Republicans continue on their quest to destroy everything the U.S. stands for.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Yeah, Friedman was as high up in the ole ivory tower as Marx, and the rest of the foolish dreamers.

Here are the statements that ought to clue you in.

It was the magic of the price system

Puppy dog tails and butterfly kisses magic.

They are free to say what they want, to write what they want, to do pretty much as they please.

Yeah, sure they are

Cause they live in paradise.

Except for the majority of people who are extremely poor and forced to work extremely long hours to live in hubbles on very poor diets.

It will only be an extremely tiny bunch of your free market drones who might get to live the good life.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Tell me why you want to live under an aristocracy?

I asked first.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Tell me why you want to live under an aristocracy?

I asked first.

I never said such a thing. That shows me you don't know what you are talking about. Anyway, my great grandfather was from a Noble family, which is above the aristrocats.
I am for free enterprise. You are for big govt. How much simpler do we need to get? And you are showing signs of class warfare, which is sooo Marxist. By the way, even Marx had a maid, even though he wasn't particularly wealthy.


Interesting tidbits about Karl Marx

Marx, who never supported himself, loved money and spent it immediately when he acquired it. His wife Jenny—a patient, loving woman whose life was filled with tragedy—came from a rich family. "He was ridiculously proud of having married a bit of posh," Wheen informs us. (183) When various relatives of Jenny's died, the Marxes inherited money. Marx looked forward to the death of his wife's relatives: "Yesterday we were informed of a VERY HAPPY event, the death of my wife's uncle, aged ninety," he wrote. According to Wheen, "For the previous few years this indestructable uncle had been referred to in the Marx household as 'the inheritance-thwarter.'"
Jenny's mother sent the Marxes a maidservant, Helene Demuth, "on permanent loan." (91) It is not clear from Wheen's book how—or if—Ms. Demuth was paid by the Marxes, who were usually broke. She lived with the Marxes until Jenny and Karl had both died, after which she spent the rest of her life with Friedrich Engels. (385) Her son, Freddy Demuth, was probably Marx's illegitimate child. The child was given to foster parents. (171-76) Perhaps one day DNA testing will shed more light on the question of Freddy Demuth's paternity. For all intents and purposes, Helene Demuth was property—owned by Karl and Jenny Marx.


(219)

www.jochnowitz.net...

Originally posted by lrak2
reply to post by BO XIAN

 

I love it when conservatives quote Orwell. George Orwell was a socialist who fought on the side of the Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War.

I don't recall ever saying that I believed that socialists could never understand ANY true thing whatsoever.

Regardless of his absurd socialism . . . he did understand something about tyranny.

Evidently the Dem lovers hereon do not.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

I never said such a thing. That shows me you don't know what you are talking about. Anyway, my great grandfather was from a Noble family, which is above the aristrocats.

You really should stop repeating yourself.

Not going to get dragged into this left right paradigm, if you seriously think that the Democrats are better then the Republicans or vise versa then I have some farmland to sell you on Atlantis.

The only one who I have ANY hope for is Ron Paul, but even IF he does become president, he is still surrounded by hundreds of people who have been corrupted.

reply to post by poet1b


Evidently your understanding of my posts is about on a par with your awareness and understanding of history.

1. BOTH Dems and GOP are merely good-cop/bad-cop stooges of the satanic globalist oligarchy.

2. The Dems have historically played the role of pushing hardest, most overtly and further on socialist/Marxist changes to our government, culture, society, laws etc.

3. Obama is a deeply intense Marxist as abundant evidence has proven from before his SElection. Denial of such is absurd. Even his teen buddy/mentor/pedophile was a Marxist. His grandparents were Marxist. He was chosen for his current Marxist role early on and groomed accordingly.

4. Obama send $900,000 to his cousin in Kenya who ended up still losing the election there--to elbow his way into power, nevertheless. His hands have the blood of 100's of Christians and the burning of dozens of churches on his evil Marxist hands.

5. Obama is definitely for tyrannical globalist Marxist super large government obliterating small businesses and the little people . . . along with forcing the world's population down to 200 million.

6. Obama is definitely for attaching more and more classes of people to the government tit for greater control over their lives. That's the entire priority goal of Obamacare. A 2nd one is helping reduce the population with the death panels.

7. That anyone could imagine that Obama stood for anything else is mind boggling. The proof is super abundant about his Marxism and his goals and the goals of his puppet masters.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

I never said such a thing. That shows me you don't know what you are talking about. Anyway, my great grandfather was from a Noble family, which is above the aristrocats.

You really should stop repeating yourself.

There is a huge difference between coming from Nobility and living in an aristrocracy. My great grandfather came over thru Ellis Island in the 1800's. My grandfather did the electic wiring for the St. Louis Opera House and the old Courthouse with his own company he built up.
I am totally for small business and free enterprise.
My ancestor on my Dad's side fought in the Revolutionary War at age 14.

Any more useless arguments you'd like to make?

Originally posted by BO XIAN

Originally posted by lrak2
reply to post by BO XIAN

 

I love it when conservatives quote Orwell. George Orwell was a socialist who fought on the side of the Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War.

I don't recall ever saying that I believed that socialists could never understand ANY true thing whatsoever.

Regardless of his absurd socialism . . . he did understand something about tyranny.

Evidently the Dem lovers hereon do not.

Socialism does not mean big government or tyranny, it is simply the working class controlling the means of production in order to produce for social need, not profit. The State does not exist.

You display your ignorance in this post.
Apparently, you consider the Democrats to be some kind of far left party? Hilarious.

Wow, this topic is just waiting to get twisted into a theater of the absurd and goofdom. A bunch of left-right ideological crap getting thrown back and forth. People don't seem to believe that there is a healthy medium between the two. I believe capitalism works and minimal government interaction is substantial. The government is here to protect us, not rule over our every move. People are to comfortable with government hand-outs, anyone can grab their SSI, unemployment, or welfare checks free for the taking. I have seen this first hand being an asset manager for public housing properties. I used to talk so much crap about unions all of the time, until I saw a certain movie that changed my perception of everything. For those of you who look down on them I suggest you check out the movie "Matewan."

www.imdb.com...

Really great example. I deal with contractors constantly who are a part of unions, some are content and appreciate that their work is not abused. Unions help find them jobs and prevent them from being jobless. Here is something weird though, one of the union bosses was stealing some of our maintenance equipment - he was caught and put in the newspaper for it. Did he lose his job? Nope. These guys have some serious pull and will take advantage of it!

At the end of the day, the government should only jump in when things get out of hand. If your wage is to low, quit. If you're being harassed at work, quit. I guarantee there is a job out there for you. The Federal Government is already big enough, and it all comes down to the economy. If draining the Federal Government of its powers could save our economy then I am all for it. By the time I get my paychecks so much is sucked out of them it feels like i'm getting duped, no wonder people try and cheat the system.

I thought those here on ATS could deny (ignorance, lol) the false line between lefts and rights - they are all the same when they get into office. When I was under 18 the one thing I couldn't wait to do when I got older was vote - I have a great love for politics. It's sad though, with our current nominees. If Ron Paul doesn't get on the ballot, then i'm not headed out to vote - as simple as that.

Whoever was talking about Red states versus Blue states. Come on, that is such a generalized, vague, and ridiculous argument. There is opportunity here in every state for everyone - they all have poverty and they all have riches. Just an after-thought.

I'm not sure if I had an actual point or I was just ranting. Either way, that's all I have to say here.

Originally posted by lrak2

Originally posted by BO XIAN

Originally posted by lrak2
reply to post by BO XIAN

 

I love it when conservatives quote Orwell. George Orwell was a socialist who fought on the side of the Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War.

I don't recall ever saying that I believed that socialists could never understand ANY true thing whatsoever.

Regardless of his absurd socialism . . . he did understand something about tyranny.

Evidently the Dem lovers hereon do not.

Socialism does not mean big government or tyranny, it is simply the working class controlling the means of production in order to produce for social need, not profit. The State does not exist.

You display your ignorance in this post.
Apparently, you consider the Democrats to be some kind of far left party? Hilarious.

edit on 11-12-2011 by lrak2 because: formatting

Socialism is Statism which equates to govt power. Karl Marx said the State would eventually wither away. I'm sure it did not wither away in the old Soviet Union, however it did FAIL in an epic way.

Marx continued:
"Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."

The expression "the state withers away" is very well-chosen, for it indicates both the gradual and the spontaneous nature of the process. Only habit can, and undoubtedly will, have such an effect; for we see around us on millions of occassions how readily people become accustomed to observing the necessary rules of social intercourse when there is no exploitation, when there is nothing that arouses indignation, evokes protest and revolt, and creates the need for suppression.
And so in capitalist society we have a democracy that is curtailed, wretched, false, a democracy only for the rich, for the minority. The dictatorship of the proletariat, the period of transition to communism, will for the first time create democracy for the people, for the majority, along with the necessary suppression of the exploiters, of the minority. Communism alone is capable of providing really complete democracy, and the more complete it is, the sooner it will become unnecessary and wither away of its own accord.

Soooo Marxism is a "dictatorship of the proletariat" in which the "State" (assuming they mean the State is bourgeois Capitalism) withers away, leaving the proletariat in charge and equal. blah blah blah blah Utopian garbage.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Yeah, Friedman was as high up in the ole ivory tower as Marx, and the rest of the foolish dreamers.

Marx was an activist and revolutionary, who lived in near poverty for part of his life. He was not an academic "high up" in his Ivory Tower. He is also the only person to have offered a systematic critique of capitalism thus far.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Sorry, Socialism ≠ Statism. It is true that there are some socialists who are statist such as Leninsts, Trotskyists, and Stalinists.


From Dictionary.com:

Socialism - a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Statism - the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty.


I don't know what the Soviet Union (which was centrally planned and State Capitalist) has to do with anything, but its fine, you keep believing what you want to believe regardless of reality.

Originally posted by Dilligaf28
reply to post by mastahunta

 

That is outright falsity! The business owner does not own the person or the person's times. The employee agrees of his own free will to work for a business. That business and that employee negotiate a pay relevant to the work level being performed as well as the hours work is to occur.

The business owner does not own, the business owner has total advantage in the equation.
The business owner can dictate pages upon pages of specific actions, from time to dress...
but of al the things you ignore in your logic , you ignore that the business owner has much more
leverage than you care to expose, for many people living pay check to pay check there is
little option available, especially in a small town (where one man might own the majority of
employment) on in a bad economy... Do you think people brave the early petrol plants and
sure death awaiting them for fun? How about the meat packing plants in Nor Cal or Chicago?
Or how about the black listing that was cast upon people who tried to negotiate better
standards...

People work out of necessity... In short the business owner can dictate many, many things...
Workers need some standard rights...

If the employee does not agree with the contract between himself and the employer his is free at any time to refuse the position. If the employee feels that he can be better compensated elsewhere he/she is free to do so.

If there are positions, if the employer is not allowed to instate retaliatory practices which were used
for centuries to keep workers in line. Read your history in regards to the industrial revolution,
if you can kill all avenues to institute change and cooperate with other businesses you can
control entire populations. Where do you think unions and workers rights movements came from?
Disneyland?

I do not own the business that I manage. I work for someone else. I enjoy my working environment, my coworkers, my employees, and a sense of pride about where I work. If I didn't enjoy this I wouldn't sit around complaining and expecting the company to change the way it does business; I would seek employment elsewhere. To force them to change to suit my whim would be fascism, to leave for better employment is freedom. A freedom we American's enjoy despite so many in the world that do not.

Good, I enjoy my business too, but I can admit that the entire business culture has been impacted
and shaped by modern practices.

So... Name a country that you would like the US to model itself after? Which one of those
regulation free places inspire the business world and your imagination?

Originally posted by lrak2
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Sorry, Socialism ≠ Statism. It is true that there are some socialists who are statist such as Leninsts, Trotskyists, and Stalinists.


From Dictionary.com:

Socialism - a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Statism - the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty.


I don't know what the Soviet Union (which was centrally planned and State Capitalist) has to do with anything, but its fine, you keep believing what you want to believe regardless of reality.

Show me ANY socialist society at all in practice in which the State has withered away?

Take Hitler's National Socialism? Or Mussolini's Totaltiarianism. Did the State wither away? How can it make sense for the State to wither away and yet for the same people who advocate socialism/communism to admit that there must needs be a dictatorship? The State doers not wither away and there is no socialist or communist regime in which it has withered away leaving a happy little community of self-fulfilled people. IN practice, the proletariat will always be under the thumb of the dictatorship and every aspect of their lives ruled by the State and by the Collective.

The Hegelian Left had a significant role in shaping world history and modern philosophies. Marx believed, as did Hegel, that a constitutional monarchy was the supreme form of government. This belief evolved into the idea of a one-party government of the proletariat

The philosophy of Marx is known as Dialectical Materialism, or Diamat. Marx claimed that because his theories were based upon the phenomenal world, as described by Hegel, his idea of Communistic Socialism was a scientific model. While scholars would now argue that there is little science behind Marxism, during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries this claim gave Marx near-instant credibility with many intellectuals. Given the popularity of Darwin and Evolutionary Naturalism, Marx knew he had to present Communistic Socialism as part of a natural cycle in human societal development.

Diamat begins with the Hegelian Dialetic. Marx believed that two socio-economic groups were thesis and antithesis: the bourgeoisie (those who control property or goods) and the proletariat (the workers serving the more powerful). The constant conflict between the interests of these two classes defines how a society is constructed. Marx explained that Capitalism is not the only society model with two classes -- almost every societal form has two classes, even Communistic Socialism in which there are still men in charge of the distribution of goods.

Marx theorized that under Capitalism, the means of production would result in the most violent of revolutions, resulting in the ideal classless, Communist State. Marx defined the Communist State as a nation with "common ownership of the means of production" -- public ownership of farms, factories, raw materials, et cetera. Again, Marx forgot that some select group would still retain the knowledge necessary for production and those individuals, the State Planners, would become a new bourgeoisie.

www.tameri.com...


So, maybe a few people in govt today imagine themselves as the new bourgeois State Planners in control.

reply to post by macman


The return to the gold standard is imminent, hence this sudden need for gold and tons of it!

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


There cannot be a socialist country. Socialism is internationalist in scope.
Please read up on why Hitler added the words 'National Socialist' to his party's name.

Take a look at the Paris Commune of 1871 or Anarchist Catalonia. Those were examples of workers self-management, where the means of productions were democratically owned. Both were brutally crushed.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Only correct and true if you are using their systems, servers and networks as the owners of each has the right to trace who goes where but if using a private device whereas the unit and connection to the web is in your name and you don't piggyback on their feed then no they cannot dictate what sites you visit as that is none of their business as it only is a concern for them if you use your work computer and network to connect to the web then yes they can dictate both how it's used and where you go hence why don't use your employers equipment to surf the web because every keystroke is recorded somewhere. Along the same lines how if you had a kid who surfs the web you as a parent has every right to track where they go and who they associate with while online!

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Whose liberty are you more concerned with? Yours or your employers? Concern yourself only with threats to your personal liberty and not the perceived liberty of some corporation.

Originally posted by BO XIAN
reply to post by poet1b

 

Evidently your understanding of my posts is about on a par with your awareness and understanding of history.

1. BOTH Dems and GOP are merely good-cop/bad-cop stooges of the satanic globalist oligarchy.

2. The Dems have historically played the role of pushing hardest, most overtly and further on socialist/Marxist changes to our government, culture, society, laws etc.

3. Obama is a deeply intense Marxist as abundant evidence has proven from before his SElection. Denial of such is absurd. Even his teen buddy/mentor/pedophile was a Marxist. His grandparents were Marxist. He was chosen for his current Marxist role early on and groomed accordingly.

Wait... so where is the Marxist revolution? His term is almost up, where is it chief?

4. Obama send $900,000 to his cousin in Kenya who ended up still losing the election there--to elbow his way into power, nevertheless. His hands have the blood of 100's of Christians and the burning of dozens of churches on his evil Marxist hands.

OK Glenn Beck... I need a link...

5. Obama is definitely for tyrannical globalist Marxist super large government obliterating small businesses and the little people . . . along with forcing the world's population down to 200 million.

Right, thats why Obama has upped funding and eased regulations for the SBA
(SMALL BUSINESS ASSOCIATION) Do you make this stuff up?

6. Obama is definitely for attaching more and more classes of people to the government tit for greater control over their lives. That's the entire priority goal of Obamacare. A 2nd one is helping reduce the population with the death panels.

Exactly! That is why private companies are starting to hire more and more people! Yes and trying to
give access to healthcare for tens of millions of Americans is not because they are lacking healthcare
and suffer due to it... I forgot, you are a conservative, people are supposed to suffer or prey their
ailments away.

7. That anyone could imagine that Obama stood for anything else is mind boggling. The proof is super abundant about his Marxism and his goals and the goals of his puppet masters.

Where's the marxist revolution, Albert? America has been hearing about the same revolution for
70 years now, where is it???