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.

 

America On Verge Of Communist Takeover, Says Former Castro Revolutionary

page: 22
61
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 





The only way to have a stateless system is with worker ownership.


Completely disagree. You seem to think political systems fix human problems; they don't. Government exists for the people - for the sake of CONTROLLING that wildness inherent in human nature. That's why we have states. You cannot remedy the latter through the former; you cannot make bad people good by giving 'power to the workers; whoever administers the state will show themselves corrupt and as per every other political system, will showoff how ineffective a dissolute people can be.




Socialism can work without a state system...


Show me an example where socialism has worked. It doesn't. An oligarchical class always develops. There always remains a disparity between the ultra wealthy - the elite - and the common classes.

And lets not forget about those ethical issues raised by Aristotle about the sheer unfairness of "democracy" (by which he meant socialism); the intellectually gifted are treated the same as the intellectually inferior. Ability is ignored, merit unrewarded. It's a system that necessarily incites recalcitrance from the educated classes against the mere workers.

Socialism is a dangerous infringement on individuality; how you think socialism can be so utopian - without a state at the helm - is beyond me.

I am extremely opposed to this chomskyite anarchist bs.




posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


the intellectually gifted are treated the same as the intellectually inferior. Ability is ignored, merit unrewarded. It's a system that necessarily incites recalcitrance from the educated classes against the mere workers.

This is not true.
You are talking about COMMUNISM, where the state owns EVERYTHING and everyone has the SAME stuff, identical, regardless of their "labor" or "services".

SOCIALISM is not that way -- the highly educated ARE rewarded for their contributions, and ability IS regarded, while the proletariat (middle and working class) are provided with ENOUGH, and ALL benefit from the success of enterprises in which they are involved. Similarly, the "elite" are expected to share their wealth.

Who really NEEDS 5 billion dollars, four yachts, five homes, three jets, and the power to exploit and deprive others????? NO. ONE.

I'm considering starting a thread regarding the real differences; I see so much misunderstanding of the differences between Socialism, Communism, and Capitalism on this site. It's really disheartening.






edit on 6-8-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by dontreally
 


the intellectually gifted are treated the same as the intellectually inferior. Ability is ignored, merit unrewarded. It's a system that necessarily incites recalcitrance from the educated classes against the mere workers.

This is not true.
You are talking about COMMUNISM, where the state owns EVERYTHING and everyone has the SAME stuff, identical, regardless of their "labor" or "services".

SOCIALISM is not that way -- the highly educated ARE rewarded for their contributions, and ability IS regarded, while the proletariat (middle and working class) are provided with ENOUGH, and ALL benefit from the success of enterprises in which they are involved. Similarly, the "elite" are expected to share their wealth.

Who really NEEDS 5 billion dollars, four yachts, five homes, three jets, and the power to exploit and deprive others????? NO. ONE.

I'm considering starting a thread regarding the real differences; I see so much misunderstanding of the differences between Socialism, Communism, and Capitalism on this site. It's really disheartening.


edit on 6-8-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)


Communism is not like this at all.

It's so obvious as well.

The milkman possesses a milk truck, but that doesn't mean EVERYONE possesses a milk truck.



The complete paragraph containing Marx's statement of the creed in the 'Critique of the Gotha Program' is as follows: In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs![1][2][3] Although Marx is popularly thought of as the originator of the phrase, the slogan was common to the socialist movement and was first used by Louis Blanc in 1839, in "The organization of work".[4] The origin of this phrasing has also been attributed to the French utopian Morelly,[5] who proposed in his 1755 Code of Nature "Sacred and Fundamental Laws that would tear out the roots of vice and of all the evils of a society" including I. Nothing in society will belong to anyone, either as a personal possession or as capital goods, except the things for which the person has immediate use, for either his needs, his pleasures, or his daily work. II. Every citizen will be a public man, sustained by, supported by, and occupied at the public expense. III. Every citizen will make his particular contribution to the activities of the community according to his capacity, his talent and his age; it is on this basis that his duties will be determined, in conformity with the distributive laws.


en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 6-8-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 





SOCIALISM is not that way -- the highly educated ARE rewarded for their contributions, and ability IS regarded, while the proletariat (middle and working class) are provided with ENOUGH, and ALL benefit from the success of enterprises in which they are involved. Similarly, the "elite" are expected to share their wealth.





I'm considering starting a thread regarding the real differences; I see so much misunderstanding of the differences between Socialism, Communism, and Capitalism on this site. It's really disheartening.


Ok...Firstly, I am perfectly familiar with the differences between communism and socialism - but make no mistake - communism is a type of socialism.

Secondly, the type of system you seem to be enunciating appears absurd.

Are you supporting the anarchist-stateless socialist system of ANOK? If you are, you and him equally live in dreamland. Not since the beginnings of civilization has man been able to live without government - because without government MEN COMMIT CRIMES; and these crimes are not simply committed out of economic privation, but out of sheer human nature; man gets bored and apathetic and resorts to wildness and lawlessness to fill that existential vacuum. And you think removing the state - law-judiciary - is gonna solve civilizations problems??? Excuse while I laugh and than weep. You people are radicals for a reason. You oppose reason. In fact, you hate reason, to think that man's emotionality can be contained without outward strictures.

If instead you prefer a socialist system i.e. universalizing aspects of government, I still have a bone to pick with that. I am leery of giving to much power to a centralized body when what makes a government is not some magic leviathan - in Hobbesian lingo - but the communities which invest power in government. Therefore, the most free and stable form of government is a democratic republic.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


and you think removing the state - law-judiciary - is gonna solve civilizations problems??? Excuse while I laugh and than weep.

I did not say that. Stop projecting onto me your fears.

You people are radicals for a reason. You oppose reason. In fact, you hate reason, to think that man's emotionality can be contained without outward strictures.

"You people"? Really? Oppose reason??
Hate reason?

Uh, no.

You portray yourself as one of "the" people that has 5 houses, 3 jets, 4 yachts, and more money than you know what to do with. Adults who are mature are perfectly able to keep their "emotionality...contained", without outward "strictures"....why, are you only holding back from an egregious act by the "outward strictures"?



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


Ok...Firstly, I am perfectly familiar with the differences between communism and socialism - but make no mistake - communism is a type of socialism.

Gold star!!! You're right! I never said it wasn't!! Would you like links to some pages that discuss the differences?

Communism is an idiotic, EXTREME form of socialism....
and not AT ALL what Marx (or Aristotle or Plato or Socrates) were talking about!

*sigh*



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes

Communism is an idiotic, EXTREME form of socialism....
and not AT ALL what Marx (or Aristotle or Plato or Socrates) were talking about!


Actually in the time Marx was alive communism and socialism were the same thing. Both terms used by movements for worker ownership to replace capitalism.

Marx preferred the term 'communism' because middle class liberals had started appropriating the term 'socialism' for their own use. He used 'communism' simply to differentiate his 'socialism' from the middle class liberals.

Just like the socialists who wanted to differentiate themselves from Marxists socialism called themselves anarchists.

It's confusing because people have used the terms so loosely. People have called themselves anarcho-socialist and anarcho-communist, but they are both really the same thing. The term used has more to do with culture and personal choice than ideology.

Communism is a French word from the term common, to own in common. Workers common ownership of the means of production.


The French are at the root of the term communism because it was coined in France shortly after the French Revolution, which was the ultimate French quest for alternatives to absolute monarchy.


www.emersonkent.com...


socialism Look up socialism at Dictionary.com
1832, from Fr. socialisme or from social + -ism. Cf. socialist. Apparently first in reference to Robert Owen's communes. "Pierre Leroux (1797-1871), idealistic social reformer and Saint-Simonian publicist, expressly claims to be the originator of the word socialisme" [Klein]. The word begins to be used in French in the modern sense c.1835.

www.etymonline.com...

Robert Owen was a socialist, his followers called Owenites, and were the first to use the term 'socialism' for their ideas of common worker ownership. They are also know as the root of the cooperative movement.

Owenism

The problem with web sites that claim to know the difference between communism and socialism is they simply haven't done their homework, and just make the common assumptions based on modern history and misappropriated terms.


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 (communism and anarchism)


edit on 8/6/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


You Geek! Thanks for correcting that. In fairness to me, science and engineering geeks have been doing the same in regards to Star Trek for years.

The point remains the same. When a technology is achieved that can replicate basic necessities - and as you explain it, or even if it were nanotechnology, it is not clear that the benefit/cost ratio would actually eliminate any need for labor in terms of producing the energy necessary to accomplish this - then perhaps standard economic models will become obsolete.

Thanks for sharing your inner Geek with us.




Well that is just the POINT! If you can understand the UNIFIED FIELD THEORY then you would have the ability to generate ENDLESS AND UNIMAGINABLE quantities of ENERGY. But that is not all...you would be also capable of ENERGY TO MATTER AND BACK INTERCHANGE. This is where as a RACE all financial concerns evaporate. With this one ability to understand this particular Riddle within a Box that has no bottom...you can do just about ANYTHING! Interstellar Travel...Check! Teleportation...Check! Endless Source of Green Energy...Check! Conversion of Energy into ANY OBJECT LIVING OR NOT...Check! Conversion of Any Object Living or Not into Energy...Check! Time Travel....Check! Ultimate Medical Advancements...Check! Replication of Human Body and Spare Parts...Check! TOTAL AND COMPLETE ELIMINATION OF THE CONCERNS OF WEALTH...Check! Ability to have a lot of spare time for LEARNING AND ADVANCEMENT...Check! Total Elimination of STARVATION, DISEASE, WAR, POVERTY and my inability to understand my new GPS...CHECK!!! LOL! Split Infinity



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


The Tea Party protested and got branded as terrorist in Brooks Bros clothing. lol it was kinda funny coming from Nancy Pelosi and Janet Napolitano, but nevertheless frustrating because even people here bought that lie. And people here spout the whole nonsense about the Koch Bros controlling the Tea Party. But I was there and I saw the many signs that said we were fed up with the commie/socialist nonsense in govt, and also that which is globalist which could be put in its own category. Once the Democrat Party was able to minimize the Tea Party as extremist gun clingerers with extremist Christian religion and some kinda backwoods mentality, the rest of the world bought into it. It is also interesting to note that one of the big Tea Party organizers is a reformed liberal by her own definition. So maybe it wasn't the Koch Bros but a reformed liberal who showed us the way, because really when did conservatives ever protest the govt?
We may end up paying for our protests in the end, as the govt is spying on all the people who speak up, and I imagine this goes for Occupiers too.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 01:39 AM
link   
hasn't the american constitution and thus government been under coup since 9/11 or at least 12 years or so?

some say, since JFK's assasination not 1 president has been elected by the people ever since!




posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoveU
hasn't the american constitution and thus government been under coup since 9/11 or at least 12 years or so?

some say, since JFK's assasination not 1 president has been elected by the people ever since!



Erm, I'm sure that LBJ for a start would beg to differ.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


The Tea Party protested and got branded as terrorist in Brooks Bros clothing. lol it was kinda funny coming from Nancy Pelosi and Janet Napolitano, but nevertheless frustrating because even people here bought that lie. And people here spout the whole nonsense about the Koch Bros controlling the Tea Party. But I was there and I saw the many signs that said we were fed up with the commie/socialist nonsense in govt, and also that which is globalist which could be put in its own category. Once the Democrat Party was able to minimize the Tea Party as extremist gun clingerers with extremist Christian religion and some kinda backwoods mentality, the rest of the world bought into it. It is also interesting to note that one of the big Tea Party organizers is a reformed liberal by her own definition. So maybe it wasn't the Koch Bros but a reformed liberal who showed us the way, because really when did conservatives ever protest the govt?
We may end up paying for our protests in the end, as the govt is spying on all the people who speak up, and I imagine this goes for Occupiers too.


From this side of the Atlantic I can tell you that the Tea Party look like a bunch of deranged lunatics with no connection to reality. Hopefully they're going to kill off the Republican Party.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 05:34 AM
link   
governments exist so as to ORGANIZE the people....not control them...

we are to control ourselves....if the people are not represented (faithfully organized) then the government will fail eventually, but not before causing much suffering and hell on earth just for the sake of sticking around....

It is the self proclaimed lights of humanity to darken this world for their private and wholly unethical selfish interests...

when the people are not represented by their government the world is a POS.....when they are, everyone prospers and grows.....

if not, some grow fat and worthless while others are hardened thin and brave......

bad mix...
edit on 8-8-2012 by BIHOTZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by BIHOTZ
 


BS.

If it suits a majority to control a minority through laws and regulation than that is what that government is meant to do.

Government is meant to represent the majority, and sometimes that means controlling people. No government doesn't exercise some degree of control. It's a myth.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by spyder550
This has been the threat all of my 62 years -- It was the threat that built the huge military industrial machine, it was the threat that built McCarthy and Nixon,it is the threat that brought us to Korea, it is the threat that brought us to Viet Nam, it is the threat that put us on the moon, it is the threat that made Raygun a hero, it is the threat that built 1000s of bomb shelters and the interstate highway system.

It has been the boogie man who lived under the bed. It is a boogie man now - for tea ##SNIPPED## and republicans. It is the teat that the right wing uses to suckle its authoritarian personality.

I wouldn't worry about it.
edit on Fri Aug 3 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)


BTW, in case you didn't know, it was a DEMOCRAT President, John F Kennedy, who sent us to Vietnam...
It was a DEMOCRAT President, Harry S. Truman, who sent us to Korea...

This goes to show how little you know about this subject...

You should TRY to inform yourself before letting your mouth, or in this case your fingers, run amok spewing nothing but lies...

Communism wasn't, or isn't a threat?... Really?...



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother

BS.

If it suits a majority to control a minority through laws and regulation than that is what that government is meant to do.

Government is meant to represent the majority, and sometimes that means controlling people. No government doesn't exercise some degree of control. It's a myth.


That's not how the U.S.A. works in case you didn't know... EVERYONE, including minorities, have rights... When you give power to a mayority it becomes a dictatorship.

Hitler and Germany did it to Jewish people and other minorities. Saddam Hussein did it with the Kurds and other minorities, and it has been happening in many nations around the world when the mayority have total power over minorities.

The founding fathers were smarter than the average person, thanks heavens, and they knew that a government controlled by a mayority would become a dictatorship, which is why they implemented the Electoral College in the voting process in the Republic of the U.S.A.


edit on 10-8-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evil_Santa
reply to post by neo96
 


Cuba might improve if we remove all the trade restrictions with that country, all because they have a different form of government.


Again, the U.S.A. is not the only country in the world... Cuba has had businesses with Canada, and European nations for DECADES... Yet none of that money helped the Cuban people...

How easy it is for people to make claims about topics they really have no idea about...



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
When you give power to a mayority it becomes a dictatorship.


Hmmm actually no, a dictatorship is an individual, or small minority group, having control over government.

If the majority have the power that means an individual has a harder time dictating.

Equality is about the majority having power, so an individual, or a minority group, can not have power over you.

The alternative to majority rule is minority rule. Of course minority rule suits capitalism, as long as the capitalists have control. Majority control, is control over your own life. Minority control is when someone else has control of your life.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 03:17 AM
link   
I once heard that any idiot can use the word Communism to sell fear.

You have proven the point to the nth degree.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

How easy it is for people to make claims about topics they really have no idea about...


...Like you

There is no communist plot, Communism died as a viable political expression decades ago.

You are a merchant of propaganda and deceit, you practice Nazi style repetition to instill
your disinformation into the psyche of people.


If you went to hell and burned I wonder if you would bunk Hitlers marketing henchmen




top topics



 
61
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join