OWS: It's not anti-capitalism, it's anti-greed

reply to post by Jason88

My point and yours lay with the fact if you don't take charge of your position others will for you.

Respectfully, I am not addressing image issues with that remark. I am addressing the problem with problems and that if they remain unidentified, the identified problem then becomes that no one really knows what the problem is. We cannot fix any problem until we fully understand what that problems are.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


My stance, in that situation, is to act. I believe the best interest is to force problems to become clear in desperate situations....and while self-interest is the ultimate motivator; a collective power such as global banks with their shareholders, investors, and board of trustees, do not represent the average working family and are instead a drain on the foundation the US was created on..

Originally posted by Jason88
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

My stance, in that situation, is to act. I believe the best interest is to force problems to become clear in desperate situations....and while self-interest is the ultimate motivator; a collective power such as global banks with their shareholders, investors, and board of trustees, do not represent the average working family and are instead a drain on the foundation the US was created on..

edit on 29-10-2011 by Jason88 because: (no reason given)

It is too often said that desperate times require desperate measures, but I assure that if during desperate times you take a measured response, your chances of identifying and fixing problems is far more likely than "forcing problems to become clear".

The problems are clear, this is not the problem. The problem is peoples refusal to see clearly. I am often told that the world is not as black and white as I see it and that there are much more subtle shades of gray to any complex problem. I believe that these gray hats are refusing to accept the responsibility necessary to first understand that gray is a mixture of black and white, and secondly to do what is necessary to separate the black from the white of it.

Banking institutions have always been a problem. The problem is clear; banks provide little of needed goods and services to any economy. There are only two services a bank provides. A.) A place to store wealth. B.) Borrowing opportunities. Most people do not have near enough wealth to justify doing business with a bank and because they do not have near enough wealth, the likelihood of them obtaining a loan is next to nil. Yet, the vast majority of these people have foolishly agreed to do business with these banks, justifying it with expedience. They go along to get along.

Now, most are angry, and understandably so, but anger is not enough. Desperate measures most imprudent. Measured responses, and firm convictions towards that ultimate evolution of humanity is what needed. What is that ultimate evolution of humanity? Freedom! Want a one world government? When the majority of people are ready to begin self government, then you'll have that one world government. Until then, the best you can hope for is a mild case of tyranny, the worst you will get gets far worse than it is today.

Protest is hardly a solution, let alone an answer. Camping out in a park near Wall Street, while periodically stopping at an ATM to withdraw more cash to finance ones personal protest only underscores the pointlessness of that protest. Quietly closing bank accounts and refusing to do business with electronic payments, or even checks, and insisting to be paid on a cash basis only is a strong action that would have far more affect and repercussion than a thousand years of protest.

reply to post by Mcupobob


Nice pic of that person carrying around a sign with the Butcher of Lyon on it!

If OWS is about anti-greed and not anti-capitalism, they need to join together and say so. And kick out, or at least publicly denounce, the anti-capitalists.

Liberals and Democrats talk a lot about the TEA Party not kicking out or publicly denouncing racists. How about a little quid pro quo?

/TOA

Greed is just as aimless to protest as capitalism if not more so. You can't change how people are if they are a greedy person, then that is what they are. What people need to target it the source of all these problems that stem what this F***'d up monetary system.

If people never give a crap about other humans in a genuine desire for progress of mankind, we will never resolve anything.

That's really what it all boils down to.

wrong thread.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
If people never give a crap about other humans in a genuine desire for progress of mankind, we will never resolve anything.

That's really what it all boils down to.

"A genuine desire for progress of mankind" as applied through organized systems has only ever resulted in tyranny and seas of blood. And nothing will change in that

Self reliance, self sufficiency, personal responsibility, and self interest are the only key to human evolution. Disinterested compassion or empathy is fine. Butting into the business of others out of pretended compassion that is actually disguised self absorption is not.

If would be good if people actually knew what capitalism, socialism and communism were. Then we could have an honest debate on which system is better. All I see is mass ignorance and a desperate attempt to distance corporatism from capitalism, as though the two have nothing in common.

College was a waste of time but at least I learned some basic stuff such there are three types of business ventures: 1)Proprietorship 2)Partnership 3)Corporation. If we want to get away from corporatism(ban it) then we need to go back to the times of christ and I believe that is impractical to say the least. Corporations can exist but they MUST be regulated and seperate from government.

Capitalism is all about private ownership of the means of production and thus is like asking the fox to guard the chicken house. It is impossible! Socialism provides a remedy for this because it encourages publicity and still allows for private influence to some degree.

Even my high school teacher told us socialism was a middle of the road system and you can compare it europe or canada of the 70s and 80s. Now they are beocming more and more capitalstic each year thanks to the spread of "the american nightmare" and "the pursuit of tyranny".

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
If would be good if people actually knew what capitalism, socialism and communism were. Then we could have an honest debate on which system is better. All I see is mass ignorance and a desperate attempt to distance corporatism from capitalism, as though the two have nothing in common.

College was a waste of time but at least I learned some basic stuff such there are three types of business ventures: 1)Proprietorship 2)Partnership 3)Corporation. If we want to get away from corporatism(ban it) then we need to go back to the times of christ and I believe that is impractical to say the least. Corporations can exist but they MUST be regulated and seperate from government.

Capitalism is all about private ownership of the means of production and thus is like asking the fox to guard the chicken house. It is impossible! Socialism provides a remedy for this because it encourages publicity and still allows for private influence to some degree.

Even my high school teacher told us socialism was a middle of the road system and you can compare it europe or canada of the 70s and 80s. Now they are beocming more and more capitalstic each year thanks to the spread of "the american nightmare" and "the pursuit of tyranny".

Your high school teacher was teaching you about ideologies and technicalities. I deal in reality and practical application. There has never been a large centralized system in all of human history that did not necessitate an elite class. The "isms" are just window dressing. Socialism absolutely requires an elite class and a subservient class as applied in the real world. That will not change.

I can promise that I will do whatever I can in my power to fight full blown socialism in this country and I will work hard, just doing my little part, to eradicate the trappings that currently exist (and are a major factor in the decline of our Republic). Socialism is centrally managed slavery. Corporatism is not anything remotely close to free market capitalism. Free markets would destroy corporatism. Socialism and Corporatism are practically dependents as applied in the real world.
No one loves and uses socialism to their benefit more than large banks and international corporations. The peons get some cheese but those guys get the real government funds(ie the fruit of the taxpayer's labors), via debt creation, government contracts, exemptions, and loopholes. You may want to put down the textbooks and see how socialism works in the real world.

Originally posted by radosta
Corporatism is not anything remotely close to free market capitalism. Free markets would destroy corporatism.

In the real world corporatism has destroyed free markets every time.

While real socialism and real communism have never worked neither has real capitalism. Before you say it has never really been implemented. Think about it. If it never lasts then how could you say it works in the real world?

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by loveguy

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Jason88

 

Nice, but not true. I've had debates here, on ATS, where the OWS proponents called for an end to capitalism.

Period.

You may not think so, but there are countless ppeople at these events, and here on ATS, who espouse the end of capitalism.

Personally, I wish to call an end to the concept of debt/compensation for any services rendered by anybody anywhere.

99% of us are willing to forgive debt. 1% is not.

Whatever the true stat, it's not a 50-50 down the middle arrangement by far.

So an end to the free market. Capitalism.

This is what I'm talking about! This is what I can never support.

The reason the 99 are willing to forgive debt is because they are the ones who owe the debt. It's easy to say "Hey, let's all just forget about the debt" when you are the one who owes the money.

reply to post by radosta


Free markets would destroy corporatism? Not in a million years........

First of all there can never be a free market because regulations should be applied. Second the natural evolution of capitalism revolves around corporatism. This has absolutely nothing to do with socialism. A socialist government would bail out companies only if they were public ventures like in europe for example, but instead we see wall street companies asking for handouts.

This only proves that we have reached the point of state capitalism where government exists solely to support big business and then throws some leftovers to the hungry citizenry so they won't cry. If obama was a socialist he would have crucified BP for the oil volcano in the gulf of mexico and would have called the military to nuke the #ing thing shut within a week or two. Instead BP was dictating to the american government what it should do like dad telling his son don't be late to school.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about! The Koch Brothers must have given you some handy christmas present or something. Take your tea party astroturfing elsewhere!!

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by radosta
Corporatism is not anything remotely close to free market capitalism. Free markets would destroy corporatism.

In the real world corporatism has destroyed free markets every time.

While real socialism and real communism have never worked neither has real capitalism. Before you say it has never really been implemented. Think about it. If it never lasts then how could you say it works in the real world?

edit on 29-10-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

Of course it can't work when cuba can't even export their cigars, when the capitalist interests throughout the world blackmail north korea into submission, when the western europeans blackmail/sabotage eastern europe, etc.

I hate communism but at the same time, I feel obligated to call a spade a spade. Tomorrow if america became a socialist nation you can bet NO ONE would do business with her because the elite want a worldwide capitalist dictatorship where a few thousand idiots who think they are entitled make indentured servants out of billions.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


I agree. My point was that the human element is what makes any -ism not go as planned. That is why those who claim that what is needed is real capitalism are just being naive.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by radosta
Corporatism is not anything remotely close to free market capitalism. Free markets would destroy corporatism.

In the real world corporatism has destroyed free markets every time.

While real socialism and real communism have never worked neither has real capitalism. Before you say it has never really been implemented. Think about it. If it never lasts then how could you say it works in the real world?

edit on 29-10-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

It was working just fine before the power of the federal government, post 1861, grew exponentially. This allowed the power of banking and corporations to grow. It is the fault of the American people to have allowed this to occur.

Like Ben Franklin and De Tocqeville predicted, when the American people begin voting in politicians based on promises of public services and handouts, the republic failed. It wasn't the failure of free market capitalism that occurred. It was the failure of the American people to continue to accept personal responsibility and self reliance as the most basic virtues.

The second you start blaming the powerful for your lack of power is the second you admit you are a slave. When you begin demanding free things and expecting the government, or the rich, to give you handouts, you cannot expect anyone to respect you, because you obviously have no respect for yourself.

The legal apparatus still exists for a return to a decentralized republic, the existence of which would require true free market capitalism (which would cripple the banking cartels and international corporations). But the American people are either too ignorant and complacent or they have explicitly and finally betrayed the founding principles and all is truly lost.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by radosta

 

Free markets would destroy corporatism? Not in a million years........

First of all there can never be a free market because regulations should be applied. Second the natural evolution of capitalism revolves around corporatism. This has absolutely nothing to do with socialism. A socialist government would bail out companies only if they were public ventures like in europe for example, but instead we see wall street companies asking for handouts.

This only proves that we have reached the point of state capitalism where government exists solely to support big business and then throws some leftovers to the hungry citizenry so they won't cry. If obama was a socialist he would have crucified BP for the oil volcano in the gulf of mexico and would have called the military to nuke the #ing thing shut within a week or two. Instead BP was dictating to the american government what it should do like dad telling his son don't be late to school.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about! The Koch Brothers must have given you some handy christmas present or something. Take your tea party astroturfing elsewhere!!

Thanks for the personal attacks. You sound like most other pro-OWS types on here. Insulting me does not make your positions stronger. But thank you for proving my point. Obama is definitely a corporatist of the highest order. He is also pushing socialist agendas and wealth redistribution. Banks/corporations/the 0.01% are the greatest benefactors of applied socialism and centralized management.Everyone else loses.

Nuking a deep underground well without knowledge of the consequences would, i suspect, count as the most irresponsible thing any US President has ever done. And that is saying a lot.
Yes, Obama's handling of BP proves he is a servant of those forces which are currently working to create more citizen dependence on a wider scale, and hence, strengthening their dominance.

Please, instead of just stating that my position is wrong, please provide specific reasons as to why a return to free market principles would not be a blow to corporatism. I see no meat in your position. Mostly personal attacks against me. Wheres the beef?

BTW, I am not a "teabagger" nor do I watch FOX news, or any cable news network for that matter.

reply to post by Jason88


I love the fact that others get to use a broad and open to interpretation definition of Greed and apply it to those they see as having Too Much.

reply to post by radosta


How are you not a teabagger when you stand for everything they preach? Yeah, ok you don't like labels...Wwwwhhhhaaaatttteeeevvvver! "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck."

You believe in "free markets" without corporatism. That is about as unrealistic as you can get. Should we deincorporate every corporation registered throughout the states, then dismantle wall street and be unique in the world OR should we SIMPLY REGULATE THEM? I think the answer is obvious.

Keep making weird arguements though. The contract on america is damm scary if you ask me.......

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by radosta

 

How are you not a teabagger when you stand for everything they preach? Yeah, ok you don't like labels...Wwwwhhhhaaaatttteeeevvvver! "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck."

You believe in "free markets" without corporatism. That is about as unrealistic as you can get. Should we deincorporate every corporation registered throughout the states, then dismantle wall street and be unique in the world OR should we SIMPLY REGULATE THEM? I think the answer is obvious.

Keep making weird arguements though. The contract on america is damm scary if you ask me.......

Funny, as the only reason why Companies have to file for Corp status, is because the All knowing and All loving Govt came down with laws/rules stating to do so.
Not only that, but the Govt also set the policies for this as well.

But, alas, lets just go after the easiest target, instead of the real problem.