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.

 

Obama: Limited Gov't That Preserves Free Markets 'Doesn't Work. It Has Never Worked

page: 34
132
<< 31  32  33    35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

If you are going to believe batista's propaganda, then I have a few planets in the milky way galaxy to sell you.

Are you interested in purchasing them at a ridiculously low price???


I don't believe in ANYONE'S propaganda... unlike you I was BORN and lived in Cuba. I know the history from my family. More than half of my family are still living in Cuba, and unlike leftwingers who swallow every lie told by the castro regime, I actually know Cuba's history first hand, and what has been happening there.

You want to stay ignorant, that's YOUR problem, but I have always found that leftwingers LOVE to stay ignorant in matters like this one. They don't like the truth about their idols like che guevara and castro who were/are nothing but bloodthirsty murderers, and instead your people have invented fantasies that only exist in your heads.

BTW, that information I gave comes straight from the United Nations, the World Health Organization, the International Labor Organization in Geneva, the Pan American Union and the information has been available for a long time.

However, since castro, all information about Cuba has gone through him, and it is changed by the regime to try to deceive people like yourself, but it has been known for a long time that in Cuba no independent Human Rights group is allowed to investigate the truth about Cuba. People who try to gather the truth, are harrassed, detained, and worse if people persist in trying to get the truth about Cuba out to people like you.

When people TRY to get the truth out about Cuba, this is what happens to them...


The two Czech women were detained by police as they were taking photographs of a poverty ridden district in Havana. "There was a lot of shouting as we were dragged off - and one of the officers shouted that we were terrorists", Helena Houdova said later. She and her psychologist friend Mariana Kroftova made the trip to Havana to ascertain how children on the island could benefit from their charity work. Mariana Kroftova says she thought the eleven hours they spent in detention would never end:

"They took us to a police station where nobody spoke to us or properly explained what was going on. We were just able to make out that we were accused of engaging in counter-revolutionary activities against the Cuban regime. What was worse they refused to let us call the Czech embassy. So we spent the 11 hours without knowing what our fate would be."

The two women were eventually released at 3am after pledging in writing that they would not engage in any counter-revolutionary activities in Cuba. Both remained under house arrest until leaving the country. The Czech Foreign Ministry has described their treatment as a flagrant violation of international law. Richard Krpac is from the ministry's press department:

"The Ministry of Foreign Affairs considers this act - refusing Czech citizens contact with the embassy - a grave violation of one of the basic and most important human rights for citizens abroad - which is the right to consular access."
...

www.radio.cz...

Socialism DOES NOT WORK, at least not for the people because the state has all the power and the people have NONE...


edit on 22-12-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by lrak2

On the contrary, it is your post that displays ignorance. The State has never existed in isolation from the market - they were always intertwined from the very beginning of the emergence of capitalism from feudalism.

The idea that State can be separated from the "free" market is right-wing libertarian myth. It never was, never can be.


WRONG... a free market can, and has existed without ANY state...

Native American tribes used to trade among themselves, that is an example of a free market, and they didn't have a "state/government" telling them what to do, and puting regulations.

Various ancient clans from Europe, and all over the world used to trade in a FREE MARKET. Of course not all of them did this, but those who did enjoyed a FREE MARKET SYSTEM without any STATE/GOVERNMENT...

The only myth is that you need a state/government, and regulations to have a FREE MARKET...and it is a LEFTWING LIE...



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Yeah, it was Karl Marx in a banker disguise.


wow, so you deny the fact that progressive democrats put in power the Feds, and implemented the IRS as it exists today among many other "progressive" ideas"?...




Originally posted by snowcrash911
In case you missed it, what Americans call liberal, we call rightists. There is nothing "socialist" about Democrats or what Americans call "progressives". Obama is a hardcore, Wall Street worshiping capitalist prostitute.


You can try to change the names, and you can try to clean the name "socialism" but history shows a different perspective to the lies you keep trying to to tell...



Originally posted by snowcrash911
Here we have a prime example of the monstrous disinformation machine gripping American mind, soul and body. This is totally false.

WP: Gift economics

Look up "Native Americans".

As for Barter:


Contrary to popular conception, there is no evidence of a society or economy that relied primarily on barter.[2]


WP: Barter


No, the above is a prime example of rewritting history...

Wikipedia is a known biased source of information in certain topics, such as Climate Change and politics... They have been caught red handed changing facts to spew their ideology and make it look like "it is the best thing in the world...

Try some REAL sources of information about the trading Native Americans, and other tribes around the world participated in, and without any government/state puting regulations or telling them what to do...


WAMPUM ... America's First Currency

Wampum, ke`kwuk, squau-tho-won; all are Algonquian words for shell beads or string of shell beads. Wampumpeage is a Narragansett word for "white beads strung". Throughout northeastern America, wampum was used for jewelry, gifts, communication, historical record of important events, religious ceremonies, and trade. It was the earliest form of currency known in North America. Its value was derived from the difficulty involved in producing the cylindrical bead from both Quahog and Whelk, and the scarcity of suitable shells. White beads were made from Whelk, purple-blackish from Quahog.
...

www.mohicanpress.com...

Nice TRY at rewritting history to fit your delusions...



Originally posted by snowcrash911
No, actually, a Wall Street sponsored, money grubbing capitalist whore is in the White House. What else is new? And, as I said earlier, the administrations of Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Great Britain, The Netherlands, Poland and Portugal are all run by right wingers.

South America is doing much better. So who's in charge there?
edit on 8-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)


Obviously you are extremely delusional. All the countries you mentioned above are extremely LEFTWING. Spain, among others, has been run by socialists for about 8 years, yet you want to claim that this country and others like Italy, France, the Netherlands, Portugal etc are rightwing?...


In Spain the socialists have lost power, but they were in power for 8 years and their failed policies have cost them elections.

The bad economic crisis the world is going through has occurred because of LEFTWINGER policies which are failing to no end...

BTW, making money is no only part of capitalism, in socialism the state also makes money since it has power over all infraestructure.

The mayority of Leftwingers are so ignorant that you beleive the mere act of making money is solely a capitalist enterprise, but this is not so...

You see, even socialists/communists and other forms of economies and governments need to make money to exist... That does not make them capitalists...




edit on 22-12-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 



Do you even know what you are talking about?

The Native Americans had what was called a "Gift Economy" which can be considered a kind of proto-communism. They did not have a Market Economy.

Are you sure you want to continue revealing your utter ignorance regarding political economy?



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by lrak2[/i


Do you even know what you are talking about?

The Native Americans had what was called a "Gift Economy" which can be considered a kind of proto-communism. They did not have a Market Economy.

Are you sure you want to continue revealing your utter ignorance regarding political economy?


And you want to call me ignorant... You have watched too many movies and haven't read one single book about this...

The exchanges occurred only as a ceremony of friendship, (they certainly didn't do it to everybody) and they WEREN'T gifts, they were exchanges. A gift is given without the intention of getting something back.

I even showed that throughout Northeastern America indian tribes used Wampum as coin for trade and was America's first known currency.

Native American tribes TRADED goods for other goods, and even used currency such as the Wampum... Yet despite the fact that I showed evidence that shows my argument is correct you keep claiming it isn't?...

The native Americans did NOT use any sort of "proto-communism"... Since in communism SUPPOSEDLY the people are in power, but native Americans have councils of elders who decide what the tribes should do... They listen to what the most respected members of the tribes have to say, but the elders decide what should be done... This is certainly NOT anywhere close to "communism"...

Not to mention the fact that Native Americans were very fond of their private properties. They did share some things, but their private property was an individual's property only, and he/she could do as he/she pleased with it.

That was certainly NOT any sort of "proto-communism"...


edit on 22-12-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Try again.

Wampum


"Wampum was not Indian money. Even the best dictionaries tell you it was, but this is an error. Native Americans, especially in the Iroquois Confederacy, greatly valued wampum. It was used to call a council, seat council members in the correct order, speak at the council, elect a chief, depose a chief (the chiefs were always men, but women elected and deposed them), for an adoption ceremony, during mourning, as records and deeds, as gifts and as ornament. But not for money."


WAMPUM HISTORY AND BACKGROUND



"European traders and politicians, using beads and trinkets, often exploited gift exchange to gain Native American favor or territory. With the scarcity of metal coins in New England, Wampum quickly evolved into a formal currency after European/Native contact."


It was after contact with the European colonizers that Wampum became a formal currency. The colonizers encouraged this for their own gain.


Communism is a classless, stateless society where the means of production are under common ownership.
Native American culture was a good example of primitive communism, and your misguided support for it would make you a closet communist.


edit on 22-12-2011 by lrak2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by lrak2
 


I don't think communism is a classless and stateless society. Theoretically classes exist but are not officialy recognised under communism and as for a state what the heck was the soviet union and china? A state is composed of the people and their government that is officially recognised.

With communism everything should be publically owned and the government is the final authority, who should be elected by the people. In the soviet union they had dictatorships and could only vote for local officials. I am not aware of any national elections, especially during the early periods.

As for the native american tribes I think they had libertarian ideals.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Encyclopædia Britannica - Communism

No, that's not true - communism is a stateless, classless society with democratic control over the means of production. Early hunter-gatherer societies were what can be called primitive communism.

However, you probably had the Soviet Union or China in mind?
Indeed, they were attempts at developing communism but they did not possess they key characteristics of communist society - they were not stateless or classless, nor was there common ownership over the means of production.

There are authoritarian socialists (Marxist-Leninists, Trotskyists, and Stalinists). However, there are also anti-authoritarian communists and Marxists (left communists or libertarian Marxists).

There are also many anarchists who support common ownership over capitalism (anarchist communism or libertarian socialism).

All communists are not authoritarian and many anarchists do not support capitalism.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by lrak2
 


I respectfully disagree. A stateless and classless society is anarchy and libertarianism comes close to that. I don't care what the official definition(s) may be, because when something does not make sense to me I simply disregard it and call it disinformation.

The soviet union was a communist state and germany during ww2 was a socialist state. THAT is why they hated each other. Not only that, but they were nationalists at the same time and nationalists tend to be racists and war mongers.

In a communist state everything is publicly owned and managed by the government either in republican or democratic form. Most republics are dictatorships or end up as dictatorships, while democracies prosper because they relly on direct representation while republics relly on indirect representation. I think that is where lots of people get confused, between republican and democratic government ideologies.

With socialism it is a mixture of public and private ownership and the government will run the nation accordingly. State welfare is part of socialism but is far from being the only attribute of a socialist nation. And again the government depends on republic or democracy ideals.

Tribalism closely resembles libertarianism and is one step from anarchy. It is truely right wing in that it encourages private property and individualism. As I stated in another post, in another thread, anarchism and communism are polar opposites and thus insolvent!

One must be very careful when dealing with mainstream media as they have a tendency to lie with half-truths or outright lies. Just look at ATS which is supposedly an alternative site and the lengths that some will go to misinform others. The government is the nwo and all work for a global capitalist enviroment that encourages center-right politics. Law and order are a mere illusion for the weak and poor, while all the loopholes favor the rich and connected. Sometimes they will even use hooded anarchists(with cop provacateurs as leaders) to break up left wing rallies, cause death and destruction, and then blame the left as convienent scapegoats!




Half the cia, nato and nsa should be in prison!



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


And I respectfully disagree with your response.
Everything I have said can be easily verified and found to be valid. If you truly seek the truth then you cannot disregard information simply because it does not make sense.

Regarding Communism, what I said still stands; it is a classless, stateless society. Yes, this is very similar in many ways to Anarchy. The “State” does not exist in communist society. Marx himself used the words “socialism” and “communism” interchangeably. This information is not difficult to verify.

Hitler added the words “National Socialist” to the Party’s name in order to gain support from the working class. However, to say that Nazi’s were socialists would be a grave mistake. Within 3 years of Hitler gaining power, he banned the Socialist Party (SPD) and Communist Party (KPD) of Germany. Does that sound like something a socialist would do?

More information: Hitler & Socialism

The Nazis abolished trade unions, collective bargaining and the right to strike. An organization called the "Labor Front" replaced the old trade unions, but it was an instrument of the Nazi party and did not represent workers.



With socialism it is a mixture of public and private ownership and the government will run the nation accordingly. State welfare is part of socialism but is far from being the only attribute of a socialist nation.


Socialism, despite the way the term is used in the U.S., refers to an economic system characterised by democratic ownership over the means of production. What you refer to is known today as Social Democracy. It is not Socialism.


Tribalism closely resembles libertarianism and is one step from anarchy. It is truely right wing in that it encourages private property and individualism. As I stated in another post, in another thread, anarchism and communism are polar opposites and thus insolvent!


Depends on which form of Anarchism you are referring to. As I said, there are free market anarchists (those who reject the State but support private property and capitalism) and anarchists who are against both private property and capitalism (i.e. Anarcho-syndicalism and libertarian socialism).

As I said before, there are Authoritarian Socialists (those who want to use the State to build socialism) as well as Libertarian Socialists (an anarchist tendency which rejects the State).

Also, take a look at the Paris Commune of 1871 or Anarchist Catalonia for examples of direct democracy and workers self-management.

I have to agree with you regarding ATS, this is a libertarian/conservative infested site. It is always nice to see someone from the Left.

edit on 23-12-2011 by lrak2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by lrak2
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


And I respectfully disagree with your response.
Everything I have said can be easily verified and found to be valid. If you truly seek the truth then you cannot disregard information simply because it does not make sense.


Why not? The truth is what makes sense, not what any given authority says about it.


Regarding Communism, what I said still stands; it is a classless, stateless society. Yes, this is very similar in many ways to Anarchy. The “State” does not exist in communist society.


So what exactly is the state then? Why must "the state" always be evil?

As for karl marx he was A COMMUNIST! Marxism is a form of COMMUNISM, just like trotskism and leninism.

Socialism has nothing to do with communism. Karl Marx(a communist) said socialism was the stepping stone to communism, which was the end goal FOR THEM! Joseph Stalin used lenin's version of communism to a create a soviet REPUBLIC dictatorship. USSR(Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) but it was communist and nationalist oriented. That is why stalin invaded all of eastern europe, all of northern asia and most of central asia. These are historical facts and anyone who digs a little can easily find this information.



Marx himself used the words “socialism” and “communism” interchangeably. This information is not difficult to verify.


But under WHAT CONTEXT? Just because he speaks of socialism does not make him a socialist. His actions were communist oriented.


Hitler added the words “National Socialist” to the Party’s name in order to gain support from the working class. However, to say that Nazi’s were socialists would be a grave mistake. Within 3 years of Hitler gaining power, he banned the Socialist Party (SPD) and Communist Party (KPD) of Germany. Does that sound like something a socialist would do?


Because he was a NATIONAL socialist rather than a socialist. One implies nationalism and other does not. You can still be a socialist AND a nationalist AT THE SAME TIME! They are not mutually exclusive!!!!!



Socialism, despite the way the term is used in the U.S., refers to an economic system characterised by democratic ownership over the means of production. What you refer to is known today as Social Democracy. It is not Socialism.


Who cares what the usa or russia uses???? Socialism is socialism is socialism. Capitalism is capitalism is capitalism. Communims is communism is communism!!

You can have a socialist democracy ruled by THE PEOPLE or you can have a socialist REPUBLIC ruled by intermediates. A republic and a democracy are NOT the same thing!!!!! People have a direct voice in a democracy while in a republic they DO NOT!

Why do you think republics like the USSR, central and south america, etc turn into dictatorships? Republic equals evil. Democracy equals good.



Tribalism closely resembles libertarianism and is one step from anarchy. It is truely right wing in that it encourages private property and individualism. As I stated in another post, in another thread, anarchism and communism are polar opposites and thus insolvent!


Depends on which form of Anarchism you are referring to. As I said, there are free market anarchists (those who reject the State but support private property and capitalism) and anarchists who are against both private property and capitalism (i.e. Anarcho-syndicalism and libertarian socialism).


But if you reject "the state" how can we have socialism? Someone/something needs to have authority to create regulations to allow for fair use of public property. A stateless society can only exist(outside hollywood fiction) if everyone is independent/sovereign with his/her private property. Think of chaos and everyone does as they please......THAT is what anarchy is!


As I said before, there are Authoritarian Socialists (those who want to use the State to build socialism) as well as Libertarian Socialists (an anarchist tendency which rejects the State).

Also, take a look at the Paris Commune of 1871 or Anarchist Catalonia for examples of direct democracy and workers self-management.


Yet communes have local government to oversee their community. Theoretically it is a semi-autonomous state! Think of vatican....it does not belong to italy.


I have to agree with you regarding ATS, this is a libertarian/conservative infested site. It is always nice to see someone from the Left.

edit on 23-12-2011 by lrak2 because: (no reason given)


We have all been brainwashed extensively and it is difficult to be certain who is intentionally spewing misinformation and who is accidentally spewing misinformation. Those who do it intentionally get paid to do so!
edit on 12/24/2011 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 





Why not? The truth is what makes sense, not what any given authority says about it.


I agree that something is not true simply because an Authority deemed it so. But I never talked about any authority. I meant that the truth often may seem unbelievable and not make sense. However, the fact that you do not understand it at first does not make it any less true.




So what exactly is the state then? Why must "the state" always be evil? As for karl marx he was A COMMUNIST! Marxism is a form of COMMUNISM, just like trotskism and leninism.


Radical leftists often dislike liberal (bourgeois) democracy because it exists mainly as a tool to serve the interests of the ruling class – something that is easily visible today.

To be specific, Leninism and Trotskyism are varieties of Marxism. Lenin believed in international revolution – that socialism would only be truly possible on a global scale and that the Bolshevik Revolution was the beginning.
It was Stalin that came up with the concept of “Socialism in One Country” which he later adopted as official State policy.




But under WHAT CONTEXT? Just because he speaks of socialism does not make him a socialist. His actions were communist oriented.


What? Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were revolutionary socialists! You can verify this.

I could call myself a socialist, a communist and an anarchist at the same time without it being a contradiction.

There are so many different types of socialists – reformists and revolutionaries, authoritarian and anti-statist.
There are many anarchists (such as libertarian socialists) who would call themselves revolutionary socialists.




Who cares what the usa or russia uses???? Socialism is socialism is socialism. Capitalism is capitalism is capitalism. Communims is communism is communism!!


You also keep treating socialism and communism as two completely different things when they are not. Socialism generally is used to describe an economic system where the means of production are under common ownership.
Communism is a social, economic and political ideology that aims to create a stateless, classless socialist society.
Marx mentions “lower” and “higher” phases of communist society, but he did not refer to the lower phase as socialism – still, many today do so.




Because he was a NATIONAL socialist rather than a socialist. One implies nationalism and other does not. You can still be a socialist AND a nationalist AT THE SAME TIME! They are not mutually exclusive!!!!!


Sure, many of the "socialist" regimes of the 20th century were nationalist. Nevertheless, you are talking about National Socialism which was a unique form of fascism. The Nazi’s were socialist only in name. They destroyed trade unions, took away workers’ rights and followed a mixed policy of privatised and state capitalism.




But if you reject "the state" how can we have socialism? Someone/something needs to have authority to create regulations to allow for fair use of public property. A stateless society can only exist(outside hollywood fiction) if everyone is independent/sovereign with his/her private property. Think of chaos and everyone does as they please......THAT is what anarchy is!


You seem to be equating socialism with a welfare state with strong redistributionist policies, communism with a centrally planned economy and anarchy with chaos. As I have tried to explain before, this is not true.


Anarchism is primarily a critique of illegitimate forms of authority such as the State.
I am more familiar with left-wing Anarchism which supports non-coercive forms of social organisation other than the government such as direct democracy through citizens' assemblies and workers' councils. What you describe is just chaos; do you actually believe all anarchists want this? If so, you are wrong.

To imply that all Anarchism is right-wing is simply not true. There are so many variations within socialism and anarchism. They also have many common features and similarities and instead of recognising that, you are attempting to fit them into neat little boxes.



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


We are not Cuba as we are The United States Of America. You left Cuba and as a Cubano you emigrated stateside to get out of the dictatorship yet have the audacity to sit here and say Obama's another Castro?

You came to this country seeking a better life but make no mistake the fact you can come to a website like this in The United States to get away from the crap there and can post to this site to talk yap on the very nation that took you in and accepted you as one of us with open arms without having your door get knocked in means that Freedom of Speech still applies and is in still force here tells me there is no threat.

How did you come to The US? Legally through official channels or on the back of a boat?

Someone who is from another country being all for the group who sees you as the enemy is so misconscrewed means the problem lies with you as The GOP only likes you if you'll work 70 hours a week for $250 a week. They see you as an expendable commodity to be used and exploited and to be tossed under the bus when you can no longer suit them.Remember Arizona's "Papers Please" law, SB 1070? That's targeting you!

Please do trust that I am not attacking you nor would wish to see you attacked and will vehemently stand up to elements who want to crush your right to speak and exist!
edit on 25-12-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by lrak2

Radical leftists often dislike liberal (bourgeois) democracy because it exists mainly as a tool to serve the interests of the ruling class – something that is easily visible today.


It is impossible to have a democracy under bourgeios influence because the bourgeios is a tiny minority compared to the proletariat. A democracy implies "mob rule" aka direct representation.

What you are talking about is republicanism, where intermediate bodies(usually the bourgeois) attempts to rule on behalf of the proletariat.

Also a liberal is right compared to a progressive. I mean right on the political scale, not right as correct!

To be right means you are more for individualism and less for collectivism. Less regulations and a small government. To be left is the opposite!


To be specific, Leninism and Trotskyism are varieties of Marxism. Lenin believed in international revolution – that socialism would only be truly possible on a global scale and that the Bolshevik Revolution was the beginning.


No they are not varieties of marxism. They are ALL varieties of communism! Again marxism is A FORM of communism.


It was Stalin that came up with the concept of “Socialism in One Country” which he later adopted as official State policy.


Stalin adopted vladmir lenin's version of communism with a nationalistic twist. He went on to conquer eastern europe, northern asia and much of central asia. Take a look at any map of that era, pre-collapse of the berlin wall.



What? Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were revolutionary socialists! You can verify this.


Communists have a tendency to call themselves socialists and it is patently misleading.



I could call myself a socialist, a communist and an anarchist at the same time without it being a contradiction.


Each is a contradiction of the other. You only need to think this through to see how wrong it is.


There are so many different types of socialists – reformists and revolutionaries, authoritarian and anti-statist.
There are many anarchists (such as libertarian socialists) who would call themselves revolutionary socialists.


All false claims too. I have studied political science extensively and can add 2 and 2 together to get a sum of 4. Others relly on wikipedia or some other brainwashing authority, since an ounce of truth is more rare than an ounce of gold!



You also keep treating socialism and communism as two completely different things when they are not. Socialism generally is used to describe an economic system where the means of production are under common ownership.


Yes they are different. There is no higher or lower socialism. There is only socialism and communism.

Socialism implies a mixed private-public owned/operated economy with wealth redistribution via high taxation.

Communism implies a public economy via the state. Everything belongs to the people with state management!


Communism is a social, economic and political ideology that aims to create a stateless, classless socialist society.


That is anarchy. Everything else rellies on "a state" to run the nation.



Sure, many of the "socialist" regimes of the 20th century were nationalist. Nevertheless, you are talking about National Socialism which was a unique form of fascism. The Nazi’s were socialist only in name. They destroyed trade unions, took away workers’ rights and followed a mixed policy of privatised and state capitalism.


Fascism is a form of national socialism and it belonged to italy. Nazism is a form of national socialism and it belonged to germany. Hence they were friends!

They probably looked down upon the unions because unions were always more communist oriented than socialist. Hitler himself stated he hated jews, communists and gypsies in Mein Kampf.



You seem to be equating socialism with a welfare state with strong redistributionist policies, communism with a centrally planned economy and anarchy with chaos. As I have tried to explain before, this is not true.


It is exactly true. Conservatives and liberals are both capitalist. A progressive is a socialist. A revolutionary is a communist. A libertarian is a borderline anarcho-capitalist meaning tiny government. An anarchist wants no state.

communism--socialism--capitalism--libertarianism/monarchism--anarchism

edit on 12/26/2011 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 





It is impossible to have a democracy under bourgeios influence because the bourgeios is a tiny minority compared to the proletariat. A democracy implies "mob rule" aka direct representation.


Liberal democracy is a common form of representative democracy where certain people are elected to represent a group.




To be right means you are more for individualism and less for collectivism. Less regulations and a small government. To be left is the opposite!


Using the Left/Right paradigm is certainly useful for simplification; however, you oversimplify and distort the real meaning. There are other dimensions to consider other than big/small government.

If I were an anarcho-communist, I would be against capitalism, instead favouring common ownership of the means of production and direct democracy.
I would also be highly supportive of individualism and society as a whole, believing that anarchist communism is the best way to reconcile the opposition between individual and society.

According to you, that would make me right-wing? Unbelievable…




No they are not varieties of marxism. They are ALL varieties of communism! Again marxism is A FORM of communism.


What are you talking about?
Marxism is a wide and complex socio-political and economic worldview that is primarily a theory of history (Historical materialism) and a critique of capitalism.
Leninism and Trotskyism were derived and built upon Marxism. Without Marxist theory there would be no Leninism and Trotskyism.




Communists have a tendency to call themselves socialists and it is patently misleading.


Are you saying that Marx and Engels were not socialists?
Any number of sources will tell you that they were revolutionary socialists. I see no point in spending more time arguing with you about this since you have this fixed idea that socialism only means a strong welfare state.




Each is a contradiction of the other. You only need to think this through to see how wrong it is.


No it is not.
If I were a Libertarian Socialist or an Anarcho-Communist, I would oppose capitalism and instead support the common ownership of the means of production (socialism), I would reject the State and advocate a stateless, classless society (communism) and I would oppose all forms of coercive social relations and illegitimate authority (anarchism).




All false claims too. I have studied political science extensively and can add 2 and 2 together to get a sum of 4. Others relly on wikipedia or some other brainwashing authority, since an ounce of truth is more rare than an ounce of gold!


So anything you do not understand or disagree with, you just deny?
I have given you the names of various political ideologies that you could have used to verify that I was telling the truth. You did not even bother to check the information I gave you.
Apparently, for you, the truth is whatever you say it is.




Yes they are different. There is no higher or lower socialism. There is only socialism and communism. Socialism implies a mixed private-public owned/operated economy with wealth redistribution via high taxation. Communism implies a public economy via the state. Everything belongs to the people with state management!


If you had actually read Marx, you would have known that he mentions higher and lower phases of communism. I have addressed this many times already and will not do so again.




That is anarchy. Everything else rellies on "a state" to run the nation.


As shocking as it may seem to you, communism is akin to anarchy. The concepts of "state" and “nation” would not exist in either.




communism--socialism--capitalism--libertarianism/monarchism--anarchism


Socialism and Capitalism are economic systems. The others are political ideologies. The fact that you mixed them up reveals your lack of knowledge. You actually put libertarians and monarchists together – hilarious.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

By your own admission, you disregard anything that does not make sense as false. You are no seeker of truth. The least you could have done was bothered to check the details and examples I gave you regarding the various political concepts and ideologies.

I have lost my patience as I have spent entirely too much time reiterating simple political concepts that could have been easily verified if you had spared even a little time and effort to do so. I see no point in this going on any further. Goodbye.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by lrak2
 


I am going by the theory of big versus small government. A small government encourages elitism which is a form of individualism. A big government encourages collectivism. A monarchy is a nation with a tiny government. Libertarianism encourages tiny government as well promoting individual god given rights.

Yes I like to simplify things whenever possible according to observations, common sense and intuition. If you like to complicate things then by all means do so. I find it hard to seperate political systems from economic systems, from social systems and from voting systems. In fact it gets pointless and silly.

For example everyone except the soviets agrees that russia, cuba and china were communists because everything was publicly owned and run by the state. No one(except themselves) say they were socialists.

Everyone says western europeans were socialists because they had a mixed-economy and a strong welfare system supported by high taxation. They were progressives and they do not deny this. Perhaps canada as well.

By your definition western europeans and the soviets, chineese, cubans all shared the same system--"socialism" or higher and lower socialism....whatever the heck that is supposed to mean. Pure nonsense. Open your eyes and study the world.

Marxism, leninism, trotyskism are communist oriented systems.

And anarchy means NO STATE and that is why THERE ARE NO EXAMPLES OF THIS IN HISTORY!

Arguing with someone as brainwashed as you is totally pointless. Maybe you should read less and think more for a change. People who are too book smart are usually not enough street smart!



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


The fundamental problem with smaller Govt that no one's paying any attention to is that when Govt itself is limited and restricted that means a large corporation like Walmart of Goldman Sachs would have more influence and control over the populous then Govt itself. Big Govt is needed in order to prevent a Microsoft from controlling what we do and that invites a Corporatocracy to emerge as whereas if you think that for one red second that corporations have too much influence and control over us now this would be just the tip of the iceberg if we limit Govt!
edit on 27-12-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


I agree 100%. I am for big government but it still has gotten infiltrated just the same. After 250 years of american independence from britain everyone took for granted that the american government represented the people and let it write blank(but signed) checks to corporations and wealthy people.

When people do not guard democracy it becomes a republic of corruption.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


It happens each and everytime Govt is limited, look at what's going on in Indonesia with Big Tobacco. Big Tobacco is taking over pretty well unchallenged. I do not want that occurring here!

More of the same simply is not an option.

The People happen to be The 4th Branch Of Government and is up to us to continue the pressure upon the Executive and Legislative in order to retain control.
edit on 27-12-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


The Indonesia pitch again? What are you, a parrot?
The US is not Indonesia.
Nice epic fail.







 
132
<< 31  32  33    35  36 >>

log in

join