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.

 

The Rewriting of History by the True communists.

page: 2
15
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   
The only economic system that has lifted millions out of poverty is capitalism giving each one the chance to become their own masters.

Versus communists where you will live a lifetime in poverty with only ever being a slave.

The choice is quite clear and those who rewrite that fact well they know that is true.




posted on May, 12 2012 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
The only economic system that has lifted millions out of poverty is capitalism giving each one the chance to become their own masters.

Versus communists where you will live a lifetime in poverty with only ever being a slave.

The choice is quite clear and those who rewrite that fact well they know that is true.


I was thinking how to respond and not repeat myself. I just opened ActivistPost and first article was headed by this citation:

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. ~ Abraham Lincoln


Directly to your statement: In Europe there was feudalism working say fro 7th century till 19th century (in Russia till 20th century). If we compare standard of living of 7th century peasant with standard of living of 19th century peasant and if we add many fold population increase, then we can conclude that: Feudalism "lifted millions out of poverty". Hence capitalism is NOT: "The only economic system that has lifted millions out of poverty". Your statement is false.

Lincoln had it right: The labour is way out of poverty, not capitalism or any other ism.
Now we can argue which system is best for labour full realization. History of capitalism - namely last 4 years - is not very impressive.
I'll repeat it ones again: Current stage of capitalism is not some "socialistic deformation" but consequence of unlimited accumulation of capital in private hands.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by JanAmosComenius
...
I'll repeat it ones again: Current stage of capitalism is not some "socialistic deformation" but consequence of unlimited accumulation of capital in private hands.


Capitalism did lift not millions, but billions out of poverty. The Native Americans were capitalists using a free market where they traded, and even sold, products and services amongst different tribes and with other people. There were tribes that even used a monetary system using shells as tender coin known as "Wampum". Others, such as the Aztecs used gold dust as tender coin.


Native American Money

The history of Native American money is a fascinating one. Many American Indians had quite sophisticated forms of trade and currency, whereas other tribes, such as the Inca in Peru, managed to develop a complex and advanced civilization without money. Native American money could involve something that has value in all cultures, such as the Aztec’s gold dust, or something that is valued in by a particular civilization, such as Mayan coffee beans.

One interesting feature of Native American money is how something which seems to have relatively little value beyond the context of Native American life and culture can in the end become quite valuable. For instance, many Indians in North America used wampum for Native American money. Wampum consists of clam shells and was initially used by coastal tribes, until the use of wampum spread throughout the continent and was store by the Iroquois, which was one of the most prosperous and powerful tribes.
...

www.indians.org...

A free market/aka CAPITALISM, helped billions of people over millenia.

BTW what has been happening was caused by the global elites to implement their One World socialist/fascist regime. It is not capitalism when there is no true free market and when large companies are allowed to have monopolies...

Of course, we also know how socialists/fascists/communists have also rewritten the meaning of capitalism to make it look bad for future generations, and to those who never understood what capitalism is all about...

That is another word which the global elites have been rewritting it's meaning so that future generations would see "capitalism" as an evil word...



edit on 12-5-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkrunner
I've watched Bezmenov"s videos before and always found them fascinating. Especially when he talks about how the Soviet Union directly confronting the US in a war would be too costly in terms of money and manpower, and that it would be more cost effective to simply infiltrate the educational systems and media of your enemy.

And then I look around at all the left wing nutjobs in "academia" and the media, and I say to myself "We can't say we weren't warned."


Many other former Russian, and even Chinese communists/socialists have been trying to warn the west for decades of this takeover and transformation of nations into socialist/fascist states.

Many members have asked in the forums in the past how could the global elites have funded both the socialists/communists and the fascists?... the anwser is simple, even fascism is a leftwing ideology. From Mussolini who was a socialist who instituted National Socialism in Italy and only knew socialism all his life, and even if you read his fascist manifesto it reads like a leftwing from today wrote it, to Hitler's National Socialism with it's program which are all socialist.

But despite the fact that not only did they call themselves socialists, but their actions, the laws and programs they implemented shows they were socialists, but you still get leftwingers today claiming they were rightwingers...



Oh and btw, all those RINOs (Republican In Name Only) who have sold their soul and the United States and other nations out of greed are as bad as the socialist/fascist/communist global elites.


edit on 12-5-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Capitalism and free market are not synonyms:

dictionary.reference.com:

free market
noun
an economic system in which prices and wages are determined by unrestricted competition between businesses, without government regulation or fear of monopolies.



cap·i·tal·ism
noun
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.




Wikipedia:

A free market is a market where prices are determined by supply and demand. Free markets contrast with controlled markets in which prices, supply or demand is directly controlled. Various economic theories require specific properties of free markets, for example, a perfect market with perfect information and perfect competition. Regulation which does not affect these specific properties can be in place without disqualifying the market as free under supply and demand.

Although free-markets are commonly associated with capitalism today, free markets have been advocated by socialists and have been included in various proposals for market socialism where market allocation of capital is combined with self management in enterprises, and employee-owned cooperatives or publicly-owned enterprises operate in free markets.



Capitalism is generally considered to be a philosophy of economic systems that favors private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit or income by individuals or corporations, competitive markets, voluntary exchange, wage labor, capital accumulation, and personal finance.


Free market and some kind of collective form of ownership of means of production (huh ... is this construct correct? so many ofs!) are not mutually exclusive. In fact during cold war eastern block was competing on world markets and was not performing bad in some areas. Industry in Czech republic was destroyed intentionally after 1989 because it posed big competition to western companies. Read Noreen Hertz: "The Silent Takeover: Global Capitalism and The Death of Democracy". This girl worked on it in Russia, she know about what she is talking.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by JanAmosComenius
....
Read Noreen Hertz: "The Silent Takeover: Global Capitalism and The Death of Democracy". This girl worked on it in Russia, she know about what she is talking.


She does?... democracy is a leftwing idea, which she obviously does not know about. democracy doesn't really do well in a capitalist/free market economy.

BTW, Capitalism and Free markets used to be synonimous...again until history has been slowly rewritten by the globalist socialist/fascist elite...

In a democracy the mayority can take away the rights of the minorities such as what happens in leftwing ideologies "for the good of the collective" or "the good of the revolution" or "the good of the Earth". Democracy is synonimous with socialism/fascism/communism.


edit on 12-5-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   
So what is your solution? What system will work, what do we need in your opinion?

Personally I think it's naive to tout one system as being more evil than another or one system safer than another when the fact of the matter is that we have never seen a system that didn't become corrupt. Furthermore, why do we insist on calling things that they are not? How can Cuba be Communist when it is a dictatorship? How can the US be a representative democracy when it is Corporatist? It always comes down to the people and what we allow to happen to us, how pacified do we let ourselves become...how far down rabbit holes we are willing to dive.

Personally I prefer a more libertarian socialist system. Confusing, right? Not really.
edit on 12-5-2012 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


It is funny how you take one term (undefined in discussion yet! and cited as part of book title!) from argument and bend discussion away. I was not talking about Republic/Democracy but about economical models.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Great thread OP! You make a lo of good points. To me, socialism is just another name for communism and is just a soft friendly term. Another poster mentioned that our youth are gobbling up the socialist ideal like candy from the corner store. I always say to the people who advocate such nonsense? Talk to a person who actually lived under socialism/communism from the Eastern Europe or the Soviet Union. I am certain they would enlighten them more about the pros and cons than some whimsical academic.

Socialism may be soft and welcoming, but one thing leads to another. Your description of Fidel Castro and Cuba is fine example. I would rather risk the ups and downs of capitalism than endure a lifetime of communism. That is just me though. If the kiddies want to wear their red sweaters and Che t-shirts? More power to them, but please do not jam that slime down my throat! I will have none of it. Furthermore, stop the indoctrination in our schools because it has no place in the classroom. By all means teach the class about the various "isms,' but let the students decide on their own which one they prefer as adults instead of driving it home when they are kids. Some of the stuff I have seen being passed around in elementary school curriculum is downright appalling, and damn near brainwashing. To cut a long story short. I will take capitalism, thank you!
edit on 12-5-2012 by Jakes51 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
after the end of the dark age.
the church started a witch hunt.
they destriod EVER thing that they did not like.
Not just other religes stuff.

so they then re'write history.
some things did get by them.

and when Egypt was found.
they try'd to stop it geting out.
one thing, thire history was older than the univers!!!
from the Bible any way.

mankind has built up to a civilised level many times.
only to fall back ( or push't ) to a very primetive age.
they dont wont you to know this has hapend six time.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
... Furthermore, why do we insist on calling things that they are not? How can Cuba be Communist when it is a dictatorship? How can the US be a representative democracy when it is Corporatist?
...


socialism/communism/fascism ALWAYS lead to dictatorships. They become dictatorships because those in power THINK they know what is best for everyone, and they make excuses like "it is for the good of the collective" or "it is for the good of the revolution" or "it is for the good of the Earth."

A lot of socialists/communists claim that socialism/communism has never been tried, but that is a lie. It has been tried many times and it always leads to the same thing.

You can't FORCE people to do things, no matter for what cause and how good you think it is, and not become a dictator...

Even in these forums you will find examples of why socialism/communism become dictatorships.

How many times have someone who is a leftwinger state that for example "it is ok to FORCE, or "to make compulsory" every child, even not your own, to do Community Service because "that leftwinger person" thinks the cause is worth it?

BTW, I can demonstrate that corporations are also ideas that are socialist. From the fact that there is another phrase for corporations in socialism known as "cooperative enterprises"

A cooperative ("coop"), co-operative ("co-op"), or coöperative ("coöp") is an autonomous association of persons who voluntarily cooperate for their mutual social, economic, and cultural benefit.[1] Cooperatives include non-profit community organizations and businesses that are owned and managed by the people who use its services (a consumer cooperative) and/or by the people who work there (a worker cooperative)

en.wikipedia.org...

Note that I used a leftwinger source. Also of course they pretty up the meaning of cooperative enterprise so it doesn't sound as bad as "corporation".

But let's continue.

Who are the biggest corporate moguls that we know about? George Soros, Rockefeller, etc, and if you look at what sort of programs they fund you will find their names behind or tied to almost every socialist/communist group there is.

Not to mention that even organizations like the UN are supporting the idea of implementing a Global socialist government implementing corporate ideas and plans.


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.
...
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

www.unesco.org...


Notice that the global governance they have in mind "DERIVES FROM CORPORATE GOVERNANCE"...

That is what the global socialist/fascist elites have in mind for all of us.


edit on 13-5-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 02:51 AM
link   
Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall! ~Ronald Reagan


Germany looks like a bright exception to the dispiriting rule among developed economies. True, its economy contracted more than those of most rich countries during the 2008-09 world recession (see chart 1). But the jobless rate rose by less than in all the others, peaking at 7.9%. And nobody talks about downgrading Germany’s AAA credit rating; it can borrow money for practically nothing.


What Germany offers the world

Screw Communism...................



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 02:52 AM
link   
BTW, i am not saying that every socialist is bad, but no matter how many good intentions you have, if you think it is ok to FORCE people to do things because you think the cause is worth it, this leads to a dictatorship.

People should be able to have freedom of choice. If they want to give to charity, MORE POWER TO THEM. In fact when you FORCE people to be charitable, for example by making compulsory that EVERYONE must pay for EVERYONE'S healthcare, you are taking away the meaning of being charitable, and you are in fact just agreeing with yet another idea that FORCES people to do things they don't want to be FORCED to do.

Americans, and many other people in the world are charitable by nature, without being FORCED to do so.

BTW, I already gave an idea to how healthcare could be paid for for those people who truly need it and can't afford it. Make it like a charity. Instead of FORCING taxes on EVERYONE to pay for healthcare, make it a CHOICE to give money to pay for healthcare of those who can't afford it and truly need it.

BTW, I do not have all the answers either, but I do know that FORCING people to do things, no matter how much you think the cause is worth it, it leads to dictatorship.


edit on 13-5-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 03:25 AM
link   
BTW, i am going to give an example of a thread in this forum where some closet communists claim that socialism is communism, and go as far as lie to try to lure the unsuspecting to their cause.

In the following link you will find ANOK, and some others, claim that "socialism is the means of production owned and controlled by the workers". But this has ALWAYS been the definition/claim of communism, not socialism. in socialism the state owns the means of production, but even after repeatedly showing ANOK, and some others, the fact that they are wrong they keep lying through their teeth.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

In there you will even find ANOK claiming that in socialism/communism "private property is not abolished in socialism/communism" despite the fact that socialist and communist websites, not to mention Karl Marx, Engels, Lenin and others state/have stated the contrary to these new lies by the new communists like ANOK.

Do not fall for the lies, and empty promises from these people. They have been taught/indoctrinated to lie as long as it helps their cause and no matter how much evidence/proof you show them that they are wrong they will not relent...

In true socialism/communism ALL private property is abolished. The state, in the name of "the collective/the workers" can take away anything and everything from you and claim "it is for the common good"...




top topics



 
15
<< 1   >>

log in

join