It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Right Wing...

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 12:20 AM
Nathan Mayer Rothschild married Hannah Barent-Cohen. Her Father's brother, Salomon David Barent-Cohen is Karl Marx Grandfather. So lets see here...

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production

Surely this is freedom
Its not all that much different than our current political machination.

It's simply another form of control and has proven to be the most deadly to its own people. It is the development of unmitigated, concentrated political power. Whether real world problems get solved or not is of no importance because it inherently cannot be armed with superior morals or honesty, (as some try so hard to believe) but only with superior physical strength and power. It's a disease that masquerades as its own cure.

posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 02:11 AM
reply to post by METACOMET

Do you have a source for that?

Is that claiming to be communism?

Communism doesn't have set of rules. Marxism might have a set of rules, but that is a political system that is a stepping stone too communism, not communism itself.

Marxism is not communism or socialism, it is a political system that advocates a state-socialist economy in order to increase production. Once peoples needs are met the state is supposed to be demolished and communism take its place.

A socialist is not necessarily a Marxist. Libertarian socialism is stateless socialism, anarchism.

You don't have to support Marxism, or anyone's set of rules, to be a socialist, all you need to do is support worker ownership of the means of production, which makes a more fair and equal economic system.

posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 02:29 AM
reply to post by ANOK

A source for what? The ten planks of the communist manifesto or that Marx was related to the Rothschild and their banking enslavement cartel?

As for your reply: Just the typical snake oil salesman mental gymnastics. You can know your worldview is fragile when you have to resort to circular logics in an attempt to preserve it.
edit on 21-4-2012 by METACOMET because: reply

posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 02:43 AM
reply to post by METACOMET

Are you gonna answer his question or continue to side step the issue??

posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 02:51 AM
reply to post by definity

There really is not a left or a right any more, nor was there really one beyond what the common person sees.

We choose sides when leadership is not transfixed on either. They just run on whatever platform gets them elected. After that it is business as usual and the same policies that were supposed to be implemented do regardless of who is in office. Look at Bush 3 (Obama).

Divided people never get what they need. The most unified amongst them decide what everyone needs. Usually these people are at the top of leadership.

posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 03:00 AM
reply to post by METACOMET

But that is not the ten planks of 'communism' lol.

The ten planks of Marxism would be more accurate, but the correct title is the ten planks of the communist manifesto. The communist manifesto was the original idea of Engels, it was updated by a group of communists and Marx was assigned to write the updates and publish the new version. Marxism is not communism, it is a political system that is supposed to lead to communism. Not all communists are Marxists.

Again all left-wing ideologies have the same goal, free association, which is anarchism, which is communism.
Marxism is just one way to get there, there are many other ideas such as syndicalism.

Free association...

In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense, free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, community of freely associated individuals) is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, in a society that has abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their needs and desires.

Free association is anarchist, as in there is no state or authority.

Free association is socialist, as in the workers own the means of production. In other words the workers receive the full worth of their labour. As apposed to capitalism where the worker has to produce more than they are paid for, surplus value, in order for the capitalist to make profit. Socialists consider that exploitation.

Free association is communist, as in it's a needs based economy where money is no longer used, and production is based on need. Resources are held in common by the community.

The ten planks was the plan to change from a capitalist, to a state-socialist, to a communist economy. It was temporary until the artificial scarcity of resources, caused by capitalism, was reversed and all peoples needs were met. They thought those were necessary steps to take at the time, you have to also see this in context with the times.

It is not the rules of communism, it is not communism. Again you fail to understand, because you see stuff that is taken out of context, and it is misleading. If you had actually read the communist manifesto you would know this.

If you really want to know what a modern communist party is all about here...Communist Party USA FAQ

edit on 4/21/2012 by ANOK because: it's a commie take-over Harry

posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 03:14 AM

The Communist Party stands for the interests of the American working class and the American people. It stands for our interests in both the present and the future. Solidarity with workers of other countries is also part of our work. We work in coalition with the labor movement, the peace movement, the student movement, organizations fighting for equality and social justice, the environmental movement, immigrants rights groups and the health care for all campaign.

But to win a better life for working families, we believe that we must go further. We believe that the American people can replace capitalism with a system that puts people before profit - socialism.

We are rooted in our country's revolutionary history and its struggles for democracy. We call for "Bill of Rights" socialism, guaranteeing full individual freedoms.

Until we win enough support to change the system, communists call for radical reforms under capitalism. We call for nationalization of the banks, railroads, and industries like steel and auto. Everyone who wants to work should be guaranteed a job or get unemployment payments until she/he can find a job. We say put the unemployed to work at union wages on massive public works programs to rebuild our cities, provide affordable housing for the homeless, build mass transit, and clean up the environment!

Our outlook is based on the social science of Marxism-Leninism. We study history, politics and economics in order to change the world.

From the FAQ I linked to.

Pay attention to what that says, 'Until we win enough support to change the system'. In other words the call for nationalization, which is government ownership, is a temporary measure, 'Until we win enough support to change the system'.

The socialists that disagreed with nationalization called themselves anarchists. They wanted to go straight to 'free association', without the intermediary step that Marxists called for. The Marxists generally wanted a peaceful, political, resolution to the problem of capitalism. The anarchists were revolutionary and wanted to overthrow the state with direct action.

edit on 4/21/2012 by ANOK because: it's a commie take-over Harry

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in