after this post to you as I have more exciting things to do and I was warned about people like you when I finally joined this site - your not worth the energy or time. Have a nice life.

Just to back up my 3 -4 hour work productivity claim.

Work productivity
edit on 15-9-2011 by Rellix because: Added link

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 01:08 AM
reply to post by doctornamtab

Yah, I'm too busy chasing down my food and rent to wonder if I might be a slave. Now if they can only figure out how to sell us air...

I'm going back below deck to row with the other slaves now.

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 02:26 AM
Just to throw a spanner in the works on the OP, but if there were NO jobs.. then what? Who decides who will manage the 1% working to feed the 99%? or do we all set up our own microfarms and manage our own? As for
the financial illusion, working in the NHS in the UK i have to ask.. you can't trade 'work time' for a pacemaker, or a Bypass graft. a portion of the wage we earn goes into a national insurance policy. a mandatory payment, but any medical treatment required can be accessed.

I'm not quite sure what the recommendation of a solution for this is, I'm taking it as an 'everybody look after your own food and shelter and that's it' (I may have understood wrong, I apologise if i have!) but then front line services are impacted severely in that case.

In an ideal world this concept would work wonderfully, but in this age there are for too many people who are purely materialistic. Not to mention the impact of technology and advancement if the 'job' and 'money' was removed or replaced. In my opinion, money is a representation of 'work done'. However, it seems to me once you pass a certain annual threshold you earn more money for doing less or less beneficial jobs for the greater good. An example would be the bankers earning millions when they can't even run a bank properly. Contrary to popular belief privatisation is NOT the way forward.

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:09 AM
reply to post by NoHierarchy

Even in that vid he is talking about getting rid of the "whole capitalist hierarch". What would replace Capitalism? Why he is talking about Socialism. He has described himself as an anarcho-socialist. I didn't come up with that myself. I went looking for info and that's what wikipedia had. I knew he was left leaning before that as I have his book, "The Isreal Lobby". Did you know that anarchism can be extremes of either right or left? He happens to be on the Left. He talks a good talk about Democracy and so on, but that is a buzzword used by Socialists when promoting their Totalitarian Utopia. He apparently claims to be against communism, but then many socialists are, that's nothing new, but why? It's not that they hate Totalitarianism. They just hated the violence of the death camps and gulags and mass killings(Stalin, pol pot etc). Socialism is and always was a gateway to communism, and communists say it on their own websites. Even Karl Marx interchanges socialism with communism.
American Progressives embraced Totalitarian regimes in 30's. Today, Progressives are always talking about and implementing more and more legislation to control various aspects of our lives.
I can see how it can be confusing.
Wikipedia says this about him

Ideologically identifying with anarchism and libertarian socialism, Chomsky is known for his critiques of U.S. foreign policy,[10] and he has been described as a prominent cultural figure.[11] His social criticism has included Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988), co-written with Edward S. Herman, an analysis articulating the propaganda model theory for examining the media.

It further states that he hates communism. But then so did Hitler. Hitler was a National Socialist and Mussolini a Totalitarian. Wikipedia says that Chomsky has issues with authoritarianism, but that just puts him on far side of Left, where anarchy is. Oddly, communism is further Left than Socialism, so it gets a bit murky.
Socialism is still a platform of Totalitarianism. It is just the liberal side of it. When the govt can force me to share my pie with someone, that's Statism, that's gov controlling me. He is just less Statist than his communist brothers.
edit on 15-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 04:40 AM

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by doobydoll
I am ECSTATIC that I am no longer chasing my tail trying to keep the damn wolves from my door. I am happier now than I've been for the longest time, and anyone who has a problem with that can kiss my lily-white arse.

Of course! You are a loser who now elected to be a leech. The kids that you claim you have raised don't give a rat's poont about you, Mom, so you exploit your country's socialist trends and freeload off others. So much to congratulate yourself with, my favourite loser!

Ha! Like I give a fig what a self-opinionated boor like you says. Like you know anything about me and my family.

Just go ahead and keep berating and slagging others off who don't share YOUR opinion. Go and cry to your mother you infant.

Meanwhile, I'll go and put my feet up in the sunshine and ponder how I will enjoy the rest of my leisurely life

Oh and by the way BS, have a nice day at work

ETA: I'll dare bet you're single

edit on 15-9-2011 by doobydoll because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-9-2011 by doobydoll because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-9-2011 by doobydoll because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 06:18 AM
To put it another way.

Douglas Rushkoff Blog

Our problem is not that we don't have enough stuff -- it's that we don't have enough ways for people to work and prove that they deserve this stuff.

The question we have to begin to ask ourselves is not how do we employ all the people who are rendered obsolete by technology, but how can we organize a society around something other than employment? Might the spirit of enterprise we currently associate with "career" be shifted to something entirely more collaborative, purposeful, and even meaningful? Instead, we are attempting to use the logic of a scarce marketplace to negotiate things that are actually in abundance. What we lack is not employment, but a way of fairly distributing the bounty we have generated through our technologies, and a way of creating meaning in a world that has already produced far too much stuff.

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:26 AM
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

I just wanted to point out that laissez-faire means Let it do.

So a laissez-faire attitude of the government, would mean that the attitude of the people is to just let the government do it's thing. In other words,

Well, then these jobs were simply moved overseas. If you will, the country was strip-mined of potential by laissez faire attitude of the government.

could be translated as Well, then these jobs were simply moved overseas. If you will, the country was strip-mined of potential by the attitude that the government should just do it's thing.

Which I agree with completely. I think you might have missed Buddhasystem's point.

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:50 AM

Originally posted by Cuervo
reply to post by doctornamtab

We have the infrastructure to switch to free energy alternatives, to farm sensible foods (not inefficient subsidized beef), and to provide basic healthcare to everybody who pledges allegiance to our flag. We have enough EMPTY houses owned by banks (that we bailed out with our taxes) to house the homeless. Beyond this, it's simply maintenance. If you want luxury items, you must work. If you want a car, you must work. If you want things that actually place a burden on society to provide (which food and shelter doesn't need to do), you must work. But basic human necessities can be met with no burden on the working class (the only class needed). It's not "communism", it's "common sense".

This is an awesome idea! The only thing I want to add, is that if the gov't gave out homes to homeless, there is no guarantee that the homeless would take care of the home like how a real homeowner would and should. It's like teenagers who get a free car from their parents and then wreck it in a month. If the gutters break, will the homeless person go up on a ladder to fix it? If a person has never owned a home before, it's very possible of them not caring, and then the broken gutter would cause water damage to the house, and it might become so expensive that the new homeowner simply can't afford the repairs. I propose the best solution would be to encourage neighbors to encourage the new homeowners to take care of their house. Learning how to take care of a home has to be taught. It would be a shame for the gov't to fix up a home and give it to a homeless person only to have it go back in a state of disrepair.
edit on 15-9-2011 by Xaberz because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in