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.
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)
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.
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)
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?
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
Originally posted by rainbowbear
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.
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.
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
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.