Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Socialism bashing threads. New McCarthyism

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 04:01 AM
link   
I notice there are alot of threads bashing socialism by linking it to people like Obama and Hitler.

I read a thread earlier today that linked socialism to gun control and Obama.

I read another thread today that linked socialism to genocide and Hitler.

Socialists are not facists
Socialists are not liberals
Socialists are not crony capitalists
Sociaists are not commies

There are different kinds of socialism.

I like Libertarian Socialism the most right now until someone changes my mind. So I would consider myself a socialist that is against 'Big Government'.Another thing socialists are branded with is wanting bigger government Wrong again.

Anyway,deny ignorance
Read up on Socialism. Especially if you are going to use it as an insult. Im no expert on it yet,still learning but I seem to know more than most. I know the mainstream media are hysterical about socialists right now and they are making socialists the new 'reds under the bed' but we can see through that cant we? Isnt it obvious propaganda? Isnt the hysteria telling?

Anyway,socialist or not you must agree there is alot of hysteria about socialism and lots of McCarthyism-ish, unsubstantiated accusations,links and associations. If you dont like socialists fine,but dont link them to people like Obama. That is an insult to socialists everywhere.

Linking socialists to things like 'gun control' and 'genocide' is absurd.

#That is pretty much a rant I guess. It is Political Idealogy themed rant though




posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 04:08 AM
link   
And for all those against socialism because you think it means Bigger Government. Take a look at 'Libertarian Socialism'

en.wikipedia.org...

Like I said,Im no expert. Still looking. Libertarian Socialism seems pretty cool.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by theovermensch
And for all those against socialism because you think it means Bigger Government. Take a look at 'Libertarian Socialism'

en.wikipedia.org...

Like I said,Im no expert. Still looking. Libertarian Socialism seems pretty cool.


If there's one thing the rednecks don't like more than Socialism round these here parts it's Anarchism.

Escape while you still can!



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by theovermensch
Like I said,Im no expert. Still looking. Libertarian Socialism seems pretty cool.


I don't care what you call it or how you brand it but it AIN'T gonna happen in America under my watch!
Second.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 04:28 AM
link   
DP
edit on 2-12-2011 by survivalstation because: double post



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by survivalstation
 





I don't care what you call it or how you brand it but it AIN'T gonna happen in America under my watch!


Under your watch? What are you going to do?



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by JessopJessopJessop
 



Text Anarchism As Albert Meltzer and Stuart Christie stated in their book The Floodgates of Anarchy, anarchism has: ...its particular inheritance, part of which it shares with socialism, giving it a family resemblance to certain of its enemies. Another part of its inheritance it shares with liberalism, making it, at birth, kissing-cousins with American-type radical individualism, a large part of which has married out of the family into the Right Wing and is no longer on speaking terms. (The Floodgates of Anarchy, 1970, page 39.)


If by 'redneck' you mean Tea Party Patriot these guys agree, "no longer on speaking terms".

OWS,The Tea Party and the majority of US citizens seem to agree that US Government has too much control and has encroached on their lives and Liberties.

They have taken all the power.


Text When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty.” ― Thomas Jefferson


They seem pretty scared of socialism



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 04:44 AM
link   
So, what is the Reader's Digest definition of Libertarian Socialism?

Everything I have read makes me not like Socialism, and yes, I have read most of the books... not just propaganda.

I am not trying to change your mind, I am giving you a chance to change my mind. So tell me in your own words why I should consider socialism.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 04:44 AM
link   
reply to post by survivalstation
 


What if a true Libertarian or a true Socialist were democratically elected in the country that holds the Reserve Currency? Would the Global Oligarchy allow that to happen?

I doubt it.

Ron Paul may force them to reveal themselves. He kind of is already. Talk about an obvious media blackout.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by AlreadyGone
 


I think it is the fairest system for all of us that I have looked at. I think the gap between MTV cribs and Somalia is too great. I feel as though we should all be ashamed that there are people starving and we dont fix it because it is not profitable. Its doable to end poverty and famine but it is not profitable. I think its demonic that people are making profit on 'speculative bubbles' while at the same time starving people on the other side of the world. Its not that there is not enough food more that some cannot afford it.I hate that the world has no goals beyond consumerism and buying more and more crap. I think we need goals. Even Squirrels store nuts for the winter,why not society. I think capitalism relies on exploitation to function so it will never look to fix problems,only profit from them. I think an economy should be secondary. Profit secondary.

Upward mobility was a scam. We know that now. I think its time we looked at alternatives.


And I dont read readers digest


I am interested in alteratives and Im looking. I said I was no expert. Im not a moron either though. I might have read more than you think.
edit on 2-12-2011 by theovermensch because: typo



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 05:29 AM
link   
The Founding Fathers intended for America to be a socialist republic. (the term "socialist" wasn't coined until the 19th century). It's funny how ignorant most people are about the history of their own country.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Atzil321
 


I have a Thread titled 'Your Founding Fathers were Commies'
I was being provocative but I know what you mean. They never intended the US to be run by Corporations.

Just today I was reading some stuff about how it could be argued Abraham Lincon had socialist leanings.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by survivalstation
 





I don't care what you call it or how you brand it but it AIN'T gonna happen in America under my watch!


Under your watch? What are you going to do?


What ever it takes to keep that crap away from my kids and country. Oh, by the way, McCarthy was right all along.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by survivalstation
 


So I guess you want bigger government and less liberty then?



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Socialism has resulted in failure every time.
It is not to bad mouth socialism, it is to point out that it does not work.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Good post OP, we need more of a true libertarian left presence on ATS.


Originally posted by thehoneycomb
Socialism has resulted in failure every time.


There is no precedent to base that claim on, because there have been no socialist countries. The Russian socialist revolution failed before it even started, it was a republic with limited democracy, and a state controlled-capitalist economy. China has always been a nationalist state, with a capitalist economy. America is a republic, with a 'stealth state' (lol) controlled capitalist economy.

If you can show me ONE country that has worker owned and controlled labour system then I will be corrected.
Good luck in your search, because you will need it.


It is not to bad mouth socialism, it is to point out that it does not work.


All you are pointing out is your failure to understand what socialism is, again.


Socialist ownership of the means of production is ownership by all workers. Capitalists cease to exist and workers cease to be their employees.

home.vicnet.net.au...

Under socialism you are the owner. Under libertarian socialism there is no government/state, but directly democratic worker controlled councils, organizations, unions. The term depends on your version of 'anarcho-socialism'. For example 'anarcho-syndicalism' is stateless socialism through labour unions, IWW 'wobblies' etc.
They are all versions of stateless socialism, anarchism. 'Libertarian' came from the French anarchist, Joseph Déjacque

"Anarchism is stateless socialism" Mikhail Bakunin

Mikhail Bakunin

edit on 12/2/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Thats because they are all doomed to fail.
As I pointed out in another thread, most socialist countries do not last longer then 10 years.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



SR

posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   
The left wing on a whole have always shorted out and will always short out the Anarchists through history as true Anarchy will make them and the others grasping for power extinct.

A vast majority of those claiming to be a true Anarchists today are intellectual frauds and ignorant deniers of history and the ideology it's self.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 




Text Socialism has resulted in failure every time. It is not to bad mouth socialism, it is to point out that it does not work.


I think it is difficult to have a truly socialist government when the holder of the Reserve Currency is Capitalist. A socialist government is always going to be hard in a Capitalist Empire. But it could be argued Germany and Norway are socialist governments. They are both examples of how socialist ideas can and do work.


Text Germany is 1/5 the size of the US and yet has the second highest trade surplus in the world (after China). They’ve accomplished this while having higher rate of unionization and higher pay. Interestingly, the US economy was also doing better when unionization and pay was higher in the US.


There are many examples of socialism being successful throughout history.
Socialism can and does work.
edit on 2-12-2011 by theovermensch because: typo



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by ANOK
 


Thats because they are all doomed to fail.
As I pointed out in another thread, most socialist countries do not last longer then 10 years.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Save the the United States of Socialist America.





new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join