Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why my mind is closing towards Capitalism

page: 39
92
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


you are wrong and right.
norway sells oil and gas, but it has a peoples fund with billions (58o) of dollars efficiently managed.
en.wikipedia.org...
i would assume they could and possibly will live of the interests of that.

african nations are mineral rich (some), but there is high corruption and the resources are being stripped clean for cents.




posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 




WRONG... This is the problem with socialists and communists who have never experienced what they claim is so marvelous... Let's actually see the 10 planks of communism...AGAIN...


No. What you refer to were not socialist systems. They were distortions. Hijacked and entirely financed by capitalist interests in order to hide and conceal the fact that true socialism could work. It hijacked the ideology and distorted the definition. It created the Sovjet empire in all its brutality to induce fear upon the people of the world and have them believe that this was the face of socialism. It was nothing but a strategic-propaganda campaign. For a real socialist system you have to look at Spain in the 30's.




It is in socialism and in communism that all power is centralized.


No. In socialism the power is the hands of the community, of the workers, who control and regulate the resources, the production and the production means. It is based on a democratic consensus.




BTW capitalism is an economic principle, it is not a form of government...


That is correct. But is infiltrates the government. It does so through various means, for example the lobby and through secretive groups like the Bilderberg Group, The Council on Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission, The Royal Institute of International Affairs, The Club of Rome and others. These are all tools of the capitalist interest. There is no true separation between government and business. The two are tightly interlocked and interconnected to make sure that whatever is done or decided will favor the capitalists. All the politicians are in essence front men put there by capitalist interest. The few honest politicians find themselves surrounded in a biased and corrupted climate and are forced to adapt themselves to the modality imposed upon them. If they don't they will be either removed or eliminated. This is basically nothing but fascism.




Really?... Let's actually read about it from a LEFTWING source...


There is no left-wing in today's politics. Only variable degrees of right wing. It is still a capitalist system.




Oh boy, oh boy... A cooperative enterprise is a BUSINESS owned and operated by a few individuals for THEIR mutual benefit... But how can anyone own anything when in socialism and communism private property is abolished?... The STATE/government claims to represent the people owns the means of production, hence why government and corporations are tied in together IN SOCIALISM and COMMUNISM...


You are completely wrong here. Again look at Spain 30's. It is not owned by a few individuals for their mutual benefit. That is capitalism. In socialism the workers own and control the business based on a democratic consensus. There is no boss making profit, no middle men making profit. The productive results are for the community. The workers don't produce more then they receive in turn because there is nobody making profit out of their labor. There is no wage-slavery. It is a much more friendly and relaxed way of life. Today we are all slaves to the capitalists. The difference between actual slavery and wage-slavery is very small. In both cases the worker produces more then he receives. The wage-slave just receives a little more. He is still heavily burdened and basically subject to total exploitation. In the western world the wage-slave receives more then the wage-slaves in third world nations. The wage-slaves in third world nations are the most exploited people in the world. And they are exploited by capitalism only. A variety of different capitalist interest interlocked together have targeted these countries for total destruction, to reap the land and use the inhabit as slaves. The only reason they receive any income is because of international law.

Only in fascism are governments and corporations tied together and that is today's reality. We live in a fascist world. Totally and completely.

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



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by dadgad
 


what delusion. my god.
is the workers paradise equal to god in your case?

capitalism has nothing, NADA to do with number of owners.
thats just a ridiculous assumption.
again, totally delusional.

even better, communism has ONE OWNER - THE STATE, aka BIG BROTHER.
There you go. If a few owners are bad, imagine ONE owner, quell horror!
edit on 3-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by AzureSky
Its not just Rockefeller though, but that is definitely one of the big ones my friend. I am also in the same boat as you with these feelings. This form of capitalism has been warped and is really just a disguised oligarchy. We need people to be treated with respect,
No more illegal wars
No more taking advantage of developing countries and people
No more dictatorship support
Peacekeepers rather than soldiers

The truth will be revealed, and it will sweep the world over, and the elite will have a whole big problem to contend with, the rest of us. Financial tyranny.

We need something like. Meritocracy. Rule by the competent and compassionate rather than the rich sleezbags that have no connection with the average person.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by SpankTheMonkey
 



Ron Paul!



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by dadgad
 


what delusion. my god.
is the workers paradise equal to god in your case?

capitalism has nothing, NADA to do with number of owners.
thats just a ridiculous assumption.
again, totally delusional.

even better, communism has ONE OWNER - THE STATE, aka BIG BROTHER.
There you go. If a few owners are bad, imagine ONE owner, quell horror!
edit on 3-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)


You are referring to the deliberate distortion of what socialism actually entails. Please read my posts careful. I am being very meticulous. And ask yourself why does it make you so angry? Let me tell you. It's the propaganda campaign called the Cold War, totally and entirely created and financed by Wall Street bankers, a network of capitalist interests that were death-frightened of socialism. It was their biggest nightmare. If this movement would have continued, their existence would have become obsolete.
edit on 3-2-2012 by dadgad because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by dadgad
 


propaganda campaign..?
right....
to what goal?
you obviously have little idea of history, and how this whole thing went down.

for you communism is an ideal, like god.
fine.
share the exact workings, because marx has been discredited on ALL levels.
there is not one argument left for MARX.

i am not mad, i am sad, that you have such delusions, rather then enjoying the freedom the 2oo.ooo years of our ancestors fought to attain.
humble yourself in light of history and the facts,
communism WILL NEVER WORK.
man is not meant to live in a TOP DOWN society.
Thats why modern democracy is also failing.
Thinking in dualities will make you mad, and insane.
Try a little systems thinking.
Explore history, politics, put down a new system, don't jus daydream.
You will find humans thrive without control in BOTTOM UP societies.
CAPITALISM is just a system for exchanging GOODS.
The state is not a good master, just look at the current one.

Dont delude yourself.
Or do it.
But you will find NO ANSWERS down this path, I promise you.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 


The quality of life for the majority produced by any economic or governmental system depends more on the quality of the people implementing that system than upon the form of the system itself.

Dictatorship, Monarchy, Socialism, Communism, Capitalism can all generate a healthy, non-poverty stricken, free society, if the people implementing are of high quality.

Take Denmark, with a governmental system of Constitutional Monarchy and a Socialist economy. And people there are quite happy on the whole.

Contrast that with the current situation in the US, where the quality of the people implementing our system of both government and economy (and the overlap) have been of quite poor quality for pretty much an entire generation now.

So it isni't the form of government or economy so much as the quality of the implementors. Some governmental and economic systems are more resistant to abuse - the representative republic being one that is, but we can see that even that system leads to a miserable situation when implemented by people of low quality for an extended period of time.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic
 


denmark is NOT A SOCIALIST ECONOMY. It is capitalist.
It may be a "social conscious state", but its not the same.

from wikipedia:



Denmark is one of the most competitive economies in the world according to World Economic Forum 2008 report, IMD and The Economist.[76] According to rankings by OECD, Denmark has the most free financial markets in EU-15 and also one of the most free product markets.


competition, free trade?
are you mad? that is the opposite of socialist economy (command economy, centrally controlled).
edit on 3-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by dadgad
 


.





propaganda campaign..? right.... to what goal? you obviously have little idea of history, and how this whole thing went down.



To what goal? I tried to explain this in my previous posts but you seem reluctant to carefully read what I'm writing down. The goal was to destroy the reality that socialism could work. I really suggest that you read the works of Antony C. Sutton. A scholar who has extensively documented how Wall Street bankers and other American and European capitalist interests financed the Sovjet Union from the very beginning. There is reason for it, there is a method to it. There are many reasons and in my opinion the most important one was to annihilate from the world the reality that socialism could work. True socialism means the complete destruction of the ruling elite. They will become obsolete. They no longer control the resources, the production means and no longer control the workers and can no longer use them as wage-slaves. Therefor they created and financed the Bolshevik revolution, financed the Sovjets and even made sure they got the bomb. The Sovjet Union in all its brutality was a false mirror the world. It was not socialism. Just a distortion, skillfully and wittingly manipulated by Capitalist interest. A grand scheme. And it made them rich as hell.
Other reasons were to create a global political theater of opposing conflict. This is was essential for population control and to create incentive and motive for the realization of a tremendous military expenditure. Other reasons were to instigate proxy-wars which they would make sure lasted at long as possible while financing both side of them.

I have answered the first paragraph only because the rest is just too insidious. Try to remain polite next post.
edit on 3-2-2012 by dadgad because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:59 AM
link   
Well I've read almost all the posts on here and am sorry to say that what begun as a promising thread was dragged down by myopia about what capitalism, socialsm and fascism is.

Now I live in a former Communist country that is now a 'democracy' that can't begin to have the standards of living it had during Communist times. Indeed Yugoslavia, as it was called then, is hailed by some as one of the few examples of socialist self management that was relatively successful.

Of course there was corruption and nobody needs to point out that the country collapsed - although quite why it collapsed is not simple to explain. At this point I'd like to say that people in the countries of former Yugoslavia - with a exception of Slovenia all lived much better under communism. And now that communism has passed there is probably even more corruption in the 'democratic' system than there was under Josip Broz Tito.

Skyfloating I'm not sure that your comparisons and argument are fair. On the one hand you are saying that thanks to the political / financial model of capitalism a country such as Singapore is prosperous and on the other that Norway is prosperous because its rich. Surely Norway must also be wealthy because of the brand of 'socialised' capitalism it practices. I agree that it isn't socialism, but it is certainly not free market economics? And surely successful 'capitalist' countries are also prosperous because they are rich? As far as comparisons of countries are concerned wouldn't it be much fairer to compare North and South Korea, at least? And would you not recognise that authoritarianism no mater from what side of the political divide, will hamper growth and prosperity?



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by dadgad
 


do you really believe that?
i mean seriously?

no wall street banker could finance the soviet union for 7o years, plus other communist parties.
plus, you would think that multigenerational conspiracy would leave behind some documents.
how would you control an entire cadre system for multi generations?
they would all have to be in on it.
bankrupt their own people, kill their own people, to work for bankers?
this is looney.
please reconsider this, it is so full of holes, that it doesn't even exist.
you cannot control an entire nation for multi generations this way.
it is impossible.
vietnam couldn't be controlled directly for 1o years.
the idea that there is a secret cadre class in collusion with bankers is a fantasy.
you obviously have no idea, how these systems rose to power, or how they actually worked.
its crazy.
so the wall street bankers sons inherited the task of destroying communism, who in turn inherited internally?
and the 6o or so millions killed were pawns?
keep believing that, OR
COMMUNISM failed, because it is flawed.


absolutely stupid.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 


Competition and free trade and a Socialist economy are not mutually exclusive. While Denmark may not have a pure Socialist economy, my understanding is that the country has many hallmarks that are usually associated with a Socialist economy - "free" education, "free" healthcare and so on...

"free" in quotes because of course these things are paid for by a higher tax rate.


But don't get ratholed on the example of Denmark.

The intent of my statement is that the quality of people implementing a governmental or economic system has more to do with the quality of life that results than does the form of said system.


And no, I'm not mad. Are you?



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic
 


i agree with you on the quality of people leading.
however, denmark is not a socialist economy.
its a free market economy.

it a democratic, capitalist society, and in this context with a high tax rate, the government is given the responsibility of providing certain services free.
however, this does not make it communist, or "socialist" in the context used here.
it is a bottom up approach.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 


Good enough. May have been a poor example, although I'm not sure I agree, but I've never lived there and maybe you do.

But beside the point...



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic
 


Denmark sounds a lot like Britain in way it has "socialist" implements. These are not socialist at all in fact but systems that have come about so capitalism can survive. The workers don't control their workplace, it's still set up as an authoritarian bureaucratic workplace and thus not socialist.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 


It did leave documents. And Antony C. Sutton found them.

Now to what extend they controlled the Sovjets is debatable. The conflict was real clearly. But it's extensively been proven that is has been financed since the beginning until beyond the 2WW. They even made sure they got the bomb.

I would love to get deeper into this. But I have to leave now. I'll come to back it. In the mean time try to read his books, they available online with released copy-rights.

I know this seems so to big to be true, but the facts seem to suggest this to be the most plausible. And I happen to believe it. To control large populations is not so difficult.
edit on 3-2-2012 by dadgad because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Why do you keep making these ridiculous claims, that I, and others, have already addressed numerous times in this thread?


Me making ridiculous claims?... I am not the one claiming Samuel Adams was a leftist... You and the few other leftist who have posted in this forum are ignorant, and you have not debunked anything at all that other members and I have said and proved...



Originally posted by ANOK
Again there have been no socialist/communist countries, period.


This is nothing but the same LIE which has been spoken by leftwingers like yourself to try to impose your socialist/communist ideology on the world...


Originally posted by ANOK
Please stop associating what we are talking about with so called despot dictatorships. It's crap and annoying and not helping anything.


You are the one that should stop trying to claim that socialism and communism have not brought dictatorships to the world when that's EXACTLY what they have brought...

The ones not helping anyone are you, and those who agree with you...



Originally posted by ANOK
It just shows you haven't researched the subject and just believe the party line. You're worse than a Russian 'communist'. You are trying to stifle the discussion with nonsense, and refusing to even consider what is being said for a second.


The nonsense are the claims like "Sameul Adams was a leftist" when even wikipedia states he was one of the founders on the idea of American REPUBLICANISM...



Originally posted by ANOK
Don't bend, you might break eh? Again I suggest you read through this thread and stop just being a blind skeptic. Take your blinders off.


I read through the thread and I have all blinders off, it is you and those like you who are blind and don't want to concede the fact that your ideologies have brought nothing but suffering and death to the world...



Originally posted by ANOK
Unless the workers democratically own the means to produce it is not socialism, period. If it doesn't fit the definition then it is something else. No matter what lying political leaders call themselves.


BS, there are MANY forms of socialism/communism, and they ALL claim that the workers own the means to production, or that they do the things they do for the good of the workers/people... ALL OF THEM... But what they claim, and what actualy happens are two different things...

It is the fact that they don't the reason why you, and others like you don't want to concede to reason, and to what the facts show... You would rather live in your fantasy world believing "socialism/communism" are the best thing in the world" meanwhile in real life they ahve brought nothing but suffering and death...

The workers CANNOT own the means of production when NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO OWN ANYTHING PERIOD...

Your dissassociation with reality and facts is appalling, and no matter how many leftwingers agree with you it DOESN'T MAKE YOU RIGHT...

Again, what your LEFTWING source wikipedia has to say about socialism...


Socialism /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system characterized by social ownership or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy,(1) and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to any one of, or a combination of, the following: cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises.(2) There are many variations of socialism and as such there is no single definition encapsulating all of socialism.(3) They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets versus planning, how management is to be organized within economic enterprises, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.(4)

en.wikipedia.org...

In socialism cooperative enterprises, which are businesses/corporations, can be in control of a nation, and this is FASCISM, which is also a leftwing ideology...

Autonomous state enterprises are government owned businesses/corporations, which is another form of FASCISM...

In socialism the STATE/GOVERNMENT owns the means of production PERIOD...

The revising of history which leftwingers have been undertaking for decades is not going to change the HARD FACTS...

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



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by dadgad

It did leave documents. And Antony C. Sutton found them.

Now to what extend they controlled the Sovjets is debatable. The conflict was real clearly. But it's extensively been proven that is has been financed since the beginning until beyond the 2WW. They even made sure they got the bomb.
...


Are you sure you read the books by Sutton?...

Even he states quite clearly that the corporate elites are SOCIALISTS and all they did is for a "long range program nurturing collectivism" to implement "corporate socialism" ...

Seriously, the more you keep writing about this topic the more I see you really know nothing about it...



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


OK, lets say socialism has existed (It hasn't) and dictatorships were set up which ended up in millions of peoples deaths (which it didn't because socialism has never happened) why are you omitting the atrocities that capitalist countries have committed?

People do own something, themselves and the means of production which is unlike a capitalist system. When owning themselves they control their labour. This is on top of the fact they own the means of production, the factories etc. How many times do we have to say it?

The fact you think fascism is a left-wing ideology makes it pointless talking to you. The fact you think cooperative enterprises means corporations is hilarious.





new topics

top topics



 
92
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join