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.

 

Yup. He’s a Socialist....

page: 14
21
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 06:28 AM
link   
“There was another world leader that used Forward! as his campaign slogan. Today the world knows him as Hitler. That “Hope and Change” stuff – pure Mao, literally straight from Mao’s mouth. It was one of his most effective slogans during the years before he seized power.”
Propulsion

Here is the list
en.wikipedia.org...
According to you then Washington and Jefferson were Nazis because they ( like Hitler) constantly used the word “freedom.” DUH



edit on 5-9-2012 by wittgenstein because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 06:37 AM
link   
Yes he's a socialist, communist, fascist, etc. He can be all if these ideologies that will typically move toward tyranny/totalitarianism. There really isn't much daylight between these sister ideologies of oppression. They all move in the same direction which is away from freedom for the populace and toward the centralization of power in the federal government.

So no need to split 'ism hairs. Your all right.

The only ones that are wrong or lying are the ones that say he's none of these things.

edit on 5-9-2012 by 11235813213455 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


You use these two examples all the time. Incorrectly all the time. Mussolini WAS a socialist UNTIL the end of WWI. Italy suffered a devastating loss to Germany that caused Mussolini to HATE SOCIALISTS, he blamed their pacifism for the loss.

As he rose in power he slaughtered many of his former Socialist friends, he became obsessed with military strength and realized that money would buy a strong military and he knew that Banks and Corporations were the ones with money all they wanted in exchange was control of the government, a brutal ending to Union Labor and a plan for domination.

That is what Fascism is, Corporate controlled government. Socialism is worker owned means of production and people in control of government.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   
A lot of people in this thread seem deluded. People seem to think that the human species can survive if we follow any of the previous forms of government that have ever existed. Where are all the thousand year old civilizations? There are none, because there have been no successful forms of government. The future holds limitless possibilities, but human beings are too f***ing stupid to realize how easy things can be. The solution to all of humanity's problems is so simple, but it seems impossible with the mindsets of people today.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by abeverage
 


He presided over the biggest move to socialize medicine in the US since Medicare and SS. What were you expecting?


And Willard Romney says...what?



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Does the OP knows the difference between a social democracy (like Sweden and Norway) and communism? Because i think what you are afraid of is the last one.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 



Those are interesting pieces from several sources but not one of those sources provide any proof that Obama is a socialist. Those articles do, however, cite several third person quotes and seemly out of context quotes form several people. To prove that Obama is a socialist you must provide some video, essay written by Obama or some type of direct quotes in which Obama promotes socialism.

It is very clear to me that Obama is a capitalist. His policies prove it and the people he surrounds himself with in the white house also proves it. Just look at his cabinet for a good example. Most of the cabinet are from Wall Street and the banking sector. Wall Street is not promoting socialism. Wall Street want capitalist in it`s most raw and unforgiving form.

BTW
Nikita Khrushchev was a revisionist and not someone who can be considered a good person to go hunting for quotes among Soviet leaders. And just like Capitalist leaders like to say things just to get a kick out of seeing a socialist leader get offended; socialist leaders do the same thing.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by freemarketsocialist
I knew who you were talking about.

I knew because I assumed you were one of the millions of Americans that do not understand socialism and parrot right wing hysteria.

Obama is no socialist. You are insulting socialists all over.

Does the SEP support Obama? No.


saved me having to type,for that I offer a hundred thank yous.
It helps to know what a socialist is , and what models do or have represented it,
to so many (in the USA ) socialism equates to "being a commie"



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
The new way is a way that has no constitution or law.

Obama said that AK's do not belong in the hands of citizens but on the hands of soldiers in a battlefield. A few months after signing into law that America is a battlefield.

Thats why Im voting him out in November.


You will do no such thing ;-)

He will stay in the Oval Office for another term ;-)



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by freedomwv
 


There are no capitalist leaders...



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by crankySamurai
reply to post by freedomwv
 


There are no capitalist leaders...


Let me clarify. Political leaders in nations which ascribe to subjecting their population to rule by a capitalist class elite with little in the way of checks on said class. You know...the first world privileged nations.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   
My brother recently said to me, "You're sounding like a socialist."

I replied, "Is that a bad thing? I think you've been subject to propaganda."

He replied, "I don't know, I just always thought it was bad."

I replied, "What do you think the water company is? If you took the public water utility and gave it to the Koch brothers to manage, what would your water bill be? How much would you pay for water?"

He replied, "Never thought about it that way. Guess I am a socialist in some regards."

Of course, this is mixing socialism with management of a natural monopoly--but the essence of it is preserved there.

Capitalism and free markets work great, if the following assumptions are met:

1) Goods are not a natural monopoly (water distribution)

2) Goods are not a commonly shared resource (e.g. road)

3) Demand is elastic. How much would you pay to have water / life-saving medical care? These are inelastically demanded goods.

4) That the market is truly free and brand recognition/informed consumption is possible. Many markets have regulations in favor of big companies, e.g. Koch brothers. They actively lobby to keep it that way. The only deregulation you hear about is the roadblocks put in the way of the big corporate entities. This is the most addressable part of a market, in that addressing these issues could return some normalcy to many markets. Corporations don't want this.

Given a market where any of 1-3 hold, socialism is a better model.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Obama's a socialist?

In other breaking news, the Titanic struck an iceburg....



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 


Thats BS... Have you ever tried to eat without a dime to your name?


good point... it's not hard at all here in America... restaurants even have a rule that if a homeless man walks in and eats off the buffet... it's against the law to tell him to leave. Not sure many people know this law or it would be exploited.

But yes... anytime I'm hungry and around town... I never pay unless I have extra cash on hand... deli's anywhere hand out food for this very reason... much food is wasted and they don't really care about letting you walk around and eat..... I've taught this to buddies of mine in touring bands who live off nothing but gas and booze money... sleeping in parking lots... playing shows along the east coast. They thanked me the last time they saw me for the easy food issue fix. Any walmart or grocery store with a Deli... tell'em what you want ... they slap a price tag on it and you're free to walk around and eat or pay for it.... it's cheap product and overpriced... welcome doormat.

edit on 5-9-2012 by MikhailBakunin because: adding some personal experience to the repertoire


living's easy... it's the dying part that gets their minds boggled
edit on 5-9-2012 by MikhailBakunin because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by Propulsion
 


So much BS in your OP.

Ther is OBVIOUSLY a middle ground. Obviously. The Founding Fathers thought so as well, which is why some argued for free state funded education paid for with taxes... but maybe you know more than they do?

Europe ALSO has found a way to have a social safety net without turning into the Soviet Union.

It's YOUR hardcore, and delusional, ideology that's the issue.

You don't know history and you want us all to conform to YOUR ideal, which has NEVER existed, except maybe in places like Somalia.
After 4 years of rampant unemployment and underemployment (for which he/they did nothing to make an atmosphere in which there was work–and often the opposite), I’m gathering Obama & friends’ blatant coming out with socialist ideology means they think the time is finally ripe that people will gladly accept their fundamental change of America.

But I’m going to guess, this doesn’t include their wealth. After all, that’s their’s–they built that wealth, right?

Oh, and one more thing, if you are going to get all butt hurt and bent out of shape about this thread, you can easily go elsewhere. The thread was all about the video, which speaks numbers about Obama-jads views on America.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by TerryMcGuire
 


You should have adjusted your post. Rght now it looks like I said stuff that you said. It's probably way too late to edit, but I thought I would point it out.

My point is you can be a left Hegelian and still be a tool for the NWO. And that is Obama. Yes, he did make his left base mad by not closing gitmo, but he sure is holding to his ideals of promoting plenty of leftist goals, not the least of which is the process of nationalizing the health and auto industries. The fact that he is using Fabian tools should be taken into account, as incrementalism is a handy thing when trying not to boil a frog too fast.
edit on 5-9-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


Yes, I would have adjusted my post, but the accidental second posting took my attention and I missed my error in editing. Apologies.

Yes, Obama employes some traditional liberal tactics and he caters to the liberal enthusiasts, but he is a supporter and has been supported by Wall Street. This makes him a capitalist. Incrementalism does not work in abolishing capitalism. It's like trying to keep the sand out of those important places while trying to have sex on a towel at the beach.

My main objection to calling Obama a socialist is that I think it is deflective. The term Socialism, is now and has been for a long time, a buggaboo used by the corportate powers to frighten the working people. "You grow ten beans a week and the socialists are going to take five". Who wouldn't strike out at this. It's a buggaboo.

I may be wrong, but I think that you and I both, see the economic and political directions in which this world is heading. One world economy and one hierarchy of power. Blame who ever we want, there are those who are actively working an agenda of placing themselves in positions to benefit from this one world order. From what I can see, they are all capitalists, or if one wants, some form of capitalist, even degenerated capitalist such as cronies or corportatists etc. Just because they want to take the fruits of our labors from us for what ever little recompense they can get away with does not make them socialist. It makes them tyrants.

So what can we do about this one world order. We can fight it and hope that the whole thing crumbles and the world falls into some form of chaos from which we may hope to rebuild something more to our liking or we can do what we can to secure some amount of freedom for ourselves within its order.

I don't see this NWO as coming about only through the machinations of some ruling elite. Even a cursory reading of history makes it clear that the small roving tribes, and the agricultural communities and the city states and the flowing of one civilization into another after another is in part due to the increasing population and centralization of power needed to provide the materials for these civilizations. Like it or not, it is a trend that is thousands of years in the making and it is coalescing NOW.
Calling Obama a socialist or Romney a crony capitalist obfuscates the real issues we face and stymies the conversation as to how to go about keeping some power out of the hands of the rulers. Defining them improperly only leads us to fighting illusions.

If you ask me, we are heading back into feudalism. Feudalism where the serfs have Ipods and virtual reality to escape into and never question what they have lost. And who will be the feudal lords? Socialists? Hell no. The only socialists around will be all of us poor who survive only because we share whats left of our beans with one another.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikhailBakunin

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 


Thats BS... Have you ever tried to eat without a dime to your name?


good point... it's not hard at all here in America... restaurants even have a rule that if a homeless man walks in and eats off the buffet... it's against the law to tell him to leave. Not sure many people know this law or it would be exploited.

But yes... anytime I'm hungry and around town... I never pay unless I have extra cash on hand... deli's anywhere hand out food for this very reason... much food is wasted and they don't really care about letting you walk around and eat..... I've taught this to buddies of mine in touring bands who live off nothing but gas and booze money... sleeping in parking lots... playing shows along the east coast. They thanked me the last time they saw me for the easy food issue fix. Any walmart or grocery store with a Deli... tell'em what you want ... they slap a price tag on it and you're free to walk around and eat or pay for it.... it's cheap product and overpriced... welcome doormat.

edit on 5-9-2012 by MikhailBakunin because: adding some personal experience to the repertoire


living's easy... it's the dying part that gets their minds boggled
edit on 5-9-2012 by MikhailBakunin because: (no reason given)


Isn't this typically how vermin infestations start? Easily obtainable and free food?



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by ANOK
 



Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx presented the concept of the vanguard party as solely qualified to politically lead the proletariat in revolution; in Chapter II: "Proletarians and Communists" of The Communist Manifesto (1848), they said: The Communists, therefore, are, on the one hand, practically the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement. The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.
The purpose of the vanguard party is to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat; supported by the working class, the vanguard party would lead the revolution to depose the incumbent Tsarist government, and transfer government power to the working class. The change of ruling class, from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat, makes possible the full development of socialism.[1]


This what I mean by things being taken out of context.

None of you have actually read the Communist Manifesto. If you had you would know that quote is talking about what is called the 'transition period', the TEMPORARY period of a dictatorship of the workers (proletariat), it is NOT a description of socialism.

Please read and educate yourselves....

The 'Transition Period'

Not all socialists supported Marx's transition period and wanted direct action instead, these socialists called themselves Anarchists. How many times does this have to be repeated?


Beginnings

The founders of both Anarchism and Marxism all came out of the dissolution of the Young Hegelians in the 1840s, during the revolutionary upheavals that swept across Europe and destroyed the “Old Order”. Both Mikhail Bakunin and Frederick Engels were present at the December 1841 lecture by Friedrich Schelling denouncing Hegel, representing two of the plethora of radical currents that sprung out of that conjuncture. Also with their roots in the Young Hegelians were Max Stirner, a founder of libertarian individualism, one of the targets of Marx’s The Holy Family, Proudhon, the founder of theoretical anarchism and Bakunin’s teacher....


Marxism & Anarchism

Bakunin was an anarchist. He was also a socialist...


Bakunin was won over to socialism by the influence of Blanqui, and Bakunin was notorious for his propensity to form secret organisations fomenting rebellion. Bakunin regarded Proudhon however as his foremost teacher and recognised Proudhon as the founder of anarchism.


Marxism & Anarchism

Why would anarchists be socialists if socialism was state control? Because it isn't, it is simply the workers ownership of the means of production. That is what socialists means by the term socialism. The establishment right wing use a different incorrect definition of the term to confuse you.


In the worldwide movement for social justice, many young people are attracted by the ideas of anarchism - even if they don’t call themselves anarchists. Anarchists seem to stand for the same thing we Marxists do - a classless society, a self-organized and self-managed society - what we often sum up with the phrase ‘workers’ power’. Like us, many anarchists say they stand for revolution. No bosses, no police, social equality, no rich and no nuclear bombs. People not profit.

If we stand for the same goal, the same objectives as them, what’s the difference? Why the hostility between Marxists and anarchists?

There are two fundamental differences. The first is the party, the second is the state. Anarchists are against forming a political party; we say the working class needs a political party to lead the struggle against capitalism. Why do we insist on the formation of a revolutionary political party?...


The difference between anarchism and Marxism is the forming of a political party. The goal is the same, socialism, workers ownership of the means of production. Marxism is the political path and anarchism is the direct action path, the final goal is the same thing, free association...

Stop confusing what state government did, with what the people wanted. Socialism was a movement of the workers not government authority.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
Mussolini WAS a socialist UNTIL the end of WWI.


He was a member of the socialist party, but he was never really a socialist. He only joined them as a way to make progress politically. He even wrote anti-socialist articles, supporting Italy's entry into the war, in Avanti, the socialist paper he was the editor of. That got him expelled from the party.

He was a nationalist even during WWI, the socialists were conscientious objectors.


....The Act did not define "conscientious objection", but a government Circular issued under the Act referred to those whose "objection genuinely rests on religious or moral convictions". In practice many were Jehovah's Witnesses, Quakers or other Christian denominations, who simply saw the taking of life as wrong, while others objected to the war on political grounds such as socialism or international brotherhood. Conscientious objectors ("COs" or "conchies") were generally unpopular with the public, the press and the authorities, who saw them at best as unpatriotic shirkers and at worst as subjective revolutionaries....


Conscientious objectors in the First World War

You have to realise when I talk about socialism I am not talking about people in authority, but the working class who actually were the real socialists pre-WWII. Government used left wing terms for their own agendas, not because they actually supported socialism. This is was authority does, takes what threatens it and weakens that threat by appropriating that threat as it's own.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I'm all for a stateless society but I don't see how that can exist with an abolition of private property.
edit on 5-9-2012 by crankySamurai because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
21
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join