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: 25
61
<< 22  23  24    26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by xuenchen
Well that's exactly what you need to fear isn't it ? They always seem to stop right when just barely ready to get the train to "Utopia"
If those "Planks" were supposed to be a "Transition" period, why even implement them ?

Grampaw Karl knew exactly what he was writing. The codewords are all there. Karl wrote the master plan.


What master plan are you talking about? What code-words? Please elaborate so we can discuss them.

The transition period was simply following the political path, formation of a workers political party etc., as apposed to revolution that the anarchists wanted. It was a plan not all socialists agreed with. There were other planes put forward. Marx is not the be-all and end-all of socialism.

BTW it was Granpaw Engels who wrote the Manifesto, Marx just updated it. It really should be called Engelism.

State systems that called themselves "communist" were simply using twisted Marxist theory for their own ends. The state using Marxism as an excuse to take power. Same thing Hitler did. Using the same misunderstanding you have, that Marxism is state control. Same thing with so called revolutionary communist armies in the third world. Marxism is a political path, not a military, or violent path to socialism.

Hating socialism because of what some countries did, is like hating Christianity because your clergy fiddles with kids.


edit on 8/13/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)


Engelism now



The Word "Communism" is the word everybody knows and understands.

All the "Underwords" as described by ElectricUniverse are the codewords.

Maybe now we should rename the codewords to "Engelwords".

The fact is that "THEY" keep doing the same things to get there.

The "Intelligentsia" classroom versions are not the reality.


edit on Aug-13-2012 by xuenchen because:





posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


If Darwinism is so favorable then why are so many apex predators on the endangered species list?

Oligarchy is no more acceptable in a Republic than is Communism..

But if we want to throw Darwin into the mix then I say let's think about social responsibility as a means for best insuring the procreation of the species.

~Heff



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by neo96
 


If Darwinism is so favorable then why are so many apex predators on the endangered species list?

Oligarchy is no more acceptable in a Republic than is Communism..

But if we want to throw Darwin into the mix then I say let's think about social responsibility as a means for best insuring the procreation of the species.

~Heff


Here is the thing about certain political ideology the current manifestation of man is the result of millions of years of evolution via environmental mechanisms.

Would you agree?

If so modern day politics and arguments seek to change the environment to suit the individual instead of what man has a long history of doing adapting to an ever changing environment.

That artifiical manipulation of man and his arrogance create more problems than they have ever solved the truth is that man has failed time and time agian because they are imperfect trying to create a perfect existence which is not possible..

Mankind either needs to adapt no amount of government is going to change that the result is de evolution of the species who would perish without that great savior of government.

Now since darwinism was mentioned people have the ability to adapt we all do but again political ideology say no they don't which is why social governments and communist government's have all failed.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


I agree fully that we need to adapt and that our current methods of doing so are, at best, failing. I think where we differ in opinion is that I lean toward progressing in evolution - not stagnating or following the rules that governed us, as animals, in the past.

We, as a species, have evolved to a point of having some control over where we go from here. We have the capacity to relegate "survival of the fittest" to the pages of history books.

Currently the odds are already too highly stacked in favor of "the house" ( Government and a few powerful individuals and corporations )... this makes "We the People" and even more important phrase - because the framers didn't write "We, the few amongst the people...."

~Heff



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


To a certain point to where an element of darwinism needs to happen the core component of "we the people" is the individual.

When people get to the point where the people has more power than the individual well that is how we ended up where we are.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


In a Democracy, Republic or otherwise, the needs of the people should always outweigh the needs of the individual. The caveats are that all of the individuals must be treated equally under law and that the individual should have specified and unalienable rights - again, across the board.

The country we live in today does not, IMO, meet this standard. Nor would any meritocracy or oligarchy.

Now if you wanted to strip every single person in the US down to the same level of debt/wealth and THEN start the game over? Maybe I'd be more inclined to agree. But I was already born into a world where my last name wasn't Rockefeller... so I began behind.

~Heff
edit on 8/13/12 by Hefficide because: changed possessive and forgot to alter structure



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


I do not agree with that those who give away their own inmate sovereign power to someone else seeks to have a master, and for those who believe and do deserve the mastery they get.

History has shown time and time agian that authority has been abused for the good of the whole....what that boils down is to those "few intellectual elite" who knows what's best for you no matter the opinions we hold,

Not everyone is born with the same abilities which is one of the main reasons that people have a different outcome there is no such thing as a perfect world, there will never be a perfect world.



Forget the title of the video just listen to what he says the point is about giving everyone 20 bucks can ignore the rest.
edit on 13-8-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Hefficide
 


History has shown time and time agian that authority has been abused for the good of the whole....what that boils down is to those "few intellectual elite" who knows what's best for you no matter the opinions we hold,


I fully agree with this. People in power tend to abuse power. There will always be an elite. There is no way of avoiding this that I can see... but we can always remember - we outnumber them literally millions to one. It is in their best interest to keep us sated and feeling like we've got a horse in the race - even when we don't.


Originally posted by neo96

Not everyone is born with the same abilities which is one of the main reasons that people have a different outcome there is no such thing as a perfect world, there will never be a perfect world.


I agree, as well, that not everybody is born with the same abilities. But I fully believe that all people should be born with relatively comparative possibilities and opportunities.


Originally posted by neo96

Forget the title of the video just listen to what he says the point is about giving everyone 20 bucks can ignore the rest.


I listened and his point is valid. If you were to give a bunch of folks twenty bucks each and come back awhile later, some would be broke, others would have way more than they began with. But Mr Wayne ( God rest his soul ) said "if you give a bunch of folks twenty bucks (paraphrased)" not "If you give Bob a nickel, Mike ten million dollars, and Steve eight billion..."

~Heff



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
..
You seem to focus on left-wing violence, and ignore the violence of the right-wing, and capitalist class, that is a daily reality, not just a reaction to past events during an uprising and civil war.

Many previous capitalists and clergy joined the revolution.


Are you out of your mind?... NO CLERGY NOR CAPITALISTS JOINED YOUR LOVED REVOLUTION... It was called the RED Terror for a reason...and not because it consisted of capitalists and clergy murdering REDS...

Francisco Franco was able to gain popularity because of the massacres that the REDS committed against defenseless people. Just like the Christian crusades were a response to the Muslim crusades, the war that Franco fought against the REDS, and their sympathizers was caused by the massacres the REDS committed first....

I lived 9 years in Spain, and even in the 80s you could still listen to old timers discuss and argue about Franco and the RED Terror in bars...

According to old timers under Franco there was almost no crime at all, because criminals knew what would happen WHEN they would be caught. Same thing with REDS.

If the REDS hadn't gone on their murder spree the rise of Franco wouldn't have been possible...

The mayority of Spain was in those times religious which is why, thankfully, the RED TERROR didn't last so long.


Originally posted by ANOK
You simply focus on the negatives of the left, but only focus on the positives of the right. I don't glorify the violence of the Spanish revolutionaries, or even support it. To ignore the successes of the system because of what people did is just stupid. People died because they apposed the revolution, and there was a civil war between nationalists and republicans.


Oh please, you had been glorifying the ENTIRE RED REVOLUTION in Spain several times until I caught you in your lies and wanting to re-write history as you have done and keep doing every day...



Originally posted by ANOK
I find it hilarious when it comes to the left you get all anti-violence, but you support a system that is inherently violent on a daily basis, not even to mention the use of state military to expand capitalists desire for global market control. Far more working class people were killed by the Spanish state, clergy and capitalists, than the the revolutionaries killed them.


Global Market CONTROL is not Capitalism/FREE MARKET... Market CONTROL, even GLOBAL comes from too much government/state intervention/regulation = SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM...

Socialists/communists LOVE to claim "the worker's own the mean of production" but in REALITY THIS NEVER HAPPENS because all private property is abolished, including labor...

I find it hilarious that you claim socialism/communism is so great when these systems have caused the most murders of innocents than ALL OTHER WARS AND CONFLICTS PUT TOGETHER...



Originally posted by ANOK
You know you wouldn't be living in the USA enjoying it's "freedom" without violence? Where is your outrage about that? You think freedom comes for free? You must live in lala land if you think the state will give you your freedom without a fight.


... The fight for the REPUBLIC of the United States was AGAINST too much government intervention, because the British crown wanted to control the people... The one who lives in lala land every day is you, more so when you live and are THRIVING under a CAPITALIST system...

There is a BIG difference between fighting people who are trying to control you, including puting you in prison, and or shooting at you, and MURDERING innocent people because they are capitalists or religious...


Originally posted by ANOK
You should also take a look at the Industrial revolution and see the violence capitalists wrought on the workers, before the workers got laws changed. Or the thousands of people who were displaced because of the law changes that started labour exploitation. I very much doubt you will see capitalism in a negative light because of it. Sorry but your arguments are hypocritical.


WRONG, it wasn't Capitalism...it was, and it is to this day Corpocratism/Corpocracy... The same Corpocrats who funded the Bolshevick revolution were, and have been the ones making life impossible for people/workers...

It was the PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS who put these CORPOCRATS in power over the republic of the United States, and the world.


cor·poc·ra·cy (kôr-pkr-s)
n. pl. cor·poc·ra·cies
1. A society dominated politically and economically by large corporations.
2. An inefficient corporation characterized by excessive layers of management.

www.thefreedictionary.com...


edit on 14-8-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
ElectricUniverse, please stop shouting. Constant use of caps is considered rude.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg
ElectricUniverse, please stop shouting. Constant use of caps is considered rude.


Not shouting, ANOK, and some other people don't seem to notice the facts regarding the topic being discussed, hence it warrants a better way for them to notice the facts they are trying to avoid, and twist...

If i was yelling everything would be in caps...

BTW, as your counter-argument, it shows you have no real argument at all.
edit on 14-8-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Nice way to somehow disparage Einstein. He escaped the murdering rightwing scum that were the Nazis. That gave him an excellent insight into McCarthyism.


Hitler, and Mussolini implemented LEFTWING policies, and Hitler went so far as FORCING corporations to build what he would say they needed to build "for the good of the nation", which was mostly only war material.

Hitler, and Mussolini were SOCIALISTS, and some other members and myself have proven this on several occassions... But leftwingers call SOCIALISTS like Hitler and Mussolini "rightwingers", when Hitler and Mussolini had been LEFTWING all their lives, because the new socialists are ashamed of the truth...
edit on 14-8-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Hitler, and Mussolini were SOCIALISTS, and some other members and myself have proven this on several occassions...

Hitler, and Mussolini were RIGHT WING FASCISTS, and some other members and myself have proven this on several occassions...

ElectricUniverse just doesn't want to accept it so we play the same game over and over in these types of threads.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   
The young jello heads here who think Socialism//marxism/communism (or what ever you choose to label it) is the bomb need to go live in a country already practicing it and get back to us. Until then you are just being stupid trying to redefine everything to fit you warped brainwashed ideology...


edit on 14-8-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
The young jello heads here who think Socialism//marxism/communism (or what ever you choose to label it) is the bomb need to go live in a country already practicing it and get back to us. Until then you are just being stupid trying to redefine everything to fit you warped brainwashed ideology...

How about keeping it on the topic which is "the US on the verge of Communist Takeover" and not young jello heads and what they think.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Nice way to somehow disparage Einstein. He escaped the murdering rightwing scum that were the Nazis. That gave him an excellent insight into McCarthyism.


Hitler, and Mussolini implemented LEFTWING policies, and Hitler went so far as FORCING corporations to build what he would say they needed to build "for the good of the nation", which was mostly only war material.

Hitler, and Mussolini were SOCIALISTS, and some other members and myself have proven this on several occassions... But leftwingers call SOCIALISTS like Hitler and Mussolini "rightwingers", when Hitler and Mussolini had been LEFTWING all their lives, because the new socialists are ashamed of the truth...
edit on 14-8-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)


No. You obviously know nothing about history. Can I remind you that both Hitler and Mussolini imprisoned, exiled or just plain killed their socialist or communist enemies? They were right wing. Right wing lunatics to be precise.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
The young jello heads here who think Socialism//marxism/communism (or what ever you choose to label it) is the bomb need to go live in a country already practicing it and get back to us. Until then you are just being stupid trying to redefine everything to fit you warped brainwashed ideology...


I'm not young BTW. I have been a Libertarian socialist for 30+ years. I have read many books on the subject, been a member of socialist and anarchist organizations. You on the other hand have been internet educated.

There are no countries practicing socialism/Marxism, or communism. State ownership of the means of production is nationalism, not socialism. They are communist in name only. To be communist the workers have to own the means of production, not the state. State ownership is also know as state-capitalism and state-socialism, but state-socialism is not true socialism, that socialists want. State socialism is as much exploitation of the workers as is capitalism. State-socialism is a bastardization of Marxism. It is those in authority attempting to gain the support of the workers.


Nationalization (British English spelling nationalisation) is the process of taking an industry or assets into government ownership by a national government or state.[1] Nationalization usually refers to private assets, but may also mean assets owned by lower levels of government, such as municipalities, being transferred to the public sector to be operated and owned by the state. The opposite of nationalization is usually privatization or de-nationalization, but may also be municipalization.

Nationalization


The term “State Capitalism” is frequently used in two different ways: first, as an economic form in which the state performs the role of the capitalist employer, exploiting the workers in the interest of the state. The federal mail system or a state-owned railway are examples of this kind of state capitalism. In Russia, this form of state capitalism predominates in industry : the work is planned, financed and managed by the state; the directors of industry are appointed by the state and profits are considered the income of the state. Second, we find that a condition is defined as state capitalism (or state socialism) under which capitalist enterprises are controlled by the state. This definition is misleading, however, as there still exists under these conditions capitalism in the form of private ownership, although the owner of an enterprise is no longer the sole master, his power being restricted so long as some sort of social insurance system for the workers is accepted....

....The goal of the working class is liberation from exploitation. This goal is not reached and cannot be reached by a new directing and governing class substituting the bourgeoisie. It can only be realised by the workers themselves being master over production.

Nevertheless it is possible and quite probable that state capitalism will be an *intermediary stage*, until the proletariat succeeds in establishing communism. This, however, could not happen for economic but for political reasons. State capitalism would not be the result of economic crises but of the class struggle. In the final stage of capitalism, the class struggle is the most significant force that determines the actions of the bourgeoisie and shapes state economy.


State Capitalism and Dictatorship

*intermediary stage* is the transitional period of Marxism. A temporary period of state ownership, which is supposed to be replaced by socialism once production is increased to meet needs. This is what the USSR etc., took advantage of, they used that idea of Marxism to trick the people into accepting state control, but with no revolutionary plan to replace the state with worker ownership. The ONLY reasonable argument is Marxism failed, because the people allowed the state to have complete power. The only way to socialism is through the people, not governments. Government will never give us socialism/communism, it is not in their best interest to do so. They will give us nationalism leading to totalitarianism under the guise of socialism.

Socialism is not state control, it is not government hand-outs. It is worker ownership of the means of production.
For a country to have a socialist/communist economy the workers must own the means of production.

Lets look at Libertarian Socialism, another name for anarchism, socialists who support direct action as apposed to the political path of Marxism...


"the fact that State Socialism . . . has overshadowed other forms of Socialism gives it no right to a monopoly of the Socialistic idea." Benjamin Tucker, Instead of a Book, pp. 363-4


Benjamin Tucker


"Let me just say regarding the terminology, since we happen to be in the United States, we have to be rather careful. Libertarian in the United States has a meaning which is almost the opposite of what it has in the rest of the world traditionally. Here, libertarian means ultra right-wing capitalist. In the European tradition, libertarian meant socialist. So, anarchism was sometimes called libertarian socialism, a large wing of anarchism, so we have to be a little careful about terminology." Noam Chomsky



Yet even a quick glance at the history of the socialist movement indicates that the identification of socialism with state ownership and control is not common. For example, Anarchists, many Guild Socialists, council communists (and other libertarian Marxists), as well as followers of Robert Owen, all rejected state ownership. Indeed, anarchists recognised that the means of production did not change their form as capital when the state took over their ownership nor did wage-labour change its nature when it is the state employing labour (for example, see section H.3.13 ). For anarchists state ownership of capital is not socialistic in the slightest. Indeed, as Tucker was well aware, state ownership turned everyone into a proletarian (bar the state bureaucracy) -- hardly a desirable thing for a political theory aiming for the end of wage slavery!


Not all socialists are Marxists and do not support any kind of state system, even a temporary one. So no socialism is not state ownership, it can be libertarian. It is simply an economic system, not a political system.


"Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." Mikhail Bakunin


You folks need to stop using dictionary, and the general misunderstanding of definitions.


So what does socialism mean? Is it compatible with libertarian ideals? What do the words libertarian and socialism actually mean? It is temping to use dictionary definitions as a starting point, although we should stress that such a method holds problems as different dictionaries have different definitions and the fact that dictionaries are rarely politically sophisticated. Use one definition, and someone else will counter with one more to their liking. For example, socialism is often defined as "state ownership of wealth" and anarchy as "disorder." Neither of these definitions are useful when discussing political ideas, particularly anarchism as, obviously, no form of anarchism would be socialist by such a definition nor do anarchists seek disorder. Therefore, the use of dictionaries is not the end of a discussion and often misleading when applied to politics...



"system of communism logically excludes any and every relation between master and servant, and means really Anarchism." "Talking about Anarchy", p. 28, Black Flag, no. 228, p. 28


Isn't libertarian socialism an oxymoron?


edit on 8/14/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 






There are no countries practicing socialism/Marxism, or communism. State ownership of the means of production is nationalism, not socialism. They are communist in name only. To be communist the workers have to own the means of production, not the state. State ownership is also know as state-capitalism and state-socialism.


Yeah and they all made the same BS argument as you are before they overthrew their governments and implemented Marxism. The state in communism represents the people or the collective hence they are all owners in their minds, that is where your BS ideology has ended up every time and somehow you expect us to believe you got it right this time... Sigh!

Why is it you little commies think you have to change the government to implement your BS? Because you want control to impose your will on others against their will! I can guarantee you one thing if you ever try to implement your BS here you will end up a forgotten martyr for the cause one way or another.

All those other countries are the result of your ideology and yes they are socialist marxist and facist which are all brands of communism. Why don't you all shut up and get off your lazy asses and start an employee owned business instead of trying to steal the fruits of the labors of someone else? Quit preaching your BS and prove it works. And don't start spouting the non-sense that because the state or capitalist control the means of production. Anyone can still start a business in America. And it should be easier if you get all the initiating employees together and pool your money and resources... Come on show us how it is done instead of talking about it. Put up or shut up!

What do you have against freedom!



edit on 14-8-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-8-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


I just finished posting you have not had time to read my reply and the links. I have answered all you need to know, please read and digest the information.

Sorry but I'm done debating people who refuse to read and understand...



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by hawkiye
 


I just finished posting you have not had time to read my reply and the links. I have answered all you need to know, please read and digest the information.

Sorry but I'm done debating people who refuse to read and understand...


I have read all your BS in several threads here and rebutted it all many times. You have never responded to my call for you to get off your ass and start an employee owned business because you know it defeats your argument and you are lazy all talk as they say and no substance.

I don't need to read your BS umpteen times, results are damn hard to argue with. Every jello head that has ever fought in a communist revolution was filled with the same BS you are spouting about how everyone would be equal and free and owners as soon as they defeated the evil capitalist who enslaved them blah blah. Do you think anyone of them would have done it had they known the outcome? Do you think the Jello heads who fought with Castro and thought they were fighting for freedom have any regrets? Accept those who were made the bosses everyone of them regretted it!

You have no idea what you are espousing you think somehow you can get it right. Well let me tell you some benefactor may come along some day and fund your revolution but only for his and his chosen bosses benefits . Not for your naive ideology. Wake up and grow up....


edit on 14-8-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
61
<< 22  23  24    26 >>

log in

join