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: 16
21
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by ANOK
 


No government is the ideal yes, I guess I put my own bias there because I don't think humanity is grown up enough yet for such.

Noted correction on Mussolini


alot of people are grown up...but, just like on ATS, the few provocative loud mouths, that seem to have a screw loose, get the most attention. and then those people are the ones that are shown to represent others. of course this isn't new...it's been like this for millennia.




posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
There is no such thing as a classless and stateless society outside of anarchism.


But the goal of socialism/communism is the same as the anarchists, the only difference is the path to get there. Political path of Marx, or direct action of Bakunin.


BS! You are coming from the most extreme of left(anarcho-communism) and are UNABLE to compare political ideology properly. Mussolini and hitler were mixed economy socialists with a strong desire for nationalism and imperialism. Even stalin was an imperialist and when he got the chance to conquer eastern europe from the retreating germans, he capitalised on the chance.


It's not BS. Mussolini and Hitler were not socialist, they were fascists. Go read some history for petes sake.

Nationalism and imperialism is not socialism. Socialism was a workers movement, not government. Governments lie, don't you know that?



Yeah ok. Hitler born in poverty accidently became a right winger. The same germany that was humiiated in world war 1 FROM THE SAME ALLIES, made to pay unreasonable reparations to them, a society exploited by the jews, etc.


What? He was right wing by his actions mate. Being born into poverty has nothing to do with it. Fascism is a right wing ideology.

Explain to me, if Hitler and Mussolini were left-wing, why they fought against the left in Spain in support of the right wing dictator Franco? Explain to me why they threw socialists, communists, anarchists in the prison camps?


Hitler justified his decision by arguing that he was attempting to save Europe from "communist barbarism".


Germany and the Spanish Civil War

Hitler was extremely anti-communist, anti-left wing.


1930’s Europe was politically polarised – Stalin’s communist Russia opposed by the fascist regimes of Hitler’s Germany & Mussolini’s Italy. In the middle sat Great Britain, France and the rest of Europe, all trying to avoid conflict.
The British, still coming to terms with the horrors of the 1914-18 war played a game of appeasement. The ‘establishment’ saw many aspects of fascism in a favourable light and of course Germany was acting as a block against the advance of communism....


Stalin/Hitler/Mussolini & Spain

Claiming the fascists were left-wing is simply illogical, and just shows a lack of understanding of European history.


edit on 9/6/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Well I'm just surprise is all, most here seem to be very much against nationalisation. My problem is with people calling it socialism.


Nationalising something IS socialism! The people who are against this are right wingers who stand to lose a lot of money and influence from such a move. ATS is known for being a right wing site covertly, infiltrated to the core.

The only difference between me and you, and it is big, is that you reject authoritarian socialism for anarcho-socialism. Do you really think stalin, hitler, mao, etc........killed and enprisoned so many people just because they did not like them?

The illuminati(masons, bankers, capitalists, church) keep getting in the way of progress. I am not for nationalisation of everything as that indeed would be oppresive. Just critical sectors of the economy.

I have read most of your posts here and agree with workers rights and workers ownerships.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
Both can be had actually. Private ownership of land for a home isn't anti-socialist and a good lot of socialists do actually mean no private property for labor purposes. That is my personal taste as well, I see no harm in and prefer personal private ownership.


You are correct.


Here’s where there is the most confusion about socialism. Those who really do benefit from capitalism will lie and tell you that under socialism you can’t have your own PERSONAL property. You can’t own your own home or your own boat, etc.

The truth is that your personal property—what you need to enjoy a secure and comfortable life—is a lot safer under socialism than under capitalism.


Capitalism, socialism & personal property

Private property in the context of socialism means property used to exploit labour, not your personal property.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Nationalising something IS socialism!


How many more times, no it isn't. Nationalisation is state ownership, socialism is worker ownership.


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 people who are against this are right wingers who stand to lose a lot of money and influence from such a move. ATS is known for being a right wing site covertly, infiltrated to the core.


Marxists might want this as they believe in temporary nationalisation that they think will lead to socialism. Not all socialists agree. I am a socialist but I don't support nationalisation.


The only difference between me and you, and it is big, is that you reject authoritarian socialism for anarcho-socialism. Do you really think stalin, hitler, mao, etc........killed and enprisoned so many people just because they did not like them?


And again Hitler was not a socialist he was a fascist. Stalin, Mao etc., bastardized Marxism for their own benefit.
I support them no more than you do. Socialism was supposed to be about a stateless, class free society, those people did the opposite. They imprisoned people who apposed them, that included socialists.


The illuminati(masons, bankers, capitalists, church) keep getting in the way of progress. I am not for nationalisation of everything as that indeed would be oppresive. Just critical sectors of the economy.

I have read most of your posts here and agree with workers rights and workers ownerships.


There is no Illuminati, just the economic system of capitalism and the state that supports it.


edit on 9/6/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

I never said the constitution is wrong, just that from the onset they were looking for ways to circumvent it.


That makes no sense.

Why would those who cooked up and wrote the Constitution, "look for ways to circumvent it right from the start" when they could have just written one that suited their alleged nefarious plans instead?

These were intelligent people, and you painted them up like newborn kittens chasing their own tails not realizing they're attached at the ass.

As for Obama. I don't care what or who he is. He's a good for nothing puppet just like all the rest of them. Arguing about whether he's a Socialist, Marxist, Fascist, or The Great Satan, is totally irrelevant.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I guess I am wasting my time here then, and people who say the left and right are controlled by the same cabal are correct. Anyone who has done serious research into the illuminati(masons, bankers, church) KNOWS the conspiracy is solid.

Try the babylonian brotherhood. Watch some david icke videos!



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by HIWATT
That makes no sense.

Why would those who cooked up and wrote the Constitution, "look for ways to circumvent it right from the start" when they could have just written one that suited their alleged nefarious plans instead?

The founding father's were not all of the same mindset. They got into very heated debates over the content of the constitution.

The claim is based on the Whiskey Rebellion. A 25% federal tax on distilled spirits. It has been said that Hamilton wanted the feds to get it before the states had a chance.

Hamilton was all about a big federal government. Many here believe that the Constitution is all about keeping government small. Yes, I could see where a founding father and federalist would by trying to figure out how to get around a document designed to keep the federal government small.

When the people decided to stand up against it. Washington gathered an army and showed americans who was in charge. The fed.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by HIWATT
That makes no sense.

Why would those who cooked up and wrote the Constitution, "look for ways to circumvent it right from the start" when they could have just written one that suited their alleged nefarious plans instead?

The founding father's were not all of the same mindset. They got into very heated debates over the content of the constitution.....



It doesn't matter that they didn't all 100% agree with each other.

The document was signed by all involved, making the rest of your argument irrelevant IMO.

You saying that they did so and then immediately tried their damndest to "circumvent" it makes no sense. As I stated.

Respectfully, the Constitution was not some set of ideals that a bunch of drunks scribbled down on a napkin in a bar. It's the most important document in the history of that country. It was pondered over and ratified with the utmost seriousness. For you to suggest otherwise is completely ridiculous.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by HIWATT
It doesn't matter that they didn't all 100% agree with each other.

The document was signed by all involved, making the rest of your argument irrelevant IMO.

Maybe in your opinion but that doesn't change the fact that Hamilton was a federalist and sought to make sure that big government was a part of the early years of america.


You saying that they did so and then immediately tried their damndest to "circumvent" it makes no sense. As I stated.

They didn't all try to circumvent it, but those involved in the Whisky rebellion did just that.


Respectfully, the Constitution was not some set of ideals that a bunch of drunks scribbled down on a napkin in a bar. It's the most important document in the history of that country. It was pondered over and ratified with the utmost seriousness. For you to suggest otherwise is completely ridiculous.

Where did I say it wasn't something important? All I'm saying is that, like in all political circles, there were some wolves.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


According to the communist manifesto, since you pretend to be technically oriented, socialism is the nationalisation of industry so that communism can be achieved. Communism is a stateless and classless society.

People wrongfully called western europe a socialist state, it was a mixed economy. People also wrongfully called the soviet union and china communist because they were socialist states.

There are no modern day examples of communism except a few small communes here and there.

A marxist can be a socialist or a communist. There is no central government structure with communism but with socialism there is.

I am for a mixed economy and central government. I guess you could say I am a centrist!
edit on 6/9/12 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I guess I am wasting my time here then, and people who say the left and right are controlled by the same cabal are correct. Anyone who has done serious research into the illuminati(masons, bankers, church) KNOWS the conspiracy is solid.

Try the babylonian brotherhood. Watch some david icke videos!


But you're talking about main-stream politics, I am talking about the politics of the working class. The socialist labour movement that had nothing to do with what happened in any so called "communist" countries.

No the conspiracy is not solid. It is just people confused, trying to make sense of why the world works the way it does. David Icke? Are you serious? No wonder you don't understand what I'm saying if that's where you get your education from.

There doesn't need to be an Illuminati, if there is they would be capitalists anyway, so what I say still stands. I have no doubt, in fact I know there are many secret organizations that are predominately ran for and by capitalists for their mutual benefit. The Bohemian club for example. No different than workers organising around a union or federation, but that is looked down on. They don't like workers organising because they know the power of organisation.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by ANOK
 


According to the communist manifesto, since you pretend to be technically oriented, socialism is the nationalisation of industry so that communism can be achieved. Communism is a stateless and classless society.


Wrong again mate. The nationalisation of industry is part of the transition period. The period of transition from capitalist industry to socialist industry. The CommieFesto is not a description of socialism it is a plan to move from capitalism to socialism.


“Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat” K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 19, p. 27.


Please read this so you understand, if you don't understand our discussion is pointless...

Transition Period from Capitalism to Socialism

Most misunderstandings of socialism and Marxism come from quotes taken out of context, as what you have obviously read. If you read the actual Manifesto you would know that.

This is what it says on the back cover of my copy...

"...It presents an analytical approach to the class struggle (historical and present) and the problems of capitalism, rather than a prediction of communism's potential future forms" Soho books edition

The CommieFesto is not a description of socialism.


People wrongfully called western europe a socialist state, it was a mixed economy. People also wrongfully called the soviet union and china communist because they were socialist states.


They were not socialist states, they did not have worker ownership.


There are no modern day examples of communism except a few small communes here and there.


There are none anywhere as far as I know.


A marxist can be a socialist or a communist. There is no central government structure with communism but with socialism there is.


Communism and socialism is the same thing. There is no central government in either. Again this comes from a misunderstanding of the CommieFesto because Marx called for a temporary nationalistion of industry. Marx did not invent socialism, he just created his idea of how to get there.


I am for a mixed economy and central government. I guess you could say I am a centrist!


I would call you a rightist. Just right of center. Problem is there is no such thing as a mixed economy, capitalism will always dominate, and it is doing more so now than ever. A few service industries ran by the government does not make it a mixed economy. Capitalism dominates the world market, it created the world market.

You should do some research into anarchism, you will be even more confused when you find out anarchists were socialists. How can that be when socialism is a central government?
I guess the US is socialist by your definition?

"Anarchism is stateless socialism", Mikhail Bakunin


Anarchists are socialists who believe that socialism must be built out of the struggles of working class people, acting in their own class interests. ‘Socialism’ cannot be imposed from above....


What is Socialism? An Anarchist Perspective.


edit on 9/7/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Also just to confuse you even more, socialism means the same as communism and is also known as 'free association', or the 'free association of producers'.

Free association is the ultimate goal of all the left wing revolutionaries, and as explained the differences lie only in the path to get there.


In this paper post-capitalist society signifies what Marx calls a "Society of free and associated producers" "” also, indifferently, "communism" or "socialism"[1] "” based on the "associated mode of production." This "union of free individuals," the crowning point of the self-emancipation of the immediate producers, where individuals are subject neither to personal dependence, as in pre-capitalism, nor to material dependence, as in commodity-capitalist society, excludes, by definition, state, private ownership of the conditions of production, commodity production and wage labour. The Manifesto indicates, in a condensed and concise fashion, the essential elements of the envisaged new society as well as the objective and the subjective conditions of its realization.


The place of the Communist Manifesto in the elaboration of the Marxian idea of the post-Capital


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)

I hope you are following along, I am giving you just enough to realise what happened in so called "communist" countries is not what socialism, or Marxism, was, or is, about.


edit on 9/7/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by ANOK
 


According to the communist manifesto, since you pretend to be technically oriented, socialism is the nationalisation of industry so that communism can be achieved. Communism is a stateless and classless society.


Wrong again mate. The nationalisation of industry is part of the transition period. The period of transition from capitalist industry to socialist industry. The CommieFesto is not a description of socialism it is a plan to move from capitalism to socialism.


You keep confusing the terms because you have an obsession with anarchy. You view EVERYTHING from an anarchy perspective. Me and others keep explaining things to you but you are very stubborn. No I am not a right winger and i am NOT an anarchist either. I am center-left and despise private big business without regulations. It does not make me a liberal. I am a progressive.

The transition period is called socialism. Socialism involves a central government.

Communism is the workers owning the means of production in a classless and stateless society.

You should NOT use the terms socialism, communism/anarchy interchangeably.
edit on 9/9/12 by EarthCitizen07 because: fixed quotes



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
You keep confusing the terms because you have an obsession with anarchy. You view EVERYTHING from an anarchy perspective. Me and others keep explaining things to you but you are very stubborn. No I am not a right winger and i am NOT an anarchist either. I am center-left and despise private big business without regulations. It does not make me a liberal. I am a progressive.


I am not confusing anything except you it appears, and I do not have an obsession with anarchy. I am an anarchist theorist and have read extensively on anarchism and socialism.


The transition period is called socialism. Socialism involves a central government.


No it isn't. Socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production. The transition period was Marxism, socialism was around a long time before Marx. The transition period, in Marxism, is when capitalism is transferred to socialism. Socialism requires no government and the majority of anarchists were socialists.
Marxism is not socialism, it is a political method of achieving socialism. Not all socialists are Marxists, some are anarchists.


Communism is the workers owning the means of production in a classless and stateless society.


Socialism means the same thing.


What is the difference between "socialism" and "communism"?

In scientific socialist parlance, the two terms are interchangeable: both describe the classless, stateless society of free and equal producers projected and advocated by the co-founders of scientific socialism, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels.

Marx and Engels themselves used the two terms interchangeably. Initially they used "communism" to describe the future classless society because of the popular association of "socialism" with the Utopian "socialists" of that time. As Engels explained in his 1888 preface to the English translation of The Communist Manifesto:

"When it [the Manifesto] appeared, we could not have called it a socialist manifesto. Two kinds of people were regarded as socialists in 1847. On the one hand were the followers of the various Utopian systems, especially the Owenites [followers of Robert Owen] in England and the Fourierists [followers of Charles Fourier] in France, both of which at that time had dwindled to mere sects that were already dying out. On the other hand were the numerous social quacks who, with their various panaceas and every type of patchwork, wanted to do away with social evils without, in the slightest, harming capital and profit. In both cases they were people outside the labor movement and looked far more for support from the 'educated' classes.

"On the other hand, that part of the working class which was convinced of the inadequacy of a mere political revolution and demanded a fundamental transformation of society -- that part at the time called itself communist.... In 1847 socialism signified a bourgeois movement and communism a working-class movement. Socialism, at least on the Continent, was respectable enough for the drawing room; communism was the exact opposite. Since we were already then definitely of the opinion that 'the emancipation of the workers had to be the task of the working class itself,' we could not for one moment be in doubt as to which of the two names to choose. Nor has it ever occurred to us to renounce it since then."


'Free and equal producers', also know as 'free association' was the goal of all the left-wing revolutionaries.


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)


You should NOT use the terms socialism, communism/anarchy interchangeably.


I do not use the terms anarchism and socialism interchangeably. I am simply trying to point out that anarchists were socialists, and the only difference between them and the Marxist was the method to implement socialism, thus socialism is not some kind of state control.
Marxism was the political path using a worker ran revolutionary government, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the transition period, where industry is nationalized until the move to socialism can be made. The Anarchists were also socialists but wanted the direct action path to socialism, no transition period, complete move to socialism instantly.

Anarchism can not be anything else because the only way to true liberty for all is worker ownership. Anarchism has to be anti-capitalist because capitalism is a form of authority.

"Anarchism is stateless socialism" - Mikhail Bakunin

Please tell me you know who Bakunin was? You do understand what happened in the International Workers Association with Bakunin and Marx?

The Philosophical Roots of the Marx-Bakunin Conflict


A.1.4 Are anarchists socialists?

Yes. All branches of anarchism are opposed to capitalism. This is because capitalism is based upon oppression and exploitation (see sections B and C). Anarchists reject the "notion that men cannot work together unless they have a driving-master to take a percentage of their product" and think that in an anarchist society "the real workmen will make their own regulations, decide when and where and how things shall be done." By so doing workers would free themselves "from the terrible bondage of capitalism." [1]


Anarchist FAQ/What is Anarchism?/1.4

Once you realise what socialism is you will realise that the anarchists were socialist first, anarchist second. Anarchist only because they wanted direct action to turn the means of production over to the workers.


edit on 9/10/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Some more quotes from Anarchists...


As Socialism in general, Anarchism was born among the people; and it will continue to be full of life and creative power only as long as it remains a thing of the people.


From the book 'Modern Science and Anarchism' p.5, Peter Kropotkin, 1908


...That being the ideal of Anarchism, it's economic arrangements must consist of voluntary productive and distributive associations, gradually developing into free communism, as the best means of producing with the least waste of human energy. Anarchism however, also recognizes the right of the individual, or numbers of individuals, to arrange at all times of other forms of work, in harmony with their tastes and desires.

Such free display of human energy being possible only under complete individual and social freedom, Anarchism directs its forces against the third and greatest foe of all social equality; namely, the State, organized authority, or statutory law, - the dominion of human conduct... p56

...In fact there is hardly a modern thinker who does not agree that government, organized authority, or the State, is necessary only to maintain or protect property and monopoly. It has proven efficient in that function only... p57-58

...Anarchism, then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraints of government. Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations. p62


From the book 'Anarchism and other essays' by Emma Goldman, an Anarcho-communist who played a big role in American Anarchism early in the last century. No link, this was typed out from my personal copy of the book.



Infoshop on Emma Goldman... wiki.infoshop.org...

Anarchists were apposed to capitalist 'private property', that being the machinery, property, land etc., needed for production. They supported worker ownership, that makes them socialist/communist.

It all started with a book called 'What is Property' by the socialist Proudhon...


Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (pronounced [ˈpruːd ɒn] in BrE, [pʁu dɔ̃] in French) (15 January, 1809 – 19 January, 1865) was a French economist and socialist philosopher who was the first individual to call himself an "anarchist" and is considered among the first anarchist thinkers. Proudhon is most famous for his assertion of "Property is theft!", in his missive What is Property? Or, an Inquiry into the Principle of Right of Government with the original title: Qu'est-ce que la propriété? Recherche sur le principe du droit et du gouvernement, which was his first major work, published in 1840...

...In his earliest works, Proudhon analyzed the nature and problems of the capitalist economy. While deeply critical of capitalism, he also objected to contemporary socialists who idolized association. In series of commentaries, from What is Property? (1840) through the posthumously-published Théorie de la propriété (Theory of Property, 1863-64), he declared that "property is theft", "property is impossible", "property is despotism" and "property is freedom". The apparent contradiction is resolved when it is realized that, in "property is theft", he was using the word to mean the type of property which created exploitative conditions. Specifically, he was referring to the means of production which labourers did not own themselves, and the system of wage labour...

...On the other hand, in asserting that property is essential for liberty, he was referring not only to the product of an individual's labor, but to the peasant or artisans home and tools of his trade. For Proudhon, the only legitimate source of property is labor. What one produces is his property and anything beyond that is not. He can be considered a libertarian socialist, since he advocated worker self-management and argued against capitalist ownership of the means of production.


eng.anarchopedia.org...


The mainstream of anarchist propaganda for more than a century has been anarchist-communism, which argues that property in land, natural resources, and the means of production should be held in mutual control by local communities, federating for innumerable joint purposes with other communes. It differs from state socialism in opposing the concept of any central authority. Some anarchists prefer to distinguish between anarchist-communism and collectivist anarchism in order to stress the obviously desirable freedom of an individual or family to possess the resources needed for living, while not implying the right to own the resources needed by others.

Anarcho-syndicalism puts its emphasis on the organized industrial workers who could, through a ‘social general strike’, expropriate the possessors of capital and thus engineer a workers’ take-over of industry and administration.


Colin Ward, 'Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction'. ch.1 p.2, 1995


The 20th century experienced or witnessed every variety of state socialism, and learned that if its rulers are ruthless enough, they can impose, for a while, the most bizarre regimes and describe them as socialism. As socialism has been grossly misrepresented, so anarchism suffers from the widely held view that it is simply another variety of millenarianism, the belief in the eventual arrival, ‘after the revolution’, of a period of ultimate happiness when all the problems that beset humanity will have been solved, permanently.


Colin Ward, 'Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction'. ch.3 p.31, 1995


Is it necessary to repeat here the irrefutable arguments of Socialism which no bourgeois
economist has yet succeeded in disproving? What is property, what is capital in their present form?
For the capitalist and the property owner they mean the power and the right, guaranteed by the
State, to live without working. And since neither property nor capital produces anything when not
fertilized by labor - that means the power and the right to live by exploiting the work of someone
else, the right to exploit the work of those who possess neither property nor capital and who thus are
forced to sell their productive power to the lucky owners of both.


From 'The Capitalist System' p.1, Michael Bakunin 1814-1876, Anarcho-Collectivist.


edit on 9/10/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I guess I am wasting my time here then, and people who say the left and right are controlled by the same cabal are correct. Anyone who has done serious research into the illuminati(masons, bankers, church) KNOWS the conspiracy is solid.

Try the babylonian brotherhood. Watch some david icke videos!


But you're talking about main-stream politics, I am talking about the politics of the working class. The socialist labour movement that had nothing to do with what happened in any so called "communist" countries.

No the conspiracy is not solid. It is just people confused, trying to make sense of why the world works the way it does. David Icke? Are you serious? No wonder you don't understand what I'm saying if that's where you get your education from.

There doesn't need to be an Illuminati, if there is they would be capitalists anyway, so what I say still stands. I have no doubt, in fact I know there are many secret organizations that are predominately ran for and by capitalists for their mutual benefit. The Bohemian club for example. No different than workers organising around a union or federation, but that is looked down on. They don't like workers organising because they know the power of organisation.


David Icke knows what he is talking about and I could not care less if you believe him or not.

The conspiracy goes beyond capitalism but you have to broaden your horizon into masonry and its association with the knight templars and central banking, alien visitation and its association with the pseudo-religions we have today, the secret meetings of the bilderbergers and the infamous bohemian groove.

Together it is a luciferian capitalist world disorder!

Perhaps the people who wrote the communist manifesto knew all this and that is why they wanted "a classless and stateless society". They knew the state would always get corrupted by the satanic cult and the only remedy would be anarchy.

Regardless I think the state can be made to serve everyone if people are knowledgeable and constructive. A public central bank would immediately remove the parasites from government and then all campaign donations should be banned in favor of a vote tax. Once that is established then we can nationalise whatever else is deemed necessary.

I simply do not believe in anarchy as a long term solution. A government is necessary to perfrom the functions it is supposed to perfrom such as judicial, executive, legislative. Who it represents the most is what is important and also how fair it is.

Under a progressive system of moderate taxation for redistribution purposes and import tariffs the nation would thrive. We should stop paying taxes for the purpose of debt collection to the bankers. Critical infrastructure and industry should be nationalised with every citizen being a theoretical stockholder. Less critical sectors can be privately held for profit.

Pretty much a mixed-economy of yesteryear in europe. Sorry these are my beliefs and I hold them dear! Lets agree to disagree on many of the details even though we share some common anti-capitalist ideals.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   
This link describes the enormous benefits of a public central bank in relation to the parasitic private central bank. There can be no form of socialism without it!

I care not if people want to distinguish nationalisation from socialism!



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



[


The illuminati(masons, bankers, capitalists, church) keep getting in the way of progress. I am not for nationalisation of everything as that indeed would be oppresive. Just critical sectors of the economy.


Geesh! The problem I have with this line of reasoning is that certain members of the Power elite, namely Prescott Bush and the Rockefellers actually funded both Hitler and the Bolsheviks. Sort of like how Soros has funded Barack, Hillary, and many leftist front groups.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join