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.

 

Occupy: Stop denying your Communism

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by petrus4
 


How is it that you can see one label plastered on us is lies and propaganda but other labels are correct?


Because they are. It isn't necessarily an insult; I even agree with them myself on some things. Regardless, I am going to call a spade a spade. I feel that it is dishonest and wrong of Occupy to try and deny it, as well. People who want to be involved with the organisation, should have the right to know what they're getting themselves into.

Occupy think labour unions are important. Occupy want things like universal healthcare. Occupy are pro-environment. Occupy are anti-war. Every last one of the things which Occupy want, have always been associated with the political Left. You can't run into anything related to Occupy without seeing the iconic fist or the red and black flag everywhere.

This isn't the Hegelian dialectic, and it isn't a projected duality in this particular case, either. My name is also not Joseph McCarthy; but as the saying goes, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, you're only being dishonest not calling it a duck...and Occupy are quacking like crazy.

People have referred to Occupy as being to the Left, as the Tea Party were to the Right; and I don't believe that that is as false an analogy as many in Occupy in particular, seem to want us to believe. Go and talk to Tea Partiers about how their movement was stolen from them by the Republican Party. Occupy have had the same thing done to them...by the Socialist Alliance.

Bottom line; you can try and deny it or rationalise it away as much as you want, but Occupy are Communist. QED.


Propaganda hurts us all by seducing us into allowing freedoms to be taken away.


a] The loss of liberty as an issue, is not related in any way to Marxism. Communism is actually fairly agnostic, where freedom is concerned. The Bolsheviks were obviously authoritarian, but the Political Compass has labelled me a libertarian socialist for the last 12 years; it places me in the same neighbourhood as Gandhi, ideologically. That is not always entirely accurate, primarily because of my temper...but it's reasonably close.

b] Given that Communism can be authoritarian, (and in fact, history has probably demonstrated that it is generally more likely to be, despite the fact that libertarian variants do exist) it does not automatically follow that becoming involved with a Communist organisation such as Occupy, is necessarily going to increase individual freedom; nor would said freedom necessarily increase if all of Occupy's goals were met.

Probably the single worst tendency of Socialists (that is, the name that Marxists use to refer to themselves when they're trying to appeal to people) is that they pretty much always automatically assume that everyone else wants exactly the same things they do, before the discussion even begins; and that is not always the case.

c] The real reason why Occupy don't want this type of "labelling," is because in America in particular, Communism generally rates about as highly as the average dog with fleas; at least in terms of what the public have been brainwashed to overtly believe. So if it gets out that Occupy are anarcho-Communist, that will pretty much spell the end of the organisation having any mainstream appeal.

Sorry, guys...but the cat's already out of the bag.

edit on 6-3-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   
I don't hear many people from the occupy camp calling for the workers to claim the means of production...

Occupy are undeniably left but not all of them are Marxists. Some are Anarchists, some are democrats, some are capitalists.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tea4One
I don't hear many people from the occupy camp calling for the workers to claim the means of production...

Occupy are undeniably left but not all of them are Marxists. Some are Anarchists, some are democrats, some are capitalists.


I dare say that many of them don't even know what they are other than part of a protest movement.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 




Bottom line; you can try and deny it or rationalise it away as much as you want, but Occupy are Communist


No they are not.

'Occupiers' are for a more peaceful and balanced world.

'Occupiers' had enough of the treason, greed, corruption and other mishappenings.

'Occupiers' want a better world for EVERYONE.

If you label that a communist, fine by me.

But not everyone in the Occupy movement is Communist, as much as you like to proclaim they are.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   
The desire to shove everyone into their -ism is overwhelming.


Just another way to divide people when its the end goal of each ism.


We're different.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   
I think you have it a bit backwards.

Unions support Occupy, not the other way around.

Communists support Occupy, not the other way around.

Socialists support Occupy, not the other way around.

We could go on and on.

Just because someone supports Occupy, does not mean Occupy supports it.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by kn0wh0w

'Occupiers' are for a more peaceful and balanced world.

'Occupiers' had enough of the treason, greed, corruption and other mishappenings.

'Occupiers' want a better world for EVERYONE.


Common sense tells me we will never see these problems go away by ceding even more power to a centralized government which is the root of the problem in the first place.

Hitch your wagon to the government fairness train and see where that gets you. There is a difference between government treating people equally and government attempting to make people equal.

I fully 100% support OWS in their first amendment right to protest. 100%. I'm proud of the movement if only for the reason that they realize the system is broken and have the guts to stand up for something.

That being said, I'll sit here on the fence until I hear some dialog about freedom, small government, individuality, libertarianism and justice. Where is the movement in which the primary task is to restore the Constitution and the American Republic?

TLDR; The self serving busybodies solution to the problem is always as bad as or worse than the problem. When we say "let the government fix it" all it does is use our money and its power to further manipulate the system to favor this group or that group, which is exactly the problem we have right now.
edit on 6-3-2012 by METACOMET because: fx



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
"Fear that anarchic instincts will thereby be let loose is a possibility that is greatly exaggerated, seeing that obvious safeguards exist within and without. Above all, there is the natural cowardice of most men to be reckoned with, not to mention morality, good taste and last but not least the penal code. This fear is nothing compared with the enormous effort it usually costs people to help the first stirrings of individuality into consciousness, let alone put them into effect. And where these individual impulses have broken through too impetuously and unthinkingly, the doctor must protect them from the patient's own clumsy recourse to shortsightedness, ruthlessness and cynicism.

As the dialectical discussion proceeds, a point is reached where an evaluation of these individual impulses becomes necessary. By that time the patient should have acquired enough certainty of judgment to enable him to act on his own insight and decision, and not from the mere wish to copy convention even if he happens to agree with collective opinion. Unless he stands firmly on his own feet, the so called objective values profit him nothing since they then only serve as a substitute for character and so help to suppress his individuality. Naturally, society has an indisputable right to protect itself against arrant subjectivisms, but insofar as society itself is composed of de-individualized persons."

Carl Jung - The Undiscovered Self page 54

A huge number of zeros still do not add up to one. Mass movements are merely tools to be used as a means to an end.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Oh my gosh, I swear this topic on ATS is going to land me in a padded room. I get more logic and rationale from the preschoolers I work with.


Communism is hypothetical classless, moneyless, stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order. This movement, in its Marxist-Leninist interpretations, significantly influenced the history of the 20th century, which saw intense rivalry between the "socialist world" (socialist states ruled by Communist parties) and the "western world" (countries with market economies), culminating in the Cold War between the Eastern bloc and the "Free World".[citation needed]

wikipedia.org

What a lot of Occupier make the mistake of doing is saying they are anti-capitalist, when what they mean is they are against Corporatism and to be fair that is because we do in fact have corporatism at the moment that happens to be calling itself capitalism. That is not by default Communism.



Occupy think labour unions are important. Occupy want things like universal healthcare. Occupy are pro-environment. Occupy are anti-war. Every last one of the things which Occupy want, have always been associated with the political Left. You can't run into anything related to Occupy without seeing the iconic fist or the red and black flag everywhere.


Not seeing communism here. And good lord about the flag and symbols...a fist in the air has a long history of being a symbol to stand up and fight for your rights, and also of solidarity (not a communist word either) with another group, it exists far outside of communism.



It isn't necessarily an insult


It isn't an insult at all, the refute comes from a desire for accuracy, not having been offended. I have no problem standing next to a communist or socializing or anything else. It is an ideal to most identifying themselves as communist and nothing more.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Hmmm... This thread could be part of a series. For example:

"Conservatives: stop denying your Nazi/KKK-ism"
"Athiests: stop denying your Satanism."
"Christians: stop denying your love of the Spanish Inquisition."
"Boxing fans: stop denying your desire to watch people kill each other with their bare hands."
"People who say it's too hot in this room: stop denying your desire to live inthe south pole."
"People who say it's too cold in this room: stop denying your desire to roast in an inferno."

See how that works?



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 

I keep on seeing this thread title and wha goes through my mind is, "Embrace your inner communist"




posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 


I htought you were making a lot of sense, till you said this:




The loss of liberty as an issue, is not related in any way to Marxism. Communism is actually fairly agnostic, where freedom is concerned


The term agnostic is related to religion, or lack of it. Freedom is an entirely different concept. Loss of liberty is definitely related to Marxism because all Marxist systems are communistic and communism is collective, therefore there is no individual liberty promoted. Where the individual has to give in to the Supreme State on all levels and cannot make autonomous decisions, liberty is gone.
Some people have said that religions are really communistic. Communistic in the sense that people relate to the community and usually in a convent or monastery, one gives up a lot of personal stuff, and has to go according to the rules of the monastery. That would be the purest form of communism. Even the Dalai lama said he is still communist, but I think he means purely in the religious sense. However, in the world outside the religious sphere, there is no God, and no spiritual overseers, only the Secular State and those who run it are greedy and selfish almost always. Or at least on a power trip of sorts and usually for the money. In a monastery, you don't have one person making rules for a whole State or country although the World Council of Churches is flirting with the NWO, which is Totalitarian in nature.
Even in a monastery, if one chooses to leave and live the worldly life, that is their choice. In the Secular State, there is no choice like that unless one moves to a country which is not communist, and that is not easy to do, as we all know.
The NWO is fast becoming de facto and if we do not fight it now, it will run over us like a train runs over Dudley Do Right.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by kn0wh0w
 


Sorry, the Occupiers are not peaceable. They are *&^%disturbers to use one of my dad's favorite terms. They are very provacative and spur confrontations with the police so that they can "prove" the existence of the police state. Classically, it is communists who were against the socialists and vice versa. NOt because they are so different in ideology, but because communists usually resort to extreme violence and revolution to achieve their goals. Socialists want to achieve their goals with less violence.
The goals stated by numerous Occupiers has been to demand entitlements from the State. That is socialist/communist in nature.
It is naive though, because the kids at Occupy have lots of stuff that would be black market in a real communist country. Blue Jeans were black market in the old Soviet Communist Empire. The Beatles were banned there too. The Communists thought they were subversive.
Occupy is a foolish Utopian experiment with a violent anarchist bent. Anyone thinking that there are no anarchists in communist camps simply doesn't know history. Violent revolution is very anarchistic. Maybe not all Occupiers believe the movement has a communist agenda, but anyone can be fooled by rhetoric and slogans which sound great. It is the leaders and organizers who know the true agenda.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by kn0wh0w
 


Occupy is a foolish Utopian experiment with a violent anarchist bent. Anyone thinking that there are no anarchists in communist camps simply doesn't know history. Violent revolution is very anarchistic. Maybe not all Occupiers believe the movement has a communist agenda, but anyone can be fooled by rhetoric and slogans which sound great. It is the leaders and organizers who know the true agenda.


I don't think I've ever seen it stated more eloquently.

As said, ideologically I've got a fair amount in common myself, with at least some of the elements of anarcho-communism. That this is Occupy's orientation isn't what bothers me. What bothers me is the insistence on them denying it, because they want to try and maximise their political appeal, and they're presumably scared that it might alienate people if they come out of the political closet.
edit on 7-3-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-3-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 02:47 AM
link   
The Occupy movement should have went after the real liars and crooks...........Government.



Couple million protesters protesting Obama,and they could have "forced" real change......
edit on 7-3-2012 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lysergic
The desire to shove everyone into their -ism is overwhelming.


Just another way to divide people when its the end goal of each ism.


We're different.


I already addressed this in the OP. It is a classic Socialist diversionary tactic, to try and claim that they don't belong in any particular ism, when at the same time, they will openly exhibit literally every known Socialist characteristic. Occupy are the same. They advocate every element of Marxist thought that I've ever seen, yet at the same time, they try and insist that the cap doesn't fit.

The Venus Project, IMHO, was a genuine case of something being inappropriately labelled as Marxism, which wasn't. You might be able to semi-logically say that TVP came from something fairly similar to a Marxist basis, as far as the idea of getting rid of currency is concerned; that is the main reason why it feels Marxist, and why it immediately got that accusation. There is, admittedly, also a central planning element.

After the currency issue however, Jacque's model literally went past Marxist ideology entirely. As the Socialists here have repeatedly said, the central mantra is worker ownership of the means of production. The idea of said means operating and (largely) governing themselves, and not incorporating human labour, is completely outside the ideology.

So yes. Sometimes referring to something as Socialist or Communist is inappropriate, and I'm well aware of that. In Occupy's case, however, I really don't believe that it is.
edit on 7-3-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-3-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 


Can you cite specifics of what makes the actual movement communist as opposed to communists being around?



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by petrus4
 


Can you cite specifics of what makes the actual movement communist as opposed to communists being around?


I already have, in terms of their support for the labour movement and such.

The real problem, is actually the fact that a lot of the things that need to be done are associated with Leftist thought. I don't have any issue at all with people who were foreclosed on taking back their homes, as one example. What I'm worried about, is that in persuing more moderate objectives associated with the ideological Left, there is room for more extreme individuals who do want to go to the point of a full fledged violent uprising. I'm not even opposed to that idea, necessarily; it's what will come after it, and also the amount of lives it will cost, that I worry about.

So you can say, for instance, that you want to work on improving collective bargaining in America; maybe raise the current wage and such. Nothing wrong with that. It's just that, when you persue a number of those goals, what you tend to find, is that people start to gather around who have been hard line Trotskyites for years, who haven't been able to achieve their own objectives, and who think that they can possibly use you as the means to do so.

They will then start whispering to you about how, sure, you're working towards a gain here, and a gain there, but it's piecemeal, and surely it would be better off if you could overthrow the system entirely. It's the proverbial slippery slope.

The reason why I do not trust that sort of whispering, or the people who do it, is because I know who else is ultimately behind it, and what they want to implement. They need a universal revolution in order to do so; which is entirely the reason why their plants (such as Marx and Trotsky) initially advocated such.
edit on 7-3-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 


You're saying that Occupy is being run by communists from behind the scenes though and then you're talking about whisperings on the sidelines and then you're talking about some darkly esoteric cabal that stretches back thousands of years. Well, as far predictions go there's none more foolproof than predicting oppression will be resisted. As for the rest? There's no denial that communists are on the scene, nor should there be, they're Americans too and have the same rights the rest of us do. There's such a thing as holding an ideology but not acting on it politically.

Communism will never get a foothold politically in America, there is no reason to fear it. As asleep as the masses have been, and as angry as we are right now, I have complete faith that it is The Constitution we will cling to.

Labor Unions and the support thereof does not equal communism. They are like corporations, banks, our government...good concepts but corrupted by greed and in some cases seemingly psychosis. None of these need be thwarted, just kept in check. That's our job and we failed at it for a long time.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join