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: 50
92
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by petrus4
 

colonialism is not capitalism.
how can it be?
they forced opium on china and raped india.
not a free market. a forced market, and pillaging.
what has this got to do with capitalism, the free flow of goods.
only in your mind do they equate.

edit on 4-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)


Someone else who needs to read through this thread because this has been covered already.

Capitalism is not 'free markets'. So stop basing your arguments on that fallacy.

Colonialism was most definitely capitalist. Capitalists, the private owners of the means of production, are the only ones who can afford to colonize other countries, and they do it to expand their power base by exploiting the resources and people they colonized.

Even if capitalism was free-markets that is not what socialists have a problem with. The problem is who owns the means to produce for the market, not the market itself.


edit on 2/4/2012 by ANOK because: typo




posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by petrus4
 

colonialism is not capitalism.
how can it be?
they forced opium on china and raped india.
not a free market. a forced market, and pillaging.
what has this got to do with capitalism, the free flow of goods.
only in your mind do they equate.

edit on 4-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)


Someone else who needs to read through this thread because this have been covered.

Capitalism is not 'free markets'. So stop basing your arguments on that fallacy.

Colonialism was most definitely capitalist. Capitalists, the private owners of the means of production, are the only ones who can afford to colonize other countries, and they do it to expand their power base by exploiting the resources and people they colonized.

Even if capitalism was free-markets that is not what socialists have a problem with. The problem is who owns the means to produce for the market, not the market itself.


edit on 2/4/2012 by ANOK because: typo


The idea's of a free market is like poetry that has been fed to people since the moment they broke the water. I mean. Actually nobody except the die-hard capitalist with enough capital to not have to worry about anything, would want a true free market. A true free-market would destroy any nation within days. I mean, why do people insist to believe that capitalism even cares about people or that it has national interest. It has no national interest at all. The only reason it pretends to is so it can use the military and the legal legislation to attain what it wants.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs

there cannot be a free market in a monopoly (with 1 participant). that is the very definition of communism my friend.


No it isn't. Communism is the system that does away completely with the for profit market.

The ideas of Marxism was to have state-socialism, worker ownership of the means of production, centrally controlled by a state system. This was only supposed to be temporary until production was increased to the point of money becoming irrelevant, and products become communally shared. At that point the state would also become obsolete. It was a way of transitioning from capitalism to communism without violent revolution.

But socialism can also be libertarian, libertarian socialism, with no central state control, just workers owning the means of production in voluntary directly democratic collectives/cooperatives. Some anarchists want violent revolution, some believe like Marx that it will happen naturally, and people only need to be educated and they will naturally choose it over being a wage slave.

The aim of the anarchists and communists are the same. The difference is only how we get there, through state socialism of Marx, or the stateless socialism of the anarchists.

"Anarchism is stateless socialism" Mikhail Bakunin, Anarcho-Collectivist (communist)

So called communist countries were communist in name only. Authoritative leaders lying to gain support from the people. I would of thought ATS, more than anywhere, would understand the conspiracy angle of this? It's a lack of understanding of history.


edit on 2/4/2012 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I think this hippo has understood the meaning of socialism.





posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Seriously. Hippos rule the word. Screw that lion nonsense. Anyone that can chase away Rhinos is king.


edit on 4-2-2012 by dadgad because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by dadgad
 


That's incredible, never seen anything like that before.

And people think animals have no emotions.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Hippos are full of surprises. Their appearance is deceiving. That's why I love them so much. You never know what's coming. They can brake crocodiles in half, a pack of lions are no match, it hates humans, yet at the same time tries to save an impala.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by ImaFungi
what are some reasons why you wouldn't want to see a change in consciousness and systems to promote quality life and work for all?


Because a little bit of inequality is a good "school of life". It promotes a little competitive creativity. A completely level playing field turns into...North Korea.


True socialism has an alternative to what you say, and it is proven to be effective.

The state owns the excess wealth (that in capitalist society the rich would own) and uses it to fund projects. Without this system, there would be no such thing as the space race because the Soviets wouldn't have provoked it, and the Americans wouldn't have responded because there would be no competition, and thus no interest or profitable enterprise in doing it on their own.

The reason why we no longer have a real space race, or any serious expansion into space, is because that whole domain has been left in the hands of capitalist organizations like NASA (the "government" version) or private companies. I think this is a serious embarrassment on humanity.

There should be massive space expansion projects funded by governments for the advancement of humanity. This isn't happening because it's not profitable, like war is (hence why we invest so much in war instead).

So to clarify my point, we need some level of equality so we can all contribute our efforts towards important projects that expand humanity's horizons. Without some socialist-style funding and development, this isn't happening. Expansion has stagnated because capitalist doctrine asserts that imperialism and exploitation of what we already have is profitable (even though it is ultimately destroying us in the long run). It takes socialist doctrine, which abolishes classes and thus class exploitation, to expand our horizons.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
it's not the economics that is going haywire, it's the political system that needs changing

our federal gov't is on a payroll, and it's not ours

THAT is the problem

they bend the rules to their own advantage, then change them when they need to.

sickening



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by dadgad
reply to post by ANOK
 


Hippos are full of surprises. Their appearance is deceiving. That's why I love them so much. You never know what's coming. They can brake crocodiles in half, a pack of lions are no match, it hates humans, yet at the same time tries to save an impala.


I've also heard Rhinos stomp out fires that are set, maybe they're protecting the environment.
But hippos, never thought about them like they were better than me.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sachyriel

Originally posted by dadgad
reply to post by ANOK
 


Hippos are full of surprises. Their appearance is deceiving. That's why I love them so much. You never know what's coming. They can brake crocodiles in half, a pack of lions are no match, it hates humans, yet at the same time tries to save an impala.


I've also heard Rhinos stomp out fires that are set, maybe they're protecting the environment.
But hippos, never thought about them like they were better than me.


I never heard about that. Sound plausible. Animals are more then we like to imagine.

Anway, just look how awesome hippos are.





posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by JimmyNeutron
 


Of course you wouldn't see it. Atrocious spelling and grammar aside, the point is still the same. You claim that you are content living in a capitalist system that was put in place at gun point then say that capitalism isn't implemented that way. It's rather simple but you will probably never see it or admit it.


Whether or not I am content living in a capitalist system or not is truly besides the point. Also, you keep saying that capitalism was put in place at gun point... What you have failed to address is that the economic system adopted by the NEW management was a continuation of the OLD system. Now see if you can follow this logic -

1) Loyalists live in the colonies under a more or less capitalist system.
2) Patriots also live side by side with the Loyalists living under the same system.
3) Patriots get sick of being mistreated by their king and seek a separation from his management
4) The Loyalists for whatever reason remain loyal to the king and represent a security threat to the nascent republic.
5) Patriots give them the option of accepting the new management or relocating
6) Many choose to relocate
7) Capitalism is still the system of trade.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
it's not the economics that is going haywire, it's the political system that needs changing

our federal gov't is on a payroll, and it's not ours

THAT is the problem

they bend the rules to their own advantage, then change them when they need to.

sickening


The government really is just a tool for those with the wealth to control, the top-dog capitalists.

What the government does might seem crazy and backwards to us, but that's because it isn't for our benefit, it's for the benefit of the capitalist system. It is government being controlled by capitalist interests, interest that wouldn't make any sense to you and me. They do things that seem completely trivial or counterintuitive but they do them to open paths for future events, or to influence the path a particular government takes.

People think government control the economy and the military, they don't, capitalist interests do. Because the government is capitalistic, and many top politicians and Presidents are capitalists. Think about it, true capitalists (the ones we have a problem with) earn their wealth by the ownership of their capital using labour to run it. They have nothing but wealth and free time, so they go into politics, for the power it brings, and the chance to influence events to their benefit.

It's no coincidence that we had the Bush's, who are oil company capitalists, as Presidents and went to war over oil. The war in Iraq was to keep them from drilling for oil, thus removing competition and maintaining the artificial scarcity of oil to keep prices up. Double whammy for the oil companies during war time. Tanks, boats, and planes use a lot of oil. And guess who paid for that? (and people still want to blame the poor for the bad economy)


edit on 2/4/2012 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by User8911
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


The other thing I'm having to try to come to terms with, is the idea that people who disagree with me are going to accuse me of being disingenuous, dishonest, or whatever else regardless of what I try and say or do. I'd prefer it if they simply stuck to attempting to refute my argument, but that is sadly too much to expect from some people.


Hmmm... I believe your argument has been refuted and the onus is on you to respond. And when someone says socialism is a lie, they're not necessarily calling you a liar... Deceived, yes... Naive in championing a failed system, yes.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by petrus4

Go and read about what the British East India Company did to India, for starters.

I'm not going to argue with Lenin having been a monster. The problem is the fact that being singularly obsessed with the Bolsheviks (as at least one particular group) is exactly what the psychopaths want armchair Capitalist advocates to do.

Let me try and spell it out for you, as clearly as I can.

Both Capitalist and Marxist ideologies are going to lead to mass murder, for as long as the psychopaths are in charge of global society. Both of these ideologies are used as a smokescreen for the fact that what said psychopaths want more than anything else, and insist on, is a continual state of elitism for themselves, and the opposite for nearly everyone else. They've also taught you to think that Marx has exclusive ownership of the awareness of such, so that you become preoccupied with mentally chasing your tail where his name and its' associations are concerned.

Get rid of the psychopaths, and we can have several countries which worship von Mises or Rand as the Messiah if you want. The point is that until we get rid of the psychopaths, the above scenario is going to exist, and the rest of us are going to get shafted, irrespective of the ideological name that they try and hide behind, in order to falsely justify their behaviour.

Stalinist Russia and Maoist China have ultimately had the same scenario as any country that has ever claimed Capitalism. A microscopic minority with everything, and while in some countries there is a middle class who do reasonably well, for the most part the rest of the population are barely able to survive.


petrus4 - while I started out refuting you as a socialist I have come to respect the broader context of your thinking. If I am to judge based on your posts, you and I are closer in thought than our posts may indicate.

Good on ya mate. Thanks for the thoughtful input.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyNeutron
Hmmm... I believe your argument has been refuted and the onus is on you to respond. And when someone says socialism is a lie, they're not necessarily calling you a liar... Deceived, yes... Naive in championing a failed system, yes.


Hmm I believe you have no argument to begin with.

You are not arguing from a true historical perspective, but from the propaganda of the last 60 years.

We are not the ones who are naive. You haven't presented anything that refutes the history we have shown, with many historical quotes. All you can do is claim it's lies, with no evidence. What we are showing came long before the propaganda you are spouting. Original definitions of terms are always the true definition, and anything that claims to be something, but doesn't fit the definition is not what it claims to be.

Anyone can claim to be whatever they want, but unless they actually are then they are a hypocrite, and should not be believed. You distrust the Russians, the Chinese etc., except when it comes to their claim of being communist. Can't you see that TPTB in those countries were lying to their people in order to control them? Why would they NOT do that?

If you understood history you would know that the ideas of socialism, communism, and anarchism came from the people, and those terms have been appropriated by fascist authorities, in order to control peoples thoughts. It is a more efficient way of controlling the labour force, from revolting like they did in Spain, than using guns and concentration camps. Think about that...


edit on 2/4/2012 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by BBalazs
 
How is it that you and others here can see socialists as misguided idealists and then you say 'The free market', how deluded and misguided is that?

The East India company saw an opportunity. They moved in and CONTROLED the production. They MONOPALISED the market and set the prices. They paid as little wage to the workforce as possible and extracted the maximum profit for a few. Where is that not capitalism? Where was the free market?

We see this today in every market. There is no such thing as 'the free market' and to claim otherwise is a blinkered view to allow you to take the high ground which makes you no better than those you argue against.




One of the few things we seem to agree on...

As petrus4 has noted, it really doesn't matter which system is in place, they all devolve into self interested entities that think nothing of sacrificing innocent people in furtherance of a twisted agenda.

Pure socialism or capitalism is impossible in the real world. Human nature, or at least the really questionable humans with the psychopathic natures, will always corrupt them.

Where I take great umbrance, is when people like ANAK blindly promote a theoretical system as the panacea for all that ails humanity. They gloss over the issues in their logic and make blatantly false assumptions about human nature. And when confronted with the simple logical flaws in their argument, they retreat into saying things like - "read the whole thread", "All of these issues have already been explained away", "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain..."

To be fair, those refuting people like ANAK are not guiltless either.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyNeutron

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by BBalazs
 
How is it that you and others here can see socialists as misguided idealists and then you say 'The free market', how deluded and misguided is that?

The East India company saw an opportunity. They moved in and CONTROLED the production. They MONOPALISED the market and set the prices. They paid as little wage to the workforce as possible and extracted the maximum profit for a few. Where is that not capitalism? Where was the free market?

We see this today in every market. There is no such thing as 'the free market' and to claim otherwise is a blinkered view to allow you to take the high ground which makes you no better than those you argue against.




One of the few things we seem to agree on...

As petrus4 has noted, it really doesn't matter which system is in place, they all devolve into self interested entities that think nothing of sacrificing innocent people in furtherance of a twisted agenda.

Pure socialism or capitalism is impossible in the real world. Human nature, or at least the really questionable humans with the psychopathic natures, will always corrupt them.

Where I take great umbrance, is when people like ANAK blindly promote a theoretical system as the panacea for all that ails humanity. They gloss over the issues in their logic and make blatantly false assumptions about human nature. And when confronted with the simple logical flaws in their argument, they retreat into saying things like - "read the whole thread", "All of these issues have already been explained away", "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain..."

To be fair, those refuting people like ANAK are not guiltless either.


You are really spewing nonsense. Anok has simply done his/her homework better then you did and that frustrates you. He (or she?) is the most patient and polite poster I've ever seen. In any case, Anok hasn't really been promoting anything up until now really. Mostly all he/she (lol) did/does/do was/is (omg) clear up historical fallacies and expose capitalism for the disgusting monstrosity it is.
And I'm proud to join him/her.

ANOK are you a MAN or a WOMAN?
edit on 4-2-2012 by dadgad because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProgressiveSlayer
The first thing I noticed in this thread (after puking in my mouth) is that everyone likes to throw around the word "Capitalism". For anyone defending Free Markets and Free Trade, this word needs to be used with caution, for it was Marx himself who coined this term for the "evil" Free Society set up under the Constitution in the United States. The word was meant to have negative connotations, as you have seen many on the socialists on this thread underscore.

The second thing (I am responding to a lot of stuff on the first few pages here) is that the word you are seeking to describe these people is sociopath, not psychopath. Psychopaths can rarely function in society, let alone rise to any position of power, and generally end up in either prison or an institution. Sociopaths, however, can very easily "fit in" just enough to get by. Many of these people never commit crimes. But others become obsessed with power or wealth or both, and while Rockefeller may be an example of this, so also were Hitler, Mussolini, Marx, Lenin and Castro. These people became adept at using charisma to convince people they had only the people's best interests in mind, and likewise found it much easier to use fascism and communism (both forms of socialism) to take from the people the very things they had promised to give.

Many here seem to advocate a "sunshine and rainbows" Utopia. Have you read the works containing the thought behind these schemes? Plato wrote in his "Republic" of such a society and explored it in great depth. Plato, however could not help but predict the crumbling of his own brain child at the end of this work. Sir Thomas Moore coined the term for his version in his book "Utopia". Yet these books still felt it necessary to create class systems and false ideology to trick the people into going along, and it is no coincidence that Marx uses these themes is his "Communist Manifesto".

Long story short, don't dream of dolphins, rainbows, topless mermaids and dancing whilst singing kum by ya if you haven't done the research. Anyone who has written of socialism or its principals with an open mind has disproved it by thinking it through. It only takes one despot to hijack the whole system, and it cannot be fixed with a revolution, made harder by the fact that the despot now owns the military and all the money. True also is the fact that ANY country that has begun to institute socialist policies sees itself slide into crushing debt and obscurity. Europe is in those throws now. America will soon follow if it does not reverse course immediately. Canada can only lie to itself for so long, and most other countries (many of the those who have tried varying degrees of socialism) are already ruled by a dictator of some sort.

You are entitled to opinions, not facts. The fact is that humans are inherently fallible, and so none should be trusted with such power.

Anarchy? Seriously? You think socialism can come of anarchy? Anarchy breeds lawlessness and murder. Only a few (those with the most muscle and guns) have rights, everyone else is a slave. Again, it only takes a few bad apples to run a muck in this system. Maybe in a cannabis-induced la la land anarchy would work, but never as a real world solution. Please think this through before you advocate it again.

Free Markets and Free Trade go hand in hand with Freedom. With these principals in mind, those who are successful are not forbade from helping the poor, homeless, etc. as evidenced by the fact that Americans give more of their dollars earned in the Free Market to charities the world over than any other nation. This is a fact. The fastest way to dry up the charity would be to make sure we have no extra money to give.

Free Markets do not promote someone becoming richer at the expense of the poor. Those are untruths perpetuated by those who would see a socialist agenda. Rather, in the Free Market, both parties benefit from a transaction because both are trading for something they value more than what they are trading away, whether this be labor, goods, or services. The real problem with Free Markets is that there will, sadly, always be those who could provide these things for themselves but would rather have them handed to them. Those who are not able would willingly be provided for but for fear that the money will go to someone who is able, simply not willing.

How do you tell a socialist from a capitalist? A socialist has read Marx, a capitalist understands Marx.
edit on 4-2-2012 by ProgressiveSlayer because: Bad wording, missing words


An eloquent summary of what many of us have been trying to say in small snippet rebuttal posts. Well done and thank you...



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   


Free Markets and Free Trade go hand in hand with Freedom. With these principals in mind, those who are successful are not forbade from helping the poor, homeless, etc. as evidenced by the fact that Americans give more of their dollars earned in the Free Market to charities the world over than any other nation. This is a fact. The fastest way to dry up the charity would be to make sure we have no extra money to give.


Absolute rubbish. Man is not a homo-economicus. The market is not interested in mans well being. The market is never equal or unbiased. It nonsense to even assume that market-freedom and freedom are the same or that first guarantees the others. This is pure poetry.
In capitalism and market-economy wealth can only be generated at the expense of workers who do the work as wage-slaves. No freedom for them at all. The private owner makes profit out of their labor and walks away with it. For him there is freedom. They are left outside. For them there is charity. But that charity is generated from their labor.

You see how fascist capitalism really is?



new topics

top topics



 
92
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join