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.

 

OWS movement is the last warning to end corporatism and re-establish genuine capitalism

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   
End corporatism by re-establishing genuine capitalism that makes participation fair and honest and orders a level playing field.




posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
End corporatism by re-establishing genuine capitalism that makes participation fair and honest and orders a level playing field.

Exactly!

A just system that doesn't work for one is tolerable. An unjust system that continues to work for one is also tolerable for most and even preferable to many. However an unjust system that doesn't work for one is intolerable to any. The corporatism of the US hasn't been challenged so far because it worked for most people. But it has stopped working for many and their numbers are growing and unlike in the past economic recessions there is absolutely no pretention that things will turn around for the better. Those losing out are being lectured that it is their fault they lost. They probably would have believed it and blamed themselves, God or misfortune if such openly dishonest measures as bailing out big banks didn't talk simultaneously with talks of austerity regarding welfare programmes.

If those claiming to support genuine capitalism don't take measures to correct the system, those opposed to any kind of capitalism will gain the upperhand because they represent both justice and the self-interest of many.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by nineix
The value of anything anyone might say, for, or against the movement is to be had out on the street where the movement is taking place.

Supporters sure add value by showing themselves on the street where it is happening. Why would detractors show up on the streets?

Commenting on developments and discussing ideas about what and where this movement is going, and speculating about what the 'real' reasons are for the movement are one thing,..

I believe that is what I am doing, analysing the movement and speculating on the real reasons and where it is going.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kaploink
I don't think this is a final warning, but what will be a slow growing grass movement for change. A steady, but increasing beat of protest across the country by people that are tired and want a change.

I do believe this is a final warning and the timing is perfect.

I suspect there is another financial meltdown and another attempted bailout in the offing. Those who claim to support genuine capitalism and oppose crony capitalism have an opportunity to show it when that happens. If they don't comeout with their own street protests or join the existing one, everyone will know exactly where they stand. If there is no bailout after a financial meltdown, those whose IRAs and 401Ks get wiped out will suddenly realise the system doesn't work for them either and the ranks of the OWS protesters will swell.

Either way the next couple of years will either restore genuine capitalism through the existing mechanisms or will prove to those who have fallen out of the system that the system is irrepairable and needs replacement.

One sure sign that the movement is making an impact is seeing the politicians who represent the 1% increasingly slamming the protests. The paid for politicians and talking heads are trying hard to make OWS appear as some type of communism movement or a bunch of hippies. Which is comical due to hippies not existing since the early 70s. Then again, they don't get out of their guarded and walled communities very often.

The reason they are scared is because their future actions are already under public scruitiny. They could have claimed the public perception of the last bank bailout was unknown and they had to go by the experts' advice. They will have no such excuse the next time round.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mads1987
reply to post by Observor
 


There are no historic basis for such assumptions. In fact there has never been a single case of such events in western history.
First of, the general ideas which communism are founded on oppose to the use of violence. Not saying that a communist couldn't be violent, but it is wrong to assume that this would be an actual tool to start a revolution. If you do wish to create a revolution in the mind of your fellow man, it would be highly inefficient to approach him with a firearm in hand.

Your hypothesis is not only wrong, but goes directly against all logical and historical evidence. It is propaganda.

To cut it out for you - Communism = Community = People living in harmony with one and other.
Trying to obtain this by violence would be not only counterproductive but downright stupid!
edit on 26/06/87 by Mads1987 because: (no reason given)



26 million(give or take) in Soviet gulags and camps says you are wrong.
edit on 10-10-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 03:03 AM
link   
This article says CPUSA wants to be involved and they are talking about nationalizing the banks, and I suspect this has been the goal of Soros all along

www.washingtontimes.com...



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
This article says CPUSA wants to be involved and they are talking about nationalizing the banks, and I suspect this has been the goal of Soros all along

www.washingtontimes.com...

You can wring your hands all you want about who wants to be involved.

Unless you can offer an alternative to the status quo and achieve it, those attempting a change and a viable method to achieve it will keep gaining ground, whatever their agenda is. Merely attempting to scare people away from them won't work, not when the alternative is a continuation of the status quo. People know it involves risks, but are willing to take it.

So the question is if you are scared of the reds what exactly are you going to do to change the status quo?



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by radosta
 


You say yourself that those unions, or groups, which you are referring to were 'enslaved'. That is by definition not communism. How could it be. Communism is purely a matter of how you divide recourses between people in a community, and the fact that dictators, fascist and capitalists has abused the idea to their own satisfaction does not mean that they have actually even achieved a communist state.

It's sort of like a quote I heard on two and a half men once - "You can put a goat in a suit, but it is still just a goat".

So if you try to achieve communism through violence, it's pretty much like #ing for virginity, or fighting for peace. A big fat contradiction, most likely created by your lovely government. They are so good at it.

Do you also believe that people are born greedy?... hahaha!

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Keep in mind that we are talking about the chances of a violent communistic revolution in the USA. So as said in a later thread, the only places where we have experienced actual violent revolution has been in already corrupted countries, dictatorships and such - not in a 'peaceful democracy' like the USA.


edit on 26/06/87 by Mads1987 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


The nationalization of The Federal Reserve is imminent. People like Soros benefit more when it's privatized. Stop saying that nationalization is somehow wrong.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Mads1987
 

Communism is a utopian state of affairs. However what is commonly referred to as a communist revolution is actually a socialist revolution led by people who desire communism and believe socialism leads to communism as predicted/advocated by Karl Marx.

While you might think it is a contradiction, Marxists believe it is exactly these contradictions that lead to the establishment of socialism and eventual withering away of all contradictions leading to communism.

Keep in mind that we are talking about the chances of a violent communistic revolution in the USA. So as said in a later thread, the only places where we have experienced actual violent revolution has been in already corrupted countries, dictatorships and such - not in a 'peaceful democracy' like the USA.

Every country that experienced a successful violent revolution believed it was going to counter the revolution i.e, until the revolution succeeded.

But granted the revolution in the USA, if it happens, will be very different from any in the past. It cannot be a prolonged one. The seizure of power has to be very quick and I think it will be. Once the existing system loses its legitimacy in the eyes of the public, the only resistence to a violent take over will be from the die-hard supporters of the establishment and a well coordinated simultaneous attack on these elements will make it very quick indeed.
edit on 11-10-2011 by Observor because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 

The nationalization of The Federal Reserve is imminent. People like Soros benefit more when it's privatized. Stop saying that nationalization is somehow wrong.

Not sure what the nationalisation of the Fed is supposed to achieve. It is not the Fed that bailed the banks out, it is the US government.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join