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.

 

Why my mind is closing towards Capitalism

page: 33
92
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoHierarchy


Stop feigning your laughter. You are terribly uneducated on these matters and I suggest you educate yourself before you speak further. As others have pointed out, you've demonstrated serious lacking in this debate.


And so want to claim LEFTWINGERS who ignore history, and want to twist the truth for their lies just so their horrifying ideology can be "tried once more on the world"...


You think I care for what a leftwinger wants to claim?...


This is the reason why I don't believe one word from leftwingers, you all seem ok with lying, and twisting the truth and history just so your ideology can be vindicated...

In general many if not a majority of leftwingers just don't want to listen to experience and instead want to believe the lies which in the past trapped so many people in socialist/communist dictatorships. Although many leftwingers just don't know that what they have been taught about socialism and communism are nothing but lies.

The following video shows what leftwingers do when the truth is presented to them...




edit on 3-2-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by aravoth
You are incorrect, Political and economic systems are inseparable. One will always effect the other. Don't marginalize the discussion just because you are confused.


I agree that might be somewhat true but, an economic system is not tied to any specific political system. For example socialism can be practiced under state control, or be libertarian (libertarian socialism/anarchism). Capitalism can be practiced in a fascist, or democratic system.


If fascism is collusion of corporation and state, and capitalism is the absence of collusion, how could a person possibly believe in, or practice both?


How is capitalism the absence of collusion? Again 'private ownership of the means of production' is the definition of capitalism, and fascism supports private ownership, not worker ownership, which is socialism.


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



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

HE WAS A FASCIST.

A fascist is a right-wing authoritarian.

A state-communist is a left-wing authoritarian.

EITHER ONE IS GOING TO KILL DISSIDENTS AND SEIZE PROPERTY/POWER. End of story.


And Fascism is a LEFTWING ideology...

I already showed what WIKIPEDIA has to say about socialism and that even "cooperative enterprises" as in BUSINESSES/CORPORATIONS can be in control of a nation, and that is FASCISM...

Nice try but you fail YET AGAIN...


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



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by aravoth

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
Oh shut up...

If anyone's a danger it's you right-wingers... arming yourselves to hunt down liberals... JUST LIKE HITLER DID. But no worries. we'll NEVER LET THAT HAPPEN AGAIN. If brown-shirts start storming around (I don't care if they're right or left wing) at the behest of any truly authoritarian government or economic system, they will be snuffed out. Stop attacking people who should be your allies, it's despicable and stupid.


Try to shut me up...

BTW, talking about Hitler...


"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler

(Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)

constitutionalistnc.tripod.com...

I wonder where I heard that before?..


But of course socialists are going to TRY to claim "he wasn't a real socialist" but he was...

FACTS speak for themselves...



Has it not already been stated MULTIPLE TIMES that Hitler used a budding Socialist revolution to gain power and then KILLED OFF ALL OF THE SOCIALIST-LEANING PARTY MEMBERS then instituted a FAR RIGHT-WING FASCIST GOVERNMENT and actively hunted down socialists, liberals, communists, jews, gays, union members, and so on??


Well back then right wing was essentially todays left wing, you see over time the left wing has polluted the meaning of words to hide the fact that they are psychopaths.


No...

Liberals were always liberals... they tended to favor liberty. Left-wing Anarchists, socialists, unionists, and so on were considered Libertarians up until people like Mises hijacked the term to distance themselves from a minority of liberals using state solutions. That's it. That doesn't somehow render Capitalism the underdog... it's still very much a powerful and oppressive force on this planet, whether its corporatist or laissez-faire, I don't care.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by aravoth

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by aravoth

yeah, now Hitler is a capitalist? ROFL he used Jewish slaves to work in state sponsored corporations, and that makes him a capitalist?


The private ownership of the means of production is capitalism, he supported private ownership which is a part of fascism. Fascism is a political system where government, privately owned corporations, and military work together to control the economy.


First Hitler is a capitalist, then he's a fascist, those are two completely opposite ideologies, fracken pick one and make up your mind.


He was BOTH, one is a political system, the other is an economic system. You figure out which is which


Mussolini created the system of Fascism, and Italy practiced corporatism. The state came before the individual. He believed the state should be the master, not the people. It is in complete contrast to socialism, where the people have the power, not the state.


You are incorrect, Political and economic systems are inseparable. One will always effect the other. Don't marginalize the discussion just because you are confused.

If fascism is collusion of corporation and state, and capitalism is the absence of collusion, how could a person possibly believe in, or practice both?



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


I think you are confused... Capitalism is a form of competition, what makes you think that
some capitalists won't attempt and succeed in using any Government, law or order to aide
in their efforts and out fox competitors? Your entire premise hinges on the idea that
capitalism is naturally devoid of collusion, trickery or influence peddling.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by aravoth

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

WRONG AGAIN.

Republicans of THAT DAY AND AGE in American history were SOCIALIST-LEANING.

The DEMOCRATS were SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS and are considered to be conservative and largely racist.

DO YOUR HOMEWORK.



The BS leftwingers try to tell themselves to twist the truth... WOW...

"Republicans were socialist-leaning"


I guess that's why they wrote the Constitution of the United States huh?...

Do you forget that the constitution states for example EVERY individual has the right to private property?...

Is that a tenet of socialism?...

How can you not be ignorant of history, socialism, and the Constitution of the Republic of these United States making claims like that?...


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


Stop feigning your laughter. You are terribly uneducated on these matters and I suggest you educate yourself before you speak further. As others have pointed out, you've demonstrated serious lacking in this debate.


what debate? the only thing you have been saying is, "you don't know the facts", or "you are lacking", or, "you don't understand history".

You aren't debating anything, you're just considering people that don't agree with you as moronic. And you are quoting each other to prove your points, it's hilarious.


Have you ignored everything that has been said previously or are you just too lazy to scroll back in the pages??



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Originally posted by aravoth

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Again if you read through this damn thread you will see this have been covered already.

The right appropriated left wing terms to gain support from the people who were heavily left wing at that time. Hitler was lying about being a socialist in that speech.

Hitler supported capitalism, no workers ever owned the means of production in Nazi Germany. He was a fascist, he was in league with Mussolini and Franco, he put socialists in the camps, he fought the socialist in Spain.

You are the one that doesn't understand the history of Europe.

"I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative" Hitler.


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


yeah, now Hitler is a capitalist? ROFL he used Jewish slaves to work in state sponsored corporations, and that makes him a capitalist?

First Hitler is a capitalist, then he's a fascist, those are two completely opposite ideologies, fracken pick one and make up your mind.

You say Hitler lied about being a socialist. Then you post a quote about him protecting private property. But you apparently missed the part where he seized private businesses, and all private property owned by people like me. You think he did that because he was....what..... "insisting on protecting private property"?

your entire argument is crap.
edit on 2-2-2012 by aravoth because: (no reason given)


HE WAS A FASCIST.

A fascist is a right-wing authoritarian.

A state-communist is a left-wing authoritarian.

EITHER ONE IS GOING TO KILL DISSIDENTS AND SEIZE PROPERTY/POWER. End of story.


YEAH WELL, TELL THAT TO THE GREAT ABOVETOPSECRET LIBERTARIAN SOCIALIST AUTHORITY ON ALL THINGS HISTORICAL ANOK WHO SEEMS TO THINK THAT ANYONE WHO INFLUENCED THE WORLD IN A GOOD WAY WAS A SOCIALIST, AND ANYONE WHO INFLUENCED IT IN BAD WAY WAS A CAPITALIST.

This is how you guyS win arguments isn't it. By just saying the most outlandish crazy crap you can get your hands on. Wether it's correct or not won't matter, because there is nothing on earth more frustrating to argue with than a useful idiot.

And I say that in the most loving way possible.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Fascism is at the extreme right of the left wing spectrum because of its nationalist character of socialism while communism is international socialism.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

HE WAS A FASCIST.

A fascist is a right-wing authoritarian.

A state-communist is a left-wing authoritarian.

EITHER ONE IS GOING TO KILL DISSIDENTS AND SEIZE PROPERTY/POWER. End of story.


And Fascism is a LEFTWING ideology...

I already showed what WIKIPEDIA has to say about socialism and that even "cooperative enterprises" as in BUSINESSES/CORPORATIONS can be in control of a nation, and that is FASCISM...

Nice try but you fail YET AGAIN...


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


Fascism is right wing dodo, read my signature below. Why would Hitler feel Germany was being
attacked by leftists if he was a leftist?



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta


I think you are confused... Capitalism is a form of competition, what makes you think that
some capitalists won't attempt and succeed in using any Government, law or order to aide
in their efforts and out fox competitors? Your entire premise hinges on the idea that
capitalism is naturally devoid of collusion, trickery or influence peddling.



Nothing makes me think they won't attempt that, but if they did, it would be fascism, not capitalism.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

I agree that might be somewhat true but, an economic system is not tied to any specific political system. For example socialism can be practiced under state control, or be libertarian (libertarian socialism/anarchism). Capitalism can be practiced in a fascist, or democratic system.


Except that fascism is leftwing... and making money isn't solely a tenet of capitalism... Or do socialists make no money at all?...



Originally posted by ANOK
How is capitalism the absence of collusion? Again 'private ownership of the means of production' is the definition of capitalism, and fascism supports private ownership, not worker ownership, which is socialism.


WRONG, in fascism those in power are in control of corporations, or the corporations are in control of the goverment...

Hitler ALLOWED SOME businessmen to be partial owners of what used to be their business, simply because they knew how their businesses worked, but they had to make whatever Hitler and his government told them to make, and they were paid what Hitler and his government wanted to pay...

Hitler, and his government were in control of the means of production... That is a tenet of socialism, which is LEFTWING...


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



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by NoHierarchy


Actually... the progressive tax is a very common-sense and decent mode of taxation. It makes sense. Not only that but the courts have upheld it as constitutional on at least a couple occasions, it is also bolstered by the 16th Amendment to the Constitution:


Which goes against Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: Which states...

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises...but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States...

As for the Supreme Court... it has been bought and paid for thanks to leftwingers, not that long ago they ruled that corporations have the same rights as people...



Originally posted by NoHierarchy
Not to mention, Adam Smith, the "father" of Capitalism, seems to have contributed to the invention of the progressive tax.

And no... it's not part of the "One world order".


The founding fathers all differed in some opinions...

Some thought a central bank was necessary, others thought it was a bad idea... What counts is what they had originally agreed on...



*slaps head*

WHAT?!?

Oh my god you are seriously mixed up...

Corporate personhood was voted by RIGHT-WING AND CAPITALIST BARONS AND THEIR GOVERNMENT LACKEYS. CORPORATE PERSONHOOD IS BEING ATTACKED BY THE LEFT RIGHT NOW. STOP BEING A REVISIONIST AND TRYING TO RE-WRITE HISTORY.

And if you actually READ THE LINKS I PROVIDED, you'd find explanations as to how the progressive tax is constitutional. Each bracket is taxed UNIFORMLY, but each income bracket is at a different tax level. Please do your homework, how many times must I tell you??



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by mastahunta
 


Because he was talking about communists, not the left in general. Nazi Germany and Communist Russia were two sides of the same coin; one was national and the other was international.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by aravoth

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Originally posted by aravoth

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Damn look at your own signature...

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams

Liberty was a left wing term until the 1950's, when it was appropriated by the right in America.

Understanding history will help you understand the rest. Samuel Adams was an early left-wing thinker.

"Were the talents and virtues which heaven has bestowed on men given merely to make them more obedient drudges, to be sacrificed to the follies and ambition of a few? Or, were not the noble gifts so equally dispensed with a divine purpose and law, that they should as nearly as possible be equally exerted, and the blessings of Providence be equally enjoyed by all?

Classic early left wing thinking, before left wing ideas were fully realised that became socialism. Again you are confused because you are taught socialism is something other than the original definition. Socialism as it is seen now by the mainstream, is not the way people saw it in the 1700, 1800 and early 1900's.

"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." --Samuel Adams

Which is what capitalism has done. That is not what Sam Adams was advocating.


EVERY SINGLE PERSON WITH ANY HISTORICAL INFLUENCE AT ALL WAS A LEFT WING THINKER TO YOU!

And liberty was NOT a left wing term, that is by far the most stupid thing you have said today. Like the "left" invented the word..... good god you people are insane.



Do your homework:

en.wikipedia.org...

Yep... Libertarianism was LEFT-WING and utilized by Anarchists and... GASP!... even Anarcho-COMMIES!!!

RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!


So let me get this straight, Anarchists, and classic liberals, people who wanted the absolute least amount of government possible, are the same people you are comparing with todays left wing?

I get it, you're confused... it's ok, there are a lot of people like you out there.


You're either trolling or you have no common sense.

I'm not confused, but your logic is confusing and silly.

I'm saying today's left-wing, the ACTIVIST left-wing is libertarian in many ways, ESPECIALLY folks that you're debating with here. Historically, libertarianism is liberalism is left-wing up until the laissez-faire crowd stole the term and forced it into the lexicon as their own.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by aravoth

Originally posted by mastahunta


I think you are confused... Capitalism is a form of competition, what makes you think that
some capitalists won't attempt and succeed in using any Government, law or order to aide
in their efforts and out fox competitors? Your entire premise hinges on the idea that
capitalism is naturally devoid of collusion, trickery or influence peddling.



Nothing makes me think they won't attempt that, but if they did, it would be fascism, not capitalism.


Fascism can exist with a capitalist model, goods and services are exchanged in consideration for other
goods or services. Nazi's would go to a store, give money in exchange for bread, a capitalist exchange.

Now I will not save that capitalism is and evil force, but it is not what you seem to think it is
when it is applied to the world.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by aravoth
 


First use of the term libertarian was by the French socialist, Joseph Déjacque, in his publication, 'La Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social', [The Libertarian Journal of the Socialist Movement] in the 1850's.

It is a left wing term that means the same as Anarchism. That is why you get 'Libertarian Socialism' (anarcho-socialism). Worker ownership of the means of production in a stateless, voluntary, direct democratic system. The term was appropriated by the American right wing in the 1950's. A long tradition of stealing left wing terms in order to control peoples thoughts and ideas.

150 years of Libertarian



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Originally posted by aravoth

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Originally posted by aravoth

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Damn look at your own signature...

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams

Liberty was a left wing term until the 1950's, when it was appropriated by the right in America.

Understanding history will help you understand the rest. Samuel Adams was an early left-wing thinker.

"Were the talents and virtues which heaven has bestowed on men given merely to make them more obedient drudges, to be sacrificed to the follies and ambition of a few? Or, were not the noble gifts so equally dispensed with a divine purpose and law, that they should as nearly as possible be equally exerted, and the blessings of Providence be equally enjoyed by all?

Classic early left wing thinking, before left wing ideas were fully realised that became socialism. Again you are confused because you are taught socialism is something other than the original definition. Socialism as it is seen now by the mainstream, is not the way people saw it in the 1700, 1800 and early 1900's.

"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." --Samuel Adams

Which is what capitalism has done. That is not what Sam Adams was advocating.


EVERY SINGLE PERSON WITH ANY HISTORICAL INFLUENCE AT ALL WAS A LEFT WING THINKER TO YOU!

And liberty was NOT a left wing term, that is by far the most stupid thing you have said today. Like the "left" invented the word..... good god you people are insane.



Do your homework:

en.wikipedia.org...

Yep... Libertarianism was LEFT-WING and utilized by Anarchists and... GASP!... even Anarcho-COMMIES!!!

RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!


So let me get this straight, Anarchists, and classic liberals, people who wanted the absolute least amount of government possible, are the same people you are comparing with todays left wing?

I get it, you're confused... it's ok, there are a lot of people like you out there.


You're either trolling or you have no common sense.

I'm not confused, but your logic is confusing and silly.

I'm saying today's left-wing, the ACTIVIST left-wing is libertarian in many ways, ESPECIALLY folks that you're debating with here. Historically, libertarianism is liberalism is left-wing up until the laissez-faire crowd stole the term and forced it into the lexicon as their own.


So the activist arm of the people I debate here want me to pay off their student loans? What is libertarian about that?



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

*slaps head*

WHAT?!?

Oh my god you are seriously mixed up...

Corporate personhood was voted by RIGHT-WING AND CAPITALIST BARONS AND THEIR GOVERNMENT LACKEYS. CORPORATE PERSONHOOD IS BEING ATTACKED BY THE LEFT RIGHT NOW. STOP BEING A REVISIONIST AND TRYING TO RE-WRITE HISTORY.

And if you actually READ THE LINKS I PROVIDED, you'd find explanations as to how the progressive tax is constitutional. Each bracket is taxed UNIFORMLY, but each income bracket is at a different tax level. Please do your homework, how many times must I tell you??


*Slaps head* What?...

Do you forget that LEFTWINGERS put in power the Feds and gave them power over the economy of these United States, which in turn allowed for corruption to enter politics?...



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


It's really funny when right-wingers like yourself accuse me of the things YOU'RE MOST GUILTY OF.

Also... that video?? TERRIBLE EXAMPLE and a RIDICULOUS debate. It's not even worth posting, it's not serious.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by aravoth

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Originally posted by aravoth

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Originally posted by aravoth

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Damn look at your own signature...

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams

Liberty was a left wing term until the 1950's, when it was appropriated by the right in America.

Understanding history will help you understand the rest. Samuel Adams was an early left-wing thinker.

"Were the talents and virtues which heaven has bestowed on men given merely to make them more obedient drudges, to be sacrificed to the follies and ambition of a few? Or, were not the noble gifts so equally dispensed with a divine purpose and law, that they should as nearly as possible be equally exerted, and the blessings of Providence be equally enjoyed by all?

Classic early left wing thinking, before left wing ideas were fully realised that became socialism. Again you are confused because you are taught socialism is something other than the original definition. Socialism as it is seen now by the mainstream, is not the way people saw it in the 1700, 1800 and early 1900's.

"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." --Samuel Adams

Which is what capitalism has done. That is not what Sam Adams was advocating.


EVERY SINGLE PERSON WITH ANY HISTORICAL INFLUENCE AT ALL WAS A LEFT WING THINKER TO YOU!

And liberty was NOT a left wing term, that is by far the most stupid thing you have said today. Like the "left" invented the word..... good god you people are insane.



Do your homework:

en.wikipedia.org...

Yep... Libertarianism was LEFT-WING and utilized by Anarchists and... GASP!... even Anarcho-COMMIES!!!

RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!


So let me get this straight, Anarchists, and classic liberals, people who wanted the absolute least amount of government possible, are the same people you are comparing with todays left wing?

I get it, you're confused... it's ok, there are a lot of people like you out there.


You're either trolling or you have no common sense.

I'm not confused, but your logic is confusing and silly.

I'm saying today's left-wing, the ACTIVIST left-wing is libertarian in many ways, ESPECIALLY folks that you're debating with here. Historically, libertarianism is liberalism is left-wing up until the laissez-faire crowd stole the term and forced it into the lexicon as their own.


So the activist arm of the people I debate here want me to pay off their student loans? What is libertarian about that?


NO, it is just, we don't want to be gouged and indebted worse than we have to, for 20 years just so we can
get a good education, so we can experience a good life. What is so unreasonable about that?



new topics

top topics



 
92
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join