18 Venn diagrams showing how corrupted American ‘democracy’ really is

It could be Marx-Ø-Corporatism
>Marxism/Communism/Socialism/Fascism/Corporatism<

A 1911 cartoon featuring Karl Marx being fawned upon by Wall Street moguls, this Capitalist/Communist love affair, this agreement to share a totalitarian power over the “Collective” … hmmm … it is all coming true, largely thanks to George Soros and Saul Alinsky.

The inevitably Marxist zoo XV: King George Soros

By Michael Moriarty
web posted August 24, 2009

The “Rainbow Elite” of Tom Wolfe’s “Radical Chic” has been a power base ultimately consolidated by the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama volleyball game with the White House.

Had Hillary Clinton won the election in 2008, a Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton ownership of the Oval office would have looked … uh … “fishy” … and we all know how important it is for the bipartisan Progressive Movement to root out anything that looks “fishy”.

The sudden arrival of Barack Obama seems to have saved the Progressive Day and its 100 year-old game plan.
Marxism = Corporatism

Over the past two decades the prevailing postwar political theory paradigm of pluralism has been strongly challenged by other approaches, such as neo-Marxism, Corporatist theory, and a state-centered approach. After the exhaustion of the first wave of neo-Marxism, the 1980s have seen the development of an empirical neo-Marxism Mark II, largely focusing on comparative welfare state research. A critical overview of the bearing of Pluralist, Corporatist, Statist, and neo-Marxist II conceptions on the patterns of development, the structural forms, and the socio-economic implications of welfare states is given. Finally, a perspective for further elaboration of welfare state theory and analysis is presented, along neo-Marxist lines but incorporating contributions from other intellectual sources.
Karl Marx Returning: The Welfare State and Neo-Marxist, Corporatist and Statist Theories

"Obama is not a Marxist, that's simply ridiculous!"

These are the words that have continually rebuffed those of us who are adamantly referred to as being Conservative radicals for criticizing the Obama Administration's ongoing war on capitalism and of course, energy. And yet, a recent story that came to us from Fox News, seems to prove our contentions outrageously correct, and in spades. You see, one of the most basic theories of Communist Marxism is the fact that Karl Marx, the originator of Marxism, felt that the State should take whatever it needed from the people in order to pay for its costs of providing services to the proletariat, in this case healthcare services to US Citizens, as a Collectivist economic necessity.
Obam acare and Marxism: The Communist Construct in Obama's Healthcare Mandate Surfaces

Everything is continuously revised to fit the populace.

reply to post by ideasarebulletproof


Our government is established by the Constitution and should not be dismantled. Bureaucracy within government needs to end. What bothers me more than government which needs housecleaning and streamlining - is corporations banding together like the Koch Brothers, the NRA and EXXON, forming groups like ALEC and making laws!

Cargil, Monsanto and The Pig and Cattle people and they are trying to get rid of the ASPCA .

Government needs to operate the way it was intended and Corporations were certainly not people then. Our forefathers are rolling over in their graves.

I love being reminded how screwed up our Gov. is. There always has to be a thread here on ATS saying so.

Everyone can be pizzed off all they want, but at the end of the day, AMERICANS are ONLY to blame for allowing it to happen.

There are alot of D's as many have pointed out, but there are also alot of R's. And we do currently have a D in office as President, so it would lean that way. All parties are guilty, I believe there is not an honest person left in government. I'd rather stomp them all than let one get away, they are all guilty by association.

reply to post by ideasarebulletproof



COMCAST HOLY ************* I KNEW IT.


I ALWAYS KNEW THEY WERE ON THE SAME TEAM AS THEM.



SON OF A ************* HOW DID I KNOW.

HERE EVERYBODY, HERE IS THE LINK.

put it in ALL your signatures.


release the truth like a supernova throughout the cosmos.


we need to spread this information around like crazy.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Looking at your avatar (if it truely represents you) I think I'll trust a corrupt government first aye?

What I'm saying is having people critise the governemnt that look like they belong in the woods hunting bears and would repel anything that puts law and order around you would be your opposition.

Or are you a man in a suit during the day working in an office with 40 others earning 50k a year na dhave three kids and a wife you've been with for 20 years.... nah, I'll stick with the first observation.

All Western Governments are in the business of ensuring that Global Corporations have a position for them when they are inevitably voted out.

How many people who comment on this site would reject on principle 100 million, a private jet and a helicopter pick up to an underground bunker when it comes time for another war to thin out the weeds.

This is the reality, the ones that bitch are the ones that do not realize they are in a compitition with over seven billion semi evolved humanoid apes that have a fundamental behavioural system which can justify any reaction to get what it wants.

Keep rejecting your reality and see how far you get...@

Originally posted by ANOK

Well I was with you until you said it was some rigged form of socialism.

It isn't socialism, I wish people would stop calling it socialism. It is capitalism, nothing more, nothing less. We have a capitalist economy, not a socialist economy, we have no worker ownership of any significance.

Socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production. There is some limited socialism in America, but has NOTHING to do with government, or what is happening with the economy.
...

I wish you would get it right once and for all...
SOCIALISM has ALWAYS been known to be means of production OWNED BY THE STATE...

What you call socialism is in fact full fledged COMMUNISM, where IT IS CLAIMED the means of production is owned by the worker, but this is NEVER true...

In communism, as in all other forms of socialism, the means of production and all power are owned by A FEW PEOPLE CLAIMING TO BE THE WORKERS....or claiming to represent the workers...

You can't even get right the difference between socialism and communism, and of course you have never experienced either one, but like others exactly like you, you claim to know better than those of us who experienced socialism/communism in socialist dictatorships...

ABAJO LA REVOLUCION, EL SOCIALISMO Y EL COMMUNISMO!!!!

Originally posted by ANOK

Oh jeez another one, I answered this already.

Yes they are capitalists. Global, fascists, whatever, they are still capitalists, the private owners of the means of production. That is why they are globalists, they want global control of the economy. Capitalists are fascists generally because they need authority to protect their capital, and they need the power of the state to condition people to be providers of labour for them to exploit for profit.

...

WRONG!!!... Time and again you get it wrong... Fascists are ALL leftwingers/socialists... ALL OF THEM...

Mussolini ONLY KNEW SOCIALISM, not only did he said this himself not to mention that ALL HIS LIFE he was a member of the socialist party, and an editor of a socialist newspaper...

Like OTHER socialists, Mussolini was against all other forms of socialism, just like Hitler, just like Stalin, just like Lenin, and just like castro, among others...

Hitler was another fascist, who was a leftwinger, he had the few owners of corporations do his will "for the good of the nation" which is always the motto of all socialists...

Yet Anok here would claim, alongside other socialists/communists that because Hitler used corporations, that he wasn't a socialist...

Hitler and his party were known as the National SOCIALIST party, or Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei...

The social reforms, the Hitler youth's movement, not to mention that he even wanted the German people to become vegetarians, ALL OF IT shows Hitler to have been just another socialist dictator.

Like Mussolini, Hitler was against all other forms of socialism that were/worked against his will.

Just like Mussolini, and Hitler, Stalin was another socialist who wanted to implement another form of socialism different from Lenin.

While Stalin wanted "national communism", Lenin wanted "international communism". All of these differences didn't make any of them any less socialist...

Stalin even went so far as to attack other socialists/communists includying ordering the death of Trotsky...

Trotsky himself wrote about the attempts on his life by socialists/communists sent by Stalin to murder him and his family...

Just like all of the above castro did similar things, when socialists have a common enemy, they unite, but when there are no enemies they turn against each other in their "constant struggle" aka "permanent revolution" which leaves nations in a constant state of war against their own people...

Originally posted by ANOK
...
Socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production. There is some limited socialism in America, but has NOTHING to do with government, or what is happening with the economy.
...

BTW, the global economic crisis has EVERYTHING to do with the government and the ultimate goal of the globalist elites to implement global socialism...

It was the globalists who made the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, The Federal Reserve, The UN, and every other socialist globalist group...

It was them who FORCED the American people to accept the globalist bankers under the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

It was them who banned Americans from using the gold and silver standard and put us in a monetary system which they knew would explode when they wished...

They did the same to every other once great nation...

“The governments of Europe, the United States, and Japan are unlikely to negotiate a social-democratic pattern of globalization – unless their hands are forced by a popular movement or a catastrophe, such as another Great Depression or ecological disaster“

These governments would not accept a "social-democratic pattern of globalization" unless their hands are FORCED by a popular movement (Occupy and Anthropogenic Global Warming movements), another Great Depression (the current GLOBAL economic crisis), or an ecological disaster (Global Warming been blamed on humans)

Democratising Global Governance:

The Challenges of the World Social Forum

by

Francesca Beausang


ABSTRACT

This paper sums up the debate that took place during the two round tables organized by UNESCO within the first World Social Forum in Porto Alegre (25/30 January 2001). It starts with a discussion of national processes, by examining democracy and then governance at the national level. It first states a case for a "joint" governance based on a combination of stakeholder theory, which is derived from corporate governance, and of UNESCO's priorities in the field of governance. As an example, the paper investigates how governance can deviate from democracy in the East Asian model. Subsequently, the global dimension of the debate on democracy and governance is examined, first by identification of the characteristics and agents of democracy in the global setting, and then by allusion to the difficulties of transposing governance to the global level.

www.unesco.org...

The above paper is from 1991 from the UN. It, and the meetings these globalists have been having call for a GLOBAL CORPORATE SOCIALIST GOVERNANCE...

Interests: conflicted. Right here! lol

How many times have you heard, "If you don't like the way things are, get involved in government and change things"? These people in the diagrams have done just that.

A benevolent government insuring needs would be ideal. We would be the government. Our coordination and subsequent innovation would provide for all with very little toil. We would have everything we need and an abundance of leisure time. However, our species doesn't like itself. The individual takes from and hinders others as a rule. Our species is "every animal for itself". This is why we are where we are. Without a change in our nature, we will always be in this situation. Even if this oft talked about violence takes out the big players, the victors and opportunistic will fill the positions.

Originally posted by phishfriar47
I think that pretty much sums up how useful the Democrats are. They like to talk junk about republicans and how corrupt they are, but boy did I just see a whole lot of D's down that list and an uncanny amount of Obama's and Clintons staff. I know it doesnt reflect all bad on Obama, but it sure does show a trend of how buddy-buddy the democrat party is and gives a good idea of the corruption.

This also isnt to be taken as a 'praise' for the republicans, I think they are useless scum too, but this was pretty good evidence against the democrats and our savior Obama

I concur with your commentary to a variable extent. The two party system which has been foisted upon us is a total, unadulterated sham, on voting day youare presented two millionaire or billionaires that have been hand picked by the Corporate Multinational Masters. I doubt very much that your vote actually counts anyway, we have seen numerous shenanigans during the GOP primary which is indictative of the tip of the iceberg as it were. Democrat or Republican, they are still silver spoon fed trust fund babies who have never had to endure a day of wage-slavery. So my suggestion to everybody is to get off the Democrat/Republican thing, it's all just an illusion to separate we the people. As Max Keiser said on his show last week, he wonders why people havn't picked up their pitchforks and stormed the castle by now.-PEACE

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


He means corrupt as any hundreds of conflicts of interest between government and corporations.

So corrupt as in corrupt.

reply to post by SoymilkAlaska


Hey thanks for letting people know about this thread! People definitely should see this.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
I wish you would get it right once and for all...
SOCIALISM has ALWAYS been known to be means of production OWNED BY THE STATE...

I wish you would learn some history.

No it hasn't always been ownership by the state. Socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production.

Anarchists were socialists who did not support the idea of forming a revolutionary government.

"Anarchism is stateless socialism", Mikhail Bakunin

Socialism does not require government, that is why we have Libertarian Socialism.

What you call socialism is in fact full fledged COMMUNISM, where IT IS CLAIMED the means of production is owned by the worker, but this is NEVER true...

No LOL. Socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production. Anarchism and communism are political systems that have socialist economies. If it doesn't have a socialist economy it can not be communism or anarchism. If the government owns the means of production it is nationalism, private ownership is capitalism.

Many people believe that socialism means government or state ownership and control. Who can blame them when that is what the schools teach and what the media, politicians and others who oppose socialism say? Worse, some people and organizations that call themselves socialist say it, too—but not the Socialist Labor Party...
...Under socialism the workers who operate the industries and services would collectively own and democratically manage them. In each factory and other workplace, the rank and file would elect their own immediate supervisors and management committees. They would also elect representatives to local and national assemblies of the industry or service in which they work, and to an all-industrial congress to coordinate production and distribution of all goods and services throughout the country. In short, socialism would replace the political government run by politicians with an industrial government run by workers and their elected representatives.

www.slp.org...

In communism, as in all other forms of socialism, the means of production and all power are owned by A FEW PEOPLE CLAIMING TO BE THE WORKERS....or claiming to represent the workers...

No again wrong. How can you make that claim when there are no countries practicing socialism?

If the economy is not worker owned it's not socialism, not matter what they tell you, stop being so naive.

You can't even get right the difference between socialism and communism, and of course you have never experienced either one, but like others exactly like you, you claim to know better than those of us who experienced socialism/communism in socialist dictatorships...

You have never experienced true socialism, or communism, either because it has not been practiced anywhere in recent years (Spain in 1936 was the only time really). Again governments can claim to be anything, but it is its actions that determined what it really is. They lied to you, and you fell for it.

I am not talking about government and state pseudo-left here, I am talking about the grass roots working class left. There is a difference, the state lies to you.

What socialists want is not what happened in your country. If I knew what country that was I could give details.

ABAJO LA REVOLUCION, EL SOCIALISMO Y EL COMMUNISMO!!!!

It appears your caps lock is getting randomly stuck.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

BTW, the global economic crisis has EVERYTHING to do with the government and the ultimate goal of the globalist elites to implement global socialism...

No it isn't. They do not want to implement worker ownership. They want to exploit workers more efficiently.

They are capitalists simply controlling world resources in order to continue making profit.

It was the globalists who made the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, The Federal Reserve, The UN, and every other socialist globalist group...

They are not socialist groups! Is this a windup lol?

They are capitalist groups. The IMF for example was set up to stabilize world exchange rates and to reconstruct the worlds payment system post WWII. This has nothing to do with the workers ownership of the means of production.

Your whole thinking is based on gross misunderstandings of terms, and history. I don't know what else I can say to get you to realise how wrong you are.

Why "Socialism"?

Socialism, in it's traditional and true definition, means "the workers democratic ownership and/or control of the means of production". Such a definition implies that rather than a government bureaucracy for managing such means, there is a focus on highly democratic organization, education and awareness, and every individual is encouraged to become an active, rather than passive participant in that which effect their lives. Only the workers themselves bear the knowledge of what their own freedom and liberty means, and only they know what is best for themselves, ultimately. Advocates of the state, be they on the left, or the right, have repeatedly defined the meaning of "socialism" to mean arbitrary rule by a set of "leaders", or a political con-game in which socialism is no more than capitalism with a few token adjustments for bearability.

www.spunk.org...

Are there any socialist countries in Europe?

Communist Countries

What About Russia?

Originally posted by ANOK
I wish you would learn some history.

I learned history from three different nations, Cuba, Spain and the United States. Not only that but I LIVEd and EXPERIENCED what you have not, and what you obviously have no idea about...

I wasn't brainwashed like you obviously have been.

Originally posted by ANOK
No it hasn't always been ownership by the state. Socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production.

Yes it has...your masters have been only working VERY HARD to rewrite history so people like you don't understand the differences between socialism and communism. Marx himself said that socialism is but a transitional stage to transform a capitalist nation into the final goal of communism.

If you search among old encyclopedias and dictionaries, you would find that socialism is the means of productions controlled by the state.

Definition of SOCIALISM

1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2
a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

www.merriam-webster.com...

The first definition refers to ALL forms of socialism, which include fascism, communism, and all other socialist branches in between.

BTW, just in case you didn't know the word fascism derives from fasces" which is the Roman symbol for "bundle" but which also signifies "strength through unity/collective".

Originally posted by ANOK
Anarchists were socialists who did not support the idea of forming a revolutionary government.

"Anarchism is stateless socialism", Mikhail Bakunin

Like socialism, anarchism has been branched over by it's advocates because they can't make their damn minds and had to make different branches of anarchism. But in essence anarchism is nothing short of chaos.

Socialists and communists have been promising roses, free food for all, and free everything for all but at the end what they really bring, and what history has shown they bring is nothing more than suffering, war even amongst the people they are supposed to represent and death...

Your brainwashing and pretty words are not going to change facts...

Originally posted by ANOK
No again wrong. How can you make that claim when there are no countries practicing socialism?

The one who is wrong is you... Socialism has been practiced as nations which were capitalistic became for a while socialist, and then communist... This is exactly how Marx explained that socialism is but a stage between capitalism and communism.

Originally posted by ANOK
If the economy is not worker owned it's not socialism, not matter what they tell you, stop being so naive.

The only ones who are naive, and have been brainwashed to no end are people like you...

Can you tell us your EXPERIENCE in socialism/communism?...

You can continue trying to deny what your ideology has done to the world, but the truth has been written by those who have actually experienced and lived what YOU have not, yet you continuosly try to deny...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
I learned history from three different nations, Cuba, Spain and the United States. Not only that but I LIVEd and EXPERIENCED what you have not, and what you obviously have no idea about...

I wasn't brainwashed like you obviously have been.

Brainwashed by who? You are the one repeating the lies spread by the capitalist state.

The facts are clear and simple: the Cuban revolution was overwhelmingly a nationalist and anti-corruption movement. It was not a communist revolution (as the quotes from Che and Castro below clearly show).

www.cubaverdad.net...

What you experienced was not communism. Cubas problems are caused by Americas embargoes. Cuba relies heavily on imports.

Yes it has...your masters have been only working VERY HARD to rewrite history so people like you don't understand the differences between socialism and communism. Marx himself said that socialism is but a transitional stage to transform a capitalist nation into the final goal of communism.

If you search among old encyclopedias and dictionaries, you would find that socialism is the means of productions controlled by the state.

I have no masters lol. If you notice it is you using re-written history, I go to the original sources...

"Anarchism is stateless socialism", Mikhail Bakunin.

Do you know who Bakunin was? He was one of the first socialists to start calling himself an anarchist. He was a collectivist. It is a form of socialism (worker ownership) with no state system (anarchism/libertarianism), and uses free-markets.

Socialism is not state control, but can have a state system. Unless the workers own and control the means of production it is not socialism, no matter what someone calls it. Marxist socialism calls for a temporary state system as I have explained, but you obvioulsy have no desire to learn.

Obviously Spain is not socialist. Did you ever learn about the Spanish revolution of 1936? Spain has a long history of fascism.

"The 20th century experienced or witnessed every variety of state socialism, and learned that if its rulers are ruthless enough, they can impose, for a while, the most bizarre regimes and describe them as socialism. As socialism has been grossly misrepresented, so anarchism suffers from the widely held view that it is simply another variety of millenarianism, the belief in the eventual arrival, ‘after the revolution’, of a period of ultimate happiness when all the problems that beset humanity will have been solved, permanently." Colin Ward, 'Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction'. ch.3 p.31, 1995

All you are doing is repeating the gross misrepresentation of socialism created by the capitalist establishment, in order to keep you from realising the truth.

"Let us not destroy those wonderful machines that produce efficiently and cheaply. Let us control them. Let us profit by their efficiency and cheapness. Let us run them for ourselves. That, gentlemen, is socialism...

...There were writers of the early twentieth century who spoke for socialism or criticized the capitalist system harshly-not obscure pamphleteers, but among the most famous of American literary figures, whose books were read by millions: Upton Sinclair, Jack London, Theodore Dreiser, Frank Norris.
Lipton Sinclair's novel The Jungle, published in 1906, brought the conditions in the meatpacking plants of Chicago to the shocked attention of the whole country, and stimulated demand for laws regulating the meat industry. But also, through the story of an immigrant laborer, Jurgis Rudkus, it spoke of socialism, of how beautiful life might be if people cooperatively owned and worked and shared the riches of the earth. The Jungle was first published in the Socialist newspaper Appeal to Reason; it was then read by millions as a hook, and was translated into seventeen languages...

..One of the influences on Upton Sinclair's thinking was a book, People of the Abyss, by Jack London. London was a member of the Socialist party. He had come out of the slums of San Francisco, the child of an unwed mother. He had been a newsboy, a cannery worker, a sailor, a fisherman, had worked in a jute mill and a laundry, hoboed the railroads to the East Coast, been clubbed by a policeman on the streets of New York and arrested for vagrancy in Niagara Falls, watched men beaten and tortured in jail, pirated oysters in San Francisco Bay, read Flaubert, Tolstoy, Melville, and the Communist Manifesto, preached socialism in the Alaskan gold camps in the winter of 1896, sailed 2,000 miles back through the Bering Sea, and became a world-famous writer of adventure books. In 1906, he wrote his novel The Iron Heel, with its warning of a fascist America, its ideal of a socialist brotherhood of man. In the course of it, through his characters, he indicts the system...

...Around 1776, certain important people in the English colonies made a discovery that would prove enormously useful for the next two hundred years. They found that by creating a nation, a symbol, a legal unity called the United States, they could take over land, profits, and political power from favorites of the British Empire. In the process, they could hold back a number of potential rebellions and create a consensus of popular support for the rule of a new, privileged leadership...

...When the Declaration of Independence was read, with all its flaming radical language, from the town hall balcony in Boston, it was read by Thomas Crafts, a member of the Loyal Nine group, conservatives who had opposed militant action against the British. Four days after the reading, the Boston Committee of Correspondence ordered the townsmen to show up on the Common for a military draft. The rich, it turned out, could avoid the draft by paying for substitutes; the poor had to serve' This led to rioting, and shouting: "Tyranny is Tyranny let it come from whom it may." A People’s History of the United States, 1492-Present, section 13, Howard Zinn, American historian and political science professor at Boston uni. He described himself as 'Something of an anarchist, something of a socialist. Maybe a democratic socialist.'