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.

 

The "Occupy are Socialists," Megathread

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by rainbowbear
reply to post by petrus4
 


I find the Occupy crowd to be very ignorant about---politics and "the establishment" in general, namely their part in society as a whole.

A look at resent history shows that revolutions are engineered. they dont just happen. And when they ignite, there is a vacuum of sorts--the air is ripe for change, but no one knows how to run the ship! Now ask yourself, if there have been revolutions in the past, why arent we in a better situation now? Anyone see a pattern?

Revolution is a business, but I dont think many have read that book. Such is life!
edit on 8-2-2012 by rainbowbear because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-2-2012 by rainbowbear because: (no reason given)


revolutions in other countries in recent years have been engineered by the American CIA to overthrow democratically elected leaders spreading ideologies that went against the "American way". this movement is distinctly different from that. there have been attempts by groups such as Move On to co-opt it, and while various monied individuals and groups have funded certain aspects and had their voices heard, overall the movement still stands on its own merits without begging to the establishment. sure, there are some democrats who hold signs that say "Obama 2012" or show support for the Clinton family, but there are also anarchists, different types of socialists, right-wing libertarians, etc., as well as the majority who are just there because they are pissed off about the world's current economic situation. the point is, so far, it is a movement that has many faces and voices, most of which generally disagree with each other but are willing to come together for some common ideas. that is what i love about this movement. and for the detractors who say that we need to come up with a plan/some demands, 1. this is the first part of the movement. we are coming together right now. the next step will be creating a plan. 2. what is unclear about the demands that have already been put forth?? there are dozens of very specific and detailed demands.

alright, i'm starting to veer away from the topic i was initially discussing so i'll just end it here.




posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
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.


i agree with you 100% star
if you cut through all the "talk"
socialism for the banks
croney capatilism for the masses

WE GET THE BILL

occupy wall st is hated by the media,

makes me ask the question,
why do they try SO HARD to make it look like hippies?

or

lefties?

OWS by definition is ANY person who agrees with the movement,
the idea is every person can join, the media focuses on what they WANT to protrey

xploder



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


You hit the nail on the head with this post!



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by eboyd
 


does this translate to "Workers control of Capital"?

Isnt Capital defined as the means of production? If so, than a Socialist country would quickly become controlled workers,(via democratic vote, and we know how f ed up Democracy is!) who control capital....much like we have now in the US, a sort of quazi-social-fascism....correct me if im wrong on the definition of capital. please.

sorry if im a rube.
edit on 8-2-2012 by rainbowbear because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-2-2012 by rainbowbear because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Like my condescending 8 year old cousin would say "You know what?" the word socialist get thrown around a lot this days. Now while the Socialist party has its fingers in occupies cookie jar so to speak so does a lot of groups. Which was one of the reasons I stopped supporting Occupy, because it wasn't my voice, it was a bunch of nonsensical shouting from a variety of different groups.

Which there is nothing wrong with, freedom of speech and all that, I don't have a personal vendetta against occupy. Its just not my opinion exactly.

Back to the topic at hand, is the occupy movement socialist?

No, is there a small contingency of socialist party members operating within the occupy movement? Yeah probably.

Is there a small contingency of white supremacists operating within the tea party? Yeah probably.

Do they represent the entire group/movement? No they don't.

Though nobody really represents the entire occupy movement. The only good thing that has come of the occupy movement(and tea party) in my opinion, is that it has shown that Americans are angry.
edit on 2/8/2012 by Mcupobob because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Enjoyable thread...people are bringing a lot of good stuff to the table today.

For me anarchy is not about running around in black and Molotov cocktailing a bank....Anarchy is a state of mind for me, not a tool to overthrow a government.

I do not think violence is going to further the anarchist agenda, if anything it will create a huge backlash.

I may not be too fond of banks, but my neighbor happens to work at one, and I'd hate to see her harmed just because she worked there.

I do think anarchy is the ultimate freedom and the ideal for humanity, but I think it will take many many generations before we will come even close to it.

I do not think too much of ideologies, especially overly structured ones. The mind can be a cage if you construct a cage around it....

In other words the moment a person begins to develop these concepts or ideologies of how things should be, the moment they begin to layer rule upon rule and law upon law and organize everything into a neat and tidy package, they have trapped themself in one way of thinking, viewing the world, viewing others and slowly they begin to assert their will on others....they become locked into their ideological view where they are right and everything else is suddenly wrong and they then force others, often with the threat of harm, to think, do and feel the same as they do, or as the group/party/collective does.

Bad juju I say.

Capitalism, socialism, communism are ideologies to be used and often abused by those who have the power to abuse them. Take away the ideology, take away the structure...we are left with people, individuals who must practice personal responsibility, because they do not have a group to fall back on.

I like individuals far better than groups....most groups annoy me...."group think" often scares me...small groups are fine, but all it takes is one small incident for a group to turn into a mob....or mobsters...or well, ya get the idea...

OWS has the potential to become a mob, if they are not careful....

We were never meant to be clustered in huge groups called nations...it has always felt very unnatural to me, but again, others thrive in group environments...

Groups can do a lot of good as well, it just seems to me the larger the group, the higher possibility of violence and abuse.

This is what may come of OWS, and I feel bad for all those who support it for good reasons, their hearts are in the right place, I just do not think the revolution is in the streets....the revolution is in our minds.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by rainbowbear
reply to post by eboyd
 


does this translate to "Workers control of Capital"?

Isnt Capital defined as the means of production? If so, than a Socialist country would quickly become controlled workers,(via democratic vote, and we know how f ed up Democracy is!) who control capital....much like we have now in the US, a sort of quazi-social-fascism....correct me if im wrong on the definition of capital. please.

sorry if im a rube.
edit on 8-2-2012 by rainbowbear because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-2-2012 by rainbowbear because: (no reason given)


how is true democracy #ed up? i can understand someone saying that in the representative form of "democracy" that we see in society today as it gives people very little say over what happens to them on a daily basis, but true democracy is the best way a society can function. tyranny of the majority is an issue that people with property came up with because they were afraid they would lose control over the masses. why would we worry about tyranny of the majority when the obvious issue that we have to deal with in this society is tyranny of the minority (as John Adams stated, "Landholders ought to have a share in the government to support these invaluable interests and check the other many. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." this statement and its implications, which are rife in our society, are deplorable to say the least).

the idea of socialism that i propose is that in a free market, with barrier to entry gone and the people educated on the possibilities of worker control over the business in which they work, more and more worker cooperatives will come about naturally. in other words, i am a proponent of socialism, but only insofar as it is not forced on the masses. i also feel that if people understand what it is, they will choose it over a capitalist alternative.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by eboyd
 


My question is then what happens to those who don't, won't or can't work? And what happens if someone wants to own their own business and not share it with the employees? That is where freedom is lost.
edit on 9-2-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Actually if u wish they the "occupiers" could also be caleed the

DE-REGULATORS


ie:
" In 1906 the US government ordered the dissolution of Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Trust, charging that Standard violated the new Sherman Anti-Trust Act. On May 15, 1911 the US Supreme Court declared, “Seven men and a corporate machine have conspired against their fellow citizens. For the safety of the Republic we now decree that this dangerous conspiracy must be ended by November 15th”.
----------------------------------------------------------
But the breakup of Standard Oil along state lines only served to increase the wealth of the Rockefeller family, who retained 25% interest in each new company. Soon the new companies began to reintegrate.
---------------------------------

the point being,,

" In 1906 the US government ordered the dissolution of Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Trust, charging that Standard violated the new Sherman Anti-Trust Act. On May 15, 1911 the US Supreme Court declared, “Seven men and a corporate machine have conspired against their fellow citizens. For the safety of the Republic we now decree that this dangerous conspiracy must be ended by November 15th”.


"Sherman Anti-Trust Act" ,,would still apply today?


dont know,,not an American.
Me.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by eboyd
 


ah, ok.

I see all our "rights" based on private property ownership.

i may be in the wrong thread--im pretty sure socialism sucks. and democracy was warned against by the Founders, as it is the first stop to tyranny--not to mention the word never appears in the Constitution whatsoever.

-apparently, only American people who own anything of value share this opinion.--here lies the issue some have with occupy.

but, alas. im not interested in throwing labels around so early in the morning.
edit on 9-2-2012 by rainbowbear because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by eboyd
 


My question is then what happens to those who don't, won't or can't work?


for an answer in the short term, basically the same thing that happens to them now. however, i have been working on my own theories of what goals i look towards in the long term. suffice it to say i am working on a synthesis of communism, collectivism, and individualism that would give those who can't work (and hopefully even others) a needs based distribution (given the production of certain products to the point that they are no longer scarce) while those who don't work even though they can would get less of what they want in return. the rise of worker cooperatives in the current environment is only one of the first steps towards what i call a "gradual revolution", which, in my vision, is mainly a revolution of the mind.


And what happens if someone wants to own their own business and not share it with the employees? That is where freedom is lost.
edit on 9-2-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)


i have no problem with that, as long as those employees have an opportunity to just as easily join a worker cooperative (which they do not have today) and they are given a fair and unbiased opportunity at a proper education as to what worker coops are.

i am also not opposed to people owning their own businesses, but i would prefer it that if they do, they either remain a "one man business" or ask their employees to become equal partners, but i am no proponent of forcing a business to adopt any specific model. extra DIV



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by rainbowbear
reply to post by eboyd
 


ah, ok.

I see all our "rights" based on private property ownership.


you're a capitalist, of course you do. you may be confusing private property with personal property here though. personal property, which some socialists call "possession", is your house, your car, your toothbrush, etc. private property is the house you own but rent to someone and make profit off of it, the business you own that people work at, the machinery in that business that you may have never personally used, etc.


i may be in the wrong thread--im pretty sure socialism sucks.


not so much the wrong thread, but you do seem to have a misconception of what socialism is. socialism, in the sense of government ownership of things, absolutely does suck, but that is NOT socialism. socialism, in terms of workers' control over the means of production (the actual definition of socialism) is actually pretty good, not just on paper, but in reality.


and democracy was warned against by the Founders, as it is the first stop to tyranny--not to mention the word never appears in the Constitution whatsoever.


i'm well aware of what the founding fathers of the U.S. said. this argument is a fallacy in the sense that it is an appeal to authority. if you ever get involved in a democratic process, especially where decisions are being made based on consensus, you will see how wrong the founding fathers were.


-apparently, only American people who own anything of value share this opinion.--here lies the issue some have with occupy.


maybe that should tell you that the people who have stuff don't want the people that don't have stuff to have a say as to how much stuff they should have. i see that as the problem with the system, not the solution. maybe i am an optimist, but i trust that the people as a whole can keep each other honest and they are not going to demand a share that is larger than that which they deserve.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   

you're a capitalist, of course you do. you may be confusing private property with personal property here though. personal property, which some socialists call "possession", is your house, your car, your toothbrush, etc. private property is the house you own but rent to someone and make profit off of it, the business you own that people work at, the machinery in that business that you may have never personally used, etc.


check this out--most people dont own those houses, cars and land! US is Socialist already. there is something called Allodial Title, that is out right ownership--90% of mortgages and car titles people dont own, legally. Its true! Now understand that all personal freedoms stem from private ownership. So , you see, due to dumbing down, you, me, and everyone in the matrix--HAS BOUGHT A LIE! this is why were being robbed by "capitalists"

now you bring up some good points, but as you can see, a clear understanding of your actual rights in this might help us pull our asses out of a sling. Ive been down that socialist road--hell--if you live in america--you should recognise it as Socialist. Its really pissing people off! Ill wager all my money that you, and most here, think they own their car, or house, or property, because they have a colored title. but they dont. they dont understand these 3 things.

1. Alodial Title
2. The history of Property Rights in America
3. The limiting of Federal Jurisdiction.

I promise to look further into your stance, if you will explore these points as well.
thanks



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by rainbowbear

you're a capitalist, of course you do. you may be confusing private property with personal property here though. personal property, which some socialists call "possession", is your house, your car, your toothbrush, etc. private property is the house you own but rent to someone and make profit off of it, the business you own that people work at, the machinery in that business that you may have never personally used, etc.


check this out--most people dont own those houses, cars and land! US is Socialist already. there is something called Allodial Title, that is out right ownership--90% of mortgages and car titles people dont own, legally. Its true! Now understand that all personal freedoms stem from private ownership. So , you see, due to dumbing down, you, me, and everyone in the matrix--HAS BOUGHT A LIE! this is why were being robbed by "capitalists"

now you bring up some good points, but as you can see, a clear understanding of your actual rights in this might help us pull our asses out of a sling. Ive been down that socialist road--hell--if you live in america--you should recognise it as Socialist. Its really pissing people off! Ill wager all my money that you, and most here, think they own their car, or house, or property, because they have a colored title. but they dont. they dont understand these 3 things.

1. Alodial Title
2. The history of Property Rights in America
3. The limiting of Federal Jurisdiction.

I promise to look further into your stance, if you will explore these points as well.
thanks


i am actually very well aware of alodial title. in the US we "own" a title to our homes but, if i remember what i studied correctly, we do not own what is underneath our home (ie: if we find an oil spring below our property) or the airspace surrounding our homes, correct me if i am wrong. to kind of play along with what you are saying here, i would say the problem is not just that our property rights are being infringed upon, but rather the selectivity of property rights. the government/private interests have done what they can to ensure property rights for themselves while infringing on the property rights of everyone else.

but this has NOTHING to do with socialism...

again, socialism is workers' control over the means of production. we support worker ownership of the things we make and what we make them with. how we get to that state of society depends on who you speak to. some want the government to force people to give up their property to the workers (and i disagree with them), others want this to happen through market forces (my stance).



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by eboyd
 


Thank you for the informative reply...I understand where you are coming from, even though I respectfully disagree. Not that I disagree with your definition, I just disagree with the communal aspect of that type of living circumstance. You are optimistic about human nature and I am equally jaded.

. From what I see here in America I don't think it could ever work unless human nature is completely changed. 53percent of the population pays the taxes that support the other 47percent and don't see a lot of the takers having a problem with that, the seem to think it is perfectly fine. Then on another note you have unions bullying owners into doing things their way....I think in general human nature will always win out and you will have takers, users and those that work hard because they have a sense of responsibility. Your socialism model is too much like the utopian society of wishful thinkers.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by eboyd
 


Thank you for the informative reply...I understand where you are coming from, even though I respectfully disagree. Not that I disagree with your definition, I just disagree with the communal aspect of that type of living circumstance. You are optimistic about human nature and I am equally jaded.

. From what I see here in America I don't think it could ever work unless human nature is completely changed. 53percent of the population pays the taxes that support the other 47percent and don't see a lot of the takers having a problem with that, the seem to think it is perfectly fine. Then on another note you have unions bullying owners into doing things their way....I think in general human nature will always win out and you will have takers, users and those that work hard because they have a sense of responsibility. Your socialism model is too much like the utopian society of wishful thinkers.


check out my thread, especially the first post, as i think it will show that what i am speaking of is not as utopian as you think. this principle has, is, and continues to work in the real world to this day:

Facts About Socialism



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by eboyd
 


I did forget one thing i wantedd to correct you on....when I am not so tired we can get into it , but the founding fathers never wanted us to be a democracy anyway. Democracy is just mob rule. This country ws founded as a republic.....and god only knows what the heck it is now. I believe we got in this mess by ignoring the constitution and the current president and his followers have spend up the derailing to Mach 10. Anyone who really studies the founding the fathers and reads the federalist papers knows this country was set up as an experiment, it was never done before and we were warned what would happen if society and true patriots were not vigilant.

www.1215.org...
edit on 10-2-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by eboyd
 


I did forget one thing i wantedd to correct you on....when I am not so tired we can get into it , but the founding fathers never wanted us to be a democracy anyway. Democracy is just mob rule. This country ws founded as a republic.....and god only knows what the heck it is now. I believe we got in this mess by ignoring the constitution and the current president and his followers have spend up the derailing to Mach 10. Anyone who really studies the founding the fathers and reads the federalist papers knows this country was set up as an experiment, it was never done before and we were warned what would happen if society and true patriots were not vigilant.

www.1215.org...
edit on 10-2-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)


i know that the founding fathers didn't want democracy. i meant to quote John Adams (and think i did elsewhere) who stated that (i'm paraphrasing) what we need is rule of the minority of the opulent over the majority. the founding fathers created a system that greatly improved the society around them and gave the people far more freedom, and that is commendable, but just as the government of England which they were fighting to break away from, they needed some mechanism in their laws that would prevent the people from removing them from power. this mechanism, for America, was called representative democracy: give the people a say as to who makes decisions for them and they will be happy enough, but don't give them the power to create and vote on policy. this is, unfortunately, the nature of this country. it's far superior to feudalism, but demonization of directly democratic processes is simply propaganda. until the people are directly involved in the decision making process, we will live under the rule of tyrants.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by eboyd
it's far superior to feudalism, but demonization of directly democratic processes is simply propaganda. until the people are directly involved in the decision making process, we will live under the rule of tyrants.


Agreed. America's founders were not the beings of light they are generally considered. Jefferson is someone who I consider a man after my own heart in some respects; but he was also an elitist and a slave owner, who slept with one of his slaves. He definitely wanted freedom for himself, but he didn't necessarily want it for other people.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by petrus4
I am not saying that it was written by bankers directly. Nowhere close. That's not how the cabal operate. They work to create scenarios where, while you're doing what you think is your own thing, (which very often looks like the complete opposite of what they want) you end up assisting them in achieving what they were aiming for all along.


I realise that, but Marxism is not what the capitalists want, they want complete control over the production and distribution of resources. The more they control the more they can exploit. Marxism simply would not work for them, as even though it has the state, the workers still control the means of production, no private owners to exploit and manipulate government to their own ends.

This is why capitalism, not government, is the most dangerous form of authority. Government, in a true socialist system controlled by the workers in a voluntary direct democracy, would not be controlled by those with the financial power to do so. Government would not be just tool of the capitalists, it would be truly the servant of the people. Even though I prefer full liberty, at least with government the people have more say than they do over a privately owned institution.


That is some people's interpretation. It wasn't Trotsky's. He was the originator of the "permanent revolution," doctrine; and as it suggests in Red Symphony, I do consider violent revolution a trademark of the cabal. One of their central tenets is, "Order through Chaos." They use violence, confusion, and mayhem as a form of obfuscation, and seize control of things during the obscurity and uncertainty which it creates.


Trotsky had his own agenda. I don't trust anyone in positions of power, i.e. politicians. The so called 'communist party' in Spain turned again the anarchist, and socialists, in the revolution because ultimately they were more interested in gaining power than helping to change the system.

Political parties should no be trusted, socialism was created by the people, it should remain of the people.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join