The "Occupy are Socialists," Megathread

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   
I figured that this will probably end up growing fairly large, so hence the name. I want to discuss whether or not people think OWS definitely are primarily Socialist, whether or not that is necessarily a good or bad thing, and what it means in general.

From everything I've seen, Occupy being a front for extreme socialist groups is more or less a given in my own mind, at this point. I've often seen a group called the Socialist Alliance being advertised or named in conjunction with Occupy, and whenever I do, I'm not sure why, but I find myself shuddering. I think it's also because, as well as the globalist focus, there's an impression of this vast collective (similar to the Borg, in that sense) that wants to conscript everyone, and automatically assumes that everybody who is conscripted, agrees with said group's ideology...whether you actually do or not.

I don't tend to like socialism much myself, as far as the material I've read about it online is concerned; said material includes the Anarchist FAQ from infoshop.org, among other things. That document consists mostly of quotes from people like Marx, Bakunin, and essentially a group of Russians who've been dead for close to one and a half centuries at this point.

For starters, I am never going to support anything that is primarily global or international in focus. Part of the reason why, is because I know that that is exactly what the New World Order people want, but it's also because I've read very consistently, that the material prosperity and social success of any given place, (whether it is a state, city, or whatever) is inversely proportional to its' size. In other words, the smaller a country, city, or group is, the better off it usually tends to be.

Socialists seem to claim that they are primarily interested in developing societies where people are community minded, altruistic, and treat each other well. That of course sounds great in theory; the only problem is, that I've never heard of a single large scale society, that didn't end up with psychopaths at the head of it, and an element of socialist ideology also seems to be that massively large scale populations, are the only way of viably doing things. On that score, personally I believe the opposite.

So, what say you, ATS? Are Occupy Communists in sheep's clothing? Would Senator McCarthy have needed trauma counselling if he'd been alive to visit Zucotti Park? Has the age old Red Peril clawed its' way back up out of the grave for the 21st century? Or were Occupy, in truth, a much more broad based movement originally, which has simply been hijacked by the socialists in more recent days?




posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Occupy was filled with anarchists from the get go; it was ours and the MSM wants it. No you can't have it your way, we have it first.

Anarchists have been occupying things for years, we just have media attention now and the media attention loves to say we're not who we say we are, because if they deride anarchists for failing they can prevent others from joining us.

Anarchists defended squatting in foreclosed houses before the Occupy Movement began, yeah that's a socialist thing to do but it's also anti-banking establishment.

Occupy isn't a new tactic, the media is pretending it's new. Occupy has been a grassroots movement since before there were anarchists alive today to tweet it on cellphones networks built by the elite to squeeze more money from the poor.

You think Occupy has been taken over by socialists you are wrong, it was always anti-authoritarian socialists, of differing stripes, working together for the reasons we want to work together.

I want to say more, I want to let other speak and yeah, I'm right. But I can be ignorant, so deny me.

Expect us.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   
endoftheamericandream.com... free-enterprise-system

I just found this, which is disturbing.

I think one of the main things I've been trying to figure out, is why Capitalism and Communism, as ideologies, are the only two that people seem to talk about having; if you're not one, you're the other. My opinion recently has gradually become that both of these ideologies were designed by psychopaths for psychopaths; and were intended for use by said psychopaths, as a form of rationalisation for their rule, that the non-psychopathic majority would be prepared to accept.

That is the main thing about this which distresses me, I think. The idea that no matter what we want, no matter what we think, no matter what we aim for...one way or another, we only ever get one thing. The psychopaths rule.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   
If anything, they are Anti-NWO.
You have to address it on a global scale, because it is a global problem. The united states and britain are most at fault in this.
Bringing awareness to a global issue is amazing,
People are revolting against the 'establishment' everywhere. The 'establishment' is wrong. Communism, socialism, capitalism, that all do not work right. So why must we always refer to them as the only social/economic structure?
Its time to think of something new,
I don't care if they are communists or socialists, because those two ideologies will not be forced on people, and have them passively accept it. they tricked the world into thinking capitalism works, and look where that got us. The time will come soon.

Meritocracy,



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Imho , OWS has no one ideology , philosophy , party etc.


They are a bunch of people from different views.

little bit of this , little bit of that , a touch of this , and hint of that .

I would not put all of them into one basket.

Many views , many goals , few solutions , not enough unification .

A bunch of pissed off people yes , yea they do come form all walks .

I don't think they know what they are , we need some mass education on the different branches , what they represent and misrepresent.

Problem is there are alot of sheep in wolfs clothing , but also alotta genuine sheep , that just got mixed into a circus .

Thats right . I said it . What i am seeing with the ows movement is almost opposite what they want.

creating bigger gov, more security , internet monitoring justification , increased debt , destroyed property , mixed messages ,etc ..



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 





TextSo, what say you, ATS? Are Occupy Communists in sheep's clothing?


Socialism is not Communism.

I am a Libertarian Socialist/Anarchist.

And I like OWS but I also dont like it. Its mostly 'activists' with agenda's and leftist do-gooders.

To call it socialist is as silly as calling Obama a socialist.
edit on 31-1-2012 by theubermensch because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 

It's just my take, but what I saw up close supports a great deal of what you're saying here. Not so much the protest members and certainly not the community people who turned out with donations and such to support Occupy and keep it going....but the leaderless movement concept was a sick joke even then. No leaders? Yea...wrong. The leadership cadre I was volunteering for/with were absolutely socialist and freely said so. Their background also showed a long running history of involvement with HARD HARD left leaning or outright socialist (self declared, even) organizations.


For those who are cheering the overtaking of Occupy by anarchist elements, I'm really saddened to see anyone support or tolerate it. As much as I really believe in the ideals behind the hard pushing for change...from both OWS and TPM, there are limits.

I'll also fight HARD against anything flying that black flag. Period. Full Stop. NO exceptions whatsoever. I've seen enough of that philosophy to know you cannot get much further into the polar opposite of what the United States was created to be, and still be on this planet.
edit on 31-1-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: spacing change and minor addition



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by petrus4
 

For those who are cheering the overtaking of Occupy by anarchist elements, I'm really saddened to see anyone support or tolerate it. As much as I really believe in the ideals behind the hard pushing for change...from both OWS and TPM...I'll also fight HARD against anything flying that black flag. Period. Full Stop. NO exceptions whatsoever. I've seen enough of that philosophy to know you cannot get much further into the polar opposite of what the United States was created to be, and still be on this planet.


You are wrong, almost every grassroots socialist cause is started by a few anarchists trying their best to promote it cause they see what they want reflected in it.

Occupy has been an anarchist tactic for years, a history of squatting was established before the 2008 Financial Crisis!

We squat, they tremble. The broken wind stinks, but it's not us who smell like sh*t.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 


I agree with you and it is not grassroots it is backed by big money communists, marxists and socialists. They are working together for the takeover of the US...and end to a republic to be replaced with a totalitarian government. They don't want control unless it's the control that lets them squat (which is stealing), sends them checks and keeps them warm from birth till death. I have no respect for them and the are ruining our country. And the ones (protesting) in Europe are mad because the socialism changes weren't good enough for them. Some pockets of society will never be happy, never want to live in a civilized way and never want to own up to personal responsibility. And don't anyone give me the old tired generalizing speech, because if you align yourself with a certain group than you do it because you agree with or want something from them....birds of a feather and all.
edit on 31-1-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Sachyriel
 

Well, now you have said the two groups I will actually fight with all my being, if it comes to that. Socialists and Anarchists. The former is a group I'd at least tolerate if fighting were the only option (I detest fighting..I just won't run from one.
) and they were manageable, like our President is for instance. He'll be voted out in due course. Problem solved.


I was as clear as I ever could be in the other post about Anarchists though....and I know as hard fact, I'm far from alone as being an American who absolutely would fight..and I don't mean with a counter-protest, if Anarchists ever got REMOTELY CLOSE to serious influence on the system in the United States.

I am 100% for reform and I see the need for downright radical reform. At least, if returning to Constitution Government as our nation was intended to be is now called radical. I'm NOT for destroying the Government entirely.....and have absolutely no time for people who would be. Society without Government looks like Mogadishu, Somalia or 1980's Beirut, Lebanon. Not in this nation...and not while many millions can draw breath to prevent it.
...in my humble opinion.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   
That is a pretty grand thread title. I hope this thread does not live up to it.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Is adding Megathread wishful thinking


Seriously though.. it's been said a million times. Guys I have been to them. It's really not a socialist movement. It's just an eclectic gathering of people who want to protest various problems with our government. We really need more things like this. It's not a socialist thing. It's a world wide thing.

Ask Iceland (the MSM sure is doing a good job of ignoring what is going on there with the presidential races).
edit on 1-2-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 
The Occupy movement is a study in dichotomy.

While I support their issues with corruption in DC and PAC's, I don't like their solutions.

I've been round and round on a myriad of threads concerning this.

Thier general solutions are for larger government and more government oversight. Basically, having the insane run the asylum.

The issue with the marxist/socialist elements (I feel) will emerge this year. With violence and destructive behaviour.

What may have started with good intentions has, in my humble opinion, failed.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Sachyriel
 

Well, now you have said the two groups I will actually fight with all my being, if it comes to that. Socialists and Anarchists. The former is a group I'd at least tolerate if fighting were the only option (I detest fighting..I just won't run from one.
) and they were manageable, like our President is for instance. He'll be voted out in due course. Problem solved.


I was as clear as I ever could be in the other post about Anarchists though....and I know as hard fact, I'm far from alone as being an American who absolutely would fight..and I don't mean with a counter-protest, if Anarchists ever got REMOTELY CLOSE to serious influence on the system in the United States.

I am 100% for reform and I see the need for downright radical reform. At least, if returning to Constitution Government as our nation was intended to be is now called radical. I'm NOT for destroying the Government entirely.....and have absolutely no time for people who would be. Society without Government looks like Mogadishu, Somalia or 1980's Beirut, Lebanon. Not in this nation...and not while many millions can draw breath to prevent it.
...in my humble opinion.



Meh, reform is just for the people who could not handle the reigns of power themselves. Revolution is about taking power for yourself.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is inevitable, democracy only hinges on the fact we can pretend the dictatorship demanded us to have a bit of liberty.

Democracy is often a sham, because people pretend it is something it is not. It is merely the diffusion of responsibility among those who wished to have none, because they are incompetant and they will choose the incometant leaders they deserve.

Anarchism fights not for what you think it does, because you've been mislead by those who have the intent to label us as a dangerous threat to everyone, rather than the precision strike we want to be to just a few.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by petrus4
....and what it means in general.


OK, you asked for it. I'll try to keep this short, but to be honest to really explain it all would take a book, or two.
I can't really talk about socialism, without also talking about capitalism, as to understand the first you have to understand the later in context. I'll start with socialism.

Socialism is defined by socialists as 'the workers ownership of the means of production'. It's a term that covers many different economic and political ideas. In other words instead of a private owner, or owners, the workers themselves would own their place of employment. There have been many different ideas as to how this could be accomplished, and how it should be ran once in place. Communism, Marxism, Anarchism, are all forms of socialism, with different ways to implement it. The idea of socialism came from the working classes, working in the mills and factories during the industrial revolution in Europe. They came to the realization that they could be better off if they owned the mill themselves.

Socialism can be state controlled, Marxism, or it can be libertarian, Anarchism. Around the 1850's socialists split between those who supported a state system, Marxists, and those who apposed the state who called themselves anarchists, libertarians, libertarian socialists etc.

Anarchism was actually a word used in a derogatory way until it was first used to mean stateless-socialism, but still was used in derogatory way by the press, so other terms were introduced such as Libertarian.

"Anarchism is stateless socialism" Mikhail Bakunin

Libertarianism was a term first used by socialists to describe their anti-state form of socialism. Also known as Anarchism. The term was first used, again by a French socialist, Joseph Déjacque, in his publication, 'La Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social'. [The Libertarian Journal of the socialist movement]. Ironically published in New York in 1858. Thus we get the term Libertarian Socialism.

Traditionally all forms of Anarchism were socialist. Anarcho-syndicalism for example, was socialism through voluntary labour union organizations.

Capitalism was defined by Marx as 'the private ownership of the means of production', and that is the definition mostly used now. The term was first used by the French socialist louis Blanc in his publication Organisation du travail [That link says 1848 but it was 1839 according to other sources. Marx used the term in 1848 in the Communist Manifesto]. Blanc defined the term as 'the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others'.

Capitalism is the system that replaced feudalism. The laws changed to allow land owners, the Nobility to sell parcels of land, which came with a deed giving the owner the right to bar access to their land, thus denying it's use to the commoners. This forced the commoners, who had always been self sufficient living off the land, into 'jobs' in cities. The Nobles exploited the commoners to produce goods to sell to other wealthy Nobles.
This lead to the worker organizations in order to try to better their own lives. The better working conditions and wages we have today are a result of worker organizations going back to the industrial revolution.

Capitalism is the system that allows private owners of capital to use that capital to exploit labour. Those who do not own capital have to work for a private owner. The worker has to produce more than they are paid for, in order for the capitalist to make profit. Labour should be treated like any commodity in a free market, and the worker should earn the full amount for their labour. The worker is being robbed.

Free-markets is not the definition of capitalism, it is a claim, and not an honest one. We can have free-markets without capitalism. Capitalism, socialism, is who controls the means of production for the market, not the market itself. People control the market, and socialism allows all of us to do that, not just the lucky few who own capital.

The left and the right.


The original political meanings of ‘left’ and ‘right’ have changed since their origin in the French estates general in 1789. There the people sitting on the left could be viewed as more or less anti-statists with those on the right being state-interventionists of one kind or another. In this interpretation of the pristine sense, libertarianism was clearly at the extreme left-wing.

www.la-articles.org.uk...

The left were the revolutionary socialists. The right was the establishment, the capitalist 'ruling' class.
This is how it was up until the 1950's when the new-right, the establishment, started their propaganda to further erode the power of the working class. The second world war had pretty much decimated the working class. To see a more modern example of this kind of class war you only have to look at the 1980's Thatcher dictatorship in the UK. She deliberately destroyed the economy of the industrial, working class, north.

edit on 2/1/2012 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 01:09 AM
link   
Ran out of room.

Is the OWS socialist?

I would say some of them are yes, they should all be if things are ever really going to change to make our economic system more fair.

They were handing out copies of 'Revolution', the voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party'.

I also wanted to mention how the establishment reacted to the organization of the workers, they demonized left wing terms, they have appropriated left wing terms (libertarian in the USA), they have adopted left wing terms (Russia, China etc.) in order to maintain their control.

It's the biggest conspiracy ever, and most people are clueless, and will try to claim I'm wrong. But I challenge anyone to study working class social history, and not come to the same conclusions I have. And I don't mean crap you can find on the net the seems to contradict. Some people will try to tell you Hitler was a socialist for example. If you understand the history you will understand what is what.

This is what capitalists would have if they could...

42 Unseen Photos Of Child Labour in US History

Oh wait, they do...

NIKE: Nike Shoes and Child Labor in Pakistan

edit on 2/1/2012 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 03:23 AM
link   
Edit time ran out, so sorry continued...

Apple Admits Using Child Labor: 15-Year-Olds Worked In Factories

Child Slave Labor in the Walt Disney Company

Microsoft caught exploiting child labor in China. Gee, what a surprise.

American Prosperity: Made in China

The cycle of capitalist exploitation never stops. America is losing jobs because you are harder to exploit, for good reason, but soon those other countries will also become harder to exploit. The capitalists will just set up shop in the next impoverished country, probably back in the USA once it falls back into poverty. Look at history and you'll see this cycle of countries becoming wealthy through exploitation to the point where profits are too small because of worker demands, and then that country is allowed to fall back into poverty while another impoverished country is exploited. America is seeing the end of that cycle and things could get really bad as it falls into poverty. American capitalists will continue exploiting third world countries, until America also becomes a third world country and workers are forced to give up their rights in order to feed their families.

edit on 2/1/2012 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by petrus4
I don't tend to like socialism much myself, as far as the material I've read about it online is concerned;




Anything you do online you can do thanks to socialism. If you have a problem with it as a concept then stop using it right now. Go start your own newspaper, magazine, write and publish a book. Be the capitalist you want to be instead of using all this socialism to rail against socialism.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 05:15 AM
link   
Socialists protesting socialism?
The original OWS movement was a protest against Wall street corruption which is in actuality socialism for the rich. Capitalism for the rest of you.
Since the media is deeply in bed with Wall Street they are using every trick in the book to make the protesters appear as "dirty hippies" "Socialists" "Free-loaders" and "malcontents".
If that didn't convince you there's the George Soros is backing them story.
So which is it?

These are mostly young people who are scared to death America has no future for them - no jobs that pay and endless government debt that they will have to pay - not the old cretins in Congress who are tax-exempt anyway due to their "sheltered offshore investments".

When Wall street cheats and lies what happens? - the government, er..the people bail them out, even though 90% of the public thought it was a bad idea. Big banks break the law and get rewarded. The rest of us go to jail or lose our jobs (or both) for petty crimes.

The hypocrisy is unbearable to watch, so they're trying to do something about it.

Obama can't even deliver Hope, all he's given us is much, MUCH more debt, and a profound sense of hopelessness.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 05:19 AM
link   
Just because OWS use the anti establishment rhetoric of the left does not mean they all want communism, imo. It's just the slogans and rhetoric are traditionally more anti establishment.





top topics
 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join