are you truly anti-socialist?

Originally posted by CB328
He's a typical Republican. They all take government money and then try to keep everyone else from getting any.

Like that moron in my state running for land commissioner who wants to get rid of entitlements but then they found he received $100 grand in farm subsidies. Or that tea party guy in Alaska, or Romney, etc, etc, etc.

Your socialist/communist fellow travelers spent the last 4 years ruining////I mean changing America and more people are out of work than have been since the Great Depression. Classic create the problem and provide the (socialist) solution.

reply to post by rubbertramp


You mean do I hate society? Do I hate people and social structure?
In other words do I despise the people I share an area with and refuse any cooperative efforts with them?

Not really. Why? What's your point?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by CB328
He's a typical Republican. They all take government money and then try to keep everyone else from getting any.

Like that moron in my state running for land commissioner who wants to get rid of entitlements but then they found he received $100 grand in farm subsidies. Or that tea party guy in Alaska, or Romney, etc, etc, etc.

Your socialist/communist fellow travelers spent the last 4 years ruining////I mean changing America and more people are out of work than have been since the Great Depression. Classic create the problem and provide the (socialist) solution.

We have two tiers of electorates in this country. One of those is the working class, regular people with jobs. These will often be women, minorities and the poor because these groups HAVE to work. They are the workers.

On another level altogether we have those fortunate enough not to be in the "workers" group. What happens to the workers is not their concern. These are often called the "job creators" which is simply a euphemism for the rich.
The "job creators" do not like to see the workers get things like raises, health insurance, benefits, safety protections through regulations, pensions and reasonable working conditions and hours.
Why not? Because it costs them money to provide these things for the workers.

Now you have two voting blocks. The workers, who are by and large Democratic and vote to protect themselves and you have the Republicans. These are CEO's, Industry Leaders, Wealthy Ruling classes people Romney calls "job creators" who vote Republican because they side with big business. They are "the rich" and vote Republican to protect themselves! (from the demands of their workforce)

When Obama got elected and passed the health care bill (a long time coming because really, what American would consciously decide to provide health insurance to Politicians in Washington ahead of themselves? Makes no sense) these business were so up in arms because many of these unscrupulous employers were getting away with paying below market wages in return for providing healthcare to employees as a kind of coercion to stay with the company even though their hours are long, the work is dangerous, and their pay is low...the health care was a perk workers would stay at a lowpaying job to keep.

These business owners mega millionaires all....decided four years ago when GWB left the economy in a shambles as the GOP always does, to enact massive layoffs and many people lost their jobs. We remember hearing about it on the news back in 2008. It seemed the whole damn country was getting laid off. Obama (and others in Congress including Romney and Paul) saved some segments of it with a stimulus package that stopped some of the bleeding and headed off a worse crisis. When Obama was elected they doubled down and decided to play hardball. Because healthcare, equal pay for women and raising the minimum wage really pissed them off, these multi millionaire business owners made a pact NOT TO HIRE EMPLOYEES WHILE OBAMA WAS PRESIDENT. This is the only reason why....

more people are out of work than have been since the Great Depression.

And why Obama is also keeping peoples tax rates as low as they were around the great depression.

So should we give these unscrupulous anti-American business owners lower taxes and less regulation for keeping the American worker unemployed just to prove a point?

When Republicans are in power the top 1% makes record earnings while pay rates for workers and the middle class stagnates and cost of living goes up. Minimum wage was at $5 for 10 years! Cost of living is not a concern of the rich because no matter how bad "cost of living" gets it does not affect them. They want to keep payroll and benefits as low as possible so they employ lobbyist to find Politicians to sacrifice the worker and side with the business owner. What business wants regulations? That just lets peoples families sue you when they die on the job.

Everything the GOP is about is anti-human, anti worker. It is pro rich CEO and millionaire. Democrats may be rich too but they support the people and peoples rights, even minorities, women and workers who the GOP could give a damn about. Their stock and trade is in millionaires and billionaires.

Originally posted by rubbertramp
i'm tired of listening to people contradicting themselves concerning this issue.
example, one buddy who is a militant christian type, constantly spends money on ammo and survival stuff to bury.
yet, while speaking with him this week, he admitted to going to a 'sliding scale' dental clinic.
after talking a bit i got him to admit he's using 'access' here in arizona to pay for a few medical issues.
on top of all this, he was recently laid off and is now collecting unemployment.
will also be signing up for food stamps.
he got really frustrated and left when i brought up the fact that he should be thankful for socialism.
just wouldn't hear any of it.
anyone else see the contradiction in this?

by the way, i have never asked for a thing. right now i could easily get food stamps and possibly other benefits, but there in not a chance.
if i can't eat and take care of my dog someone might as well just put a bullet in my head.

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

I will tell you the same thing that got me banned from Democratic Underground:

Most people lean towards a "kind of socialism"(Socialism and Communism are failed ideologies because they where created to act as replicant replacements to a failed ruling system, The Absolute French Monarchy).

Most leftist's don't know the origins of Socialism and Communism, if you don't know somethings origins you don't know all to well where something is going. That ties into the real number one reason why a good chunk of Americans claim to hate leftist's.

Notice I said leftist's and not leftism. That is right(this part got me banned from Democratic Underground), most leftist's come across as idiotic jerks. The kind of person you just don't like. A perfect example is John Lennon and how he commented on the fact that many people just didn't like him personally, they would rather deck him then shake his hand.

From my vantage points most leftists are psychopaths. Look at the left's favorite tactic "Use your opponent's ideal's against them". Because ideals are something you can never truly hope to attain. You see it all the time here on ATS and elsewhere. That kind of thing really makes people angry as it is a form of emotional abuse.
People are not going to(or rarely do) side with people that are trying to abuse them, they are going to learn to hate that person. And since it is easier to hate a person because of their race, gender, creed and political beliefs then the fact that the individual person is a total jerk; you learn to hate that which the jerk loves and clings to.

Combined with the left's weird pathological group think, the real source of conflict is the fact that leftists are by and large control freak jerks.

Me personally? The reason why I align with people I don't really agree with? Because leftists are liars/ intellectually dishonest. Look at the honest they parade around "Separation of Church from State". Something which is total BS if you read the Constitution itself. As the First Amendment clearly states Congress shall not pass ANY law in regard to religion. And since the Federal Court system is created as a legislative act of Congress, it has no right either to butt in on the religion issue(meaning it is solely a State issue with zero federal oversight ability).

Combined the leftist's fascination with hate movements in the past, combined with leftist's support of the feminist hate movement.
feministhate.tripod.com...

Hence why I vote "Republican-ish".

reply to post by newcovenant

When Obama was elected they doubled down and decided to play hardball. Because healthcare, equal pay for women and raising the minimum wage really pissed them off, these multi millionaire business owners made a pact NOT TO HIRE EMPLOYEES WHILE OBAMA WAS PRESIDENT. This is the only reason why....

Do you have any source material for that little gem?

reply to post by rubbertramp


But none of that stuff is socialism. Socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production.

What you are referring to is liberalism.

Please people stop blaming, or praising, socialism for what liberals want.

Liberalism is a band-aid, socialism is the cure.

"Liberalism is not socialism, and never will be", Winston Churchill.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Your socialist/communist fellow travelers spent the last 4 years ruining////I mean changing America and more people are out of work than have been since the Great Depression. Classic create the problem and provide the (socialist) solution.

That would be his liberal fellow travelers.

There is no socialism in the US government, no left-wing. Just conservative and liberal right-wing.

For a government to be truly left wing it would have to be worker ran, and working towards socialism. Socialism meaning worker ownership. Obama has already denied steel workers requests to buy out the company they work for. A buyout they have been lobbying for over 7 years now. The government does not want socialism and never will.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by rubbertramp

 

But none of that stuff is socialism. Socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production.

What you are referring to is liberalism.

Please people stop blaming, or praising, socialism for what liberals want.

Liberalism is a band-aid, socialism is the cure.

"Liberalism is not socialism, and never will be", Winston Churchill.

Why do you continue to spew that? No economist agrees with you. You do know that Socialism is an economic system, right? I think the fact that economists say that Socialism is a system whereby the means of production is in the hands of the government, and the economy is centrally planned by said government, is a big clue that you continue to be wrong.

What you describe is more appropriately called Communism (thus the root word "commune"), which is considered by most adherents to be a progression from Socialism.

OP, under Socialism, and its corrupted brother Communism, there is no private property. One can own stuff, like TVs, clothes, shoes, etc. But all property belongs to the government (under Socialism) or the collective (under Communism). Therefore, both are equally depressive to personal liberty.

Anyone with two neurons to rub together and can think for themselves is against total Socialism.

/TOA

reply to post by rubbertramp

Originally posted by The Old American
Why do you continue to spew that? No economist agrees with you. You do know that Socialism is an economic system, right? I think the fact that economists say that Socialism is a system whereby the means of production is in the hands of the government, and the economy is centrally planned by said government, is a big clue that you continue to be wrong.

What economists? Why not go back to the people who first used the term socialism? Like Robert Owen who is also known as the father of the cooperative, worker ownership.

What you are claiming is the nonsense fed to us by our governments, it's not the truth.

A system whereby the means of production are owned by the government on behalf of the people is called nationalism. A system whereby the means of production are owned by the government for the leaders of that government is called state-capitalism. The USSR's economy was state-capitalism.

The idea of centrally planned economy owned by the state simply comes from a misrepresentation of the Communist Manifesto and spread by those who have never actually read it. Marxism, and the Manifesto, was a political plan to implement socialism, it was not a description of socialism. The state was supposed to be a worker owned state as a stepping stone to socialism. Socialism was not the stepping stone, nationalism was.
It was called the transition period, and was temporary until socialism was fully implemented. Then the state would dissolve.

But not all socialists are Marxists. Marx did not invent socialism, or communism. The Anarchists were socialists who did not support a political path to socialism but wanted direct action and immediate change. Obviously anarchists do not support a state, and did not trust the Marx version of the state either. But they had the same goal, socialism.

Unfortunately Marxism won over Anarchism when the workers voted for Marx over Bakunin (anarchist) at a meeting of the International Working Mens Association. Marx finally had Bakunin expelled.

THE TEMPESTUOUS relation between Marx and Bakunin is a well known legacy of the history of western socialism. As co-members of the International Working Men’s Association, they seem to have devoted as much energy battling one another as their common enemy, the capitalist system, culminating in Marx’s successful campaign to expel Bakunin from the organization. While at times engaging in cordial relations, they nevertheless harbored uncomplimentary mutual assessments. According to Marx, Bakunin was “a man devoid of all theoretical knowledge” and was “in his element as an intriguer”, while Bakunin believed that “... the instinct of liberty is lacking in him [Marx]; he remains from head to foot, an authoritarian”. Kenafick, K.J., Michael Bakunin and Karl Marx (Melbourne, 1948), p.40.

The Philosophical Roots of the Marx-Bakunin Conflict

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." [Voltairine de Cleyre, "Anarchism", Exquisite Rebel, p. 75 and p. 79]

(We must stress here that anarchists are opposed to all economic forms which are based on domination and exploitation, including feudalism, Soviet-style "socialism" -- better called "state capitalism" --, slavery and so on. We concentrate on capitalism because that is what is dominating the world just now).

An Anarchist FAQ - Are anarchists socialists?

So if anarchists are socialists then socialism is obviously not any form of state system, is it? I think my logic trumps your insults.

What you describe is more appropriately called Communism (thus the root word "commune"), which is considered by most adherents to be a progression from Socialism.

Socialism and communism are the same thing. What I describe has nothing to do with "communes", it is simply worker ownership, socialism. The term Communism was used by Marx only to differentiate his system from the utopian socialism of Robert Ownen and others, and also because middle class liberals were also using the term socialism. Marx later started using socialism instead of communism.

OP, under Socialism, and its corrupted brother Communism, there is no private property. One can own stuff, like TVs, clothes, shoes, etc. But all property belongs to the government (under Socialism) or the collective (under Communism). Therefore, both are equally depressive to personal liberty.

Anyone with two neurons to rub together and can think for themselves is against total Socialism.

Anyone with two neurons to rub together and can think for themselves, and do some research, would realise what you think is socialism is not socialism at all and not what socialists want. You only have to read the Communist Manifesto to realise how much socialism has been twisted in order to demonise it. The only people it's a threat to are those who exploit you. The same people who control the state, and tell you lies in order to control you thoughts.

Property is not owned by the state, the workers own the means of production.

Talk about thinking for yourself, you have no idea how much you really don't mate.

Socialism is probably one of the single most misunderstood political ideologies in the United States. Though the US had a sizable number of socialists at the turn of the century, the Cold War, McCarthyism, and the Red Scare have thrown it unceremoniously into the category of "extreme." Even today, right wingers are quick to scare people from supporting welfare reforms and higher taxes as being socialist; this is a blatant lie, one that I intend to lay to rest right now.

Socialism tells us one very important thing: workers should control what they produce...

....From the right we hear frequent examples of "socialist" governments like China, Venezuela, Cuba, and the former U.S.S.R.. Though these governments may have claimed socialist ideals, they have all been far from them; the socialist slogans used by these countries is about as meaningful as the names "The People's Republic of China" and "The Democratic Republic of the Congo" are to democracy. Again, the basic precept is that workers must control capital.

Misunderstood in America: Socialism

It's true, I could ask ten Americans what socialism is, and get ten different answers, of which none are correct.
Not trying to bash here, before you get your panties all in a bunch, it's a fact you can see right here on ATS. It's a shame that American thinking seems to dominate the political forums, acting like you're all so clever and classless and free. You're all just terribly misinformed.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Your socialist/communist fellow travelers spent the last 4 years ruining////I mean changing America and more people are out of work than have been since the Great Depression. Classic create the problem and provide the (socialist) solution.

That would be his liberal fellow travelers.

There is no socialism in the US government, no left-wing. Just conservative and liberal right-wing.

For a government to be truly left wing it would have to be worker ran, and working towards socialism. Socialism meaning worker ownership. Obama has already denied steel workers requests to buy out the company they work for. A buyout they have been lobbying for over 7 years now. The government does not want socialism and never will.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but there are somewhere between zero to nil liberal's in government, let alone this message forum. The term your thinking of is "Progressive", as liberal's do not engage in group think. I know it is a common mistake as progressives hijacked the liberal movement, killed it and paraded around as liberals for a century just about. Kind of serial killer creepy to the extreme how leftists try to call themselves liberals when there is nothing liberal about them.

Naa, Lenin and Stalin's Communism is "working as intended".

You have to understand that Communism and Socialism where created as a means to replicate the French absolute Monarchy. A replacement for that level of central control and authority.

The only way communism could work, is if it was just an economic system, not a political or social system, but the problem is, it was designed to replace a near feudal absolute monarchy. So in the end it becomes and absolute system that replicates feudalism. You have the average citizen(serf), soldiers, and the nobility(Communist Party members).

Besides, the left's obsession with Communism and Socialism goes into why I find leftist's to be intellectually handicapped and am loathed to associate with them. Why bother with failed ideologies when we can learn from the past and come up with new ideas. It makes no sense to be burdened with the past failures when it is within the realm of possibility to chart a new course.

Originally posted by korathin
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but there are somewhere between zero to nil liberal's in government, let alone this message forum. The term your thinking of is "Progressive", as liberal's do not engage in group think. I know it is a common mistake as progressives hijacked the liberal movement, killed it and paraded around as liberals for a century just about. Kind of serial killer creepy to the extreme how leftists try to call themselves liberals when there is nothing liberal about them.

That may well be, all I care about is socialism is not called liberalism.

I think you have it backwards, liberals have been claiming they are leftist for decades. Liberalism was sold as socialism after WWII in order to hide the truth of what socialism really is. After the Spanish revolution the European elite had to act to keep their power, thus we got WWII, the decimation of worker solidarity. Then post WWII the selling of liberalism as socialism. Problem, reaction, and solution. The capitalist class destroyed the power of the working class and made them pay for their own social safety-net.

Originally posted by korathin
Naa, Lenin and Stalin's Communism is "working as intended".

Their "communism" was nothing but a way to gain power and take state control. They used Marxism to fool the people into supporting them. They never intended to implement worker ownership, only state-capitalism.

You have to understand that Communism and Socialism where created as a means to replicate the French absolute Monarchy. A replacement for that level of central control and authority.

The first people to call themselves communists were the French anti-royalists, who later became anti-capitalists. Socialism and communism were movements for worker control.

The only way communism could work, is if it was just an economic system, not a political or social system, but the problem is, it was designed to replace a near feudal absolute monarchy. So in the end it becomes and absolute system that replicates feudalism. You have the average citizen(serf), soldiers, and the nobility(Communist Party members).

Communism is not a political system, it is only an economic system. It does have some similarity with feudalism, but without the land owners lording over people. Under feudalism the workers had more freedoms and were autonomous. It was when feudalism was replaced by capitalism due to the change in land laws, that the problem of labour exploitation started, and the reason the workers wanted to own the means of production themselves.

Besides, the left's obsession with Communism and Socialism goes into why I find leftist's to be intellectually handicapped and am loathed to associate with them. Why bother with failed ideologies when we can learn from the past and come up with new ideas. It makes no sense to be burdened with the past failures when it is within the realm of possibility to chart a new course.

Why is it an obsession? Is supporting capitalism an obsession? The ideology of socialism has never failed because it doesn't work. It has failed because some people refuse to let go of their power and control. In fact it has only really been tried once during the Spanish revolution and it was very successful. If not for the fascists right wing of Hitler, Mussolini and Franco it would have spread across Europe.

It is no more of a failed system than capitalism. Capitalism has failed the majority of people and always will.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by korathin
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but there are somewhere between zero to nil liberal's in government, let alone this message forum. The term your thinking of is "Progressive", as liberal's do not engage in group think. I know it is a common mistake as progressives hijacked the liberal movement, killed it and paraded around as liberals for a century just about. Kind of serial killer creepy to the extreme how leftists try to call themselves liberals when there is nothing liberal about them.

That may well be, all I care about is socialism is not called liberalism.

I think you have it backwards, liberals have been claiming they are leftist for decades. Liberalism was sold as socialism after WWII in order to hide the truth of what socialism really is. After the Spanish revolution the European elite had to act to keep their power, thus we got WWII, the decimation of worker solidarity. Then post WWII the selling of liberalism as socialism. Problem, reaction, and solution. The capitalist class destroyed the power of the working class and made them pay for their own social safety-net.

No, socialist "Progressives" murdered the liberal movement after the first world war. Liberalism is the ideology of self determination. It was an act of liberalism that seen the creation of all the nations of Eastern Europe after WW1. Progressives and Socialists who wanted Global unions seen liberalism as a threat. A liberal would never think ending discrimination by discriminating is a good thing but only a Progressive/Socialist would.

www.youtube.com...

I do not know how to embed a video, but Mr. Wayne explains in very nice terms the difference between leftist's as they are now, and the liberal ideology they hijacked.

reply to post by korathin


The progressives were not socialists. The progressives were liberals. Some progressives supported nationalism, which again is not socialism (even if they claimed to be socialists they weren't). The progressives wanted change but did not support worker ownership, which in every country other than the US is socialism.

Liberals have been using the term socialism since the 1800's, but no real socialist excepts liberals as socialists. It's one reason Marx stopped using the term socialism and used communism instead.

That was in the US anyway, I tend to discuss political history in Europe because that is where it all started, and where the terms we use came from. People in America seem to want to claim to know about European political history but can't even get the terms correct, as they were used in that context.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by korathin

 

That was in the US anyway, I tend to discuss political history in Europe because that is where it all started, and where the terms we use came from. People in America seem to want to claim to know about European political history but can't even get the terms correct, as they were used in that context.

I suppose that is the crux of it. Aside from how European politics influenced American Politics I view it as irrelevant as Europe and America are different entities with different needs. I don't want to say that Europe isn't important, but what is right for America and the American people may or may not be right for Europe; and what is right for Europe and the European peoples may or may not be right for America.

P.S
I though Marx got into a disagreement with Socialists in France or something. I never looked too much more into it as I viewed it as historically irrelevant due to technological changes.

But some of Marx's later work I found intriguing. I don't remember if it was a paragraph or quote, but I do remember Marx writing something about having the ability to try out new careers instead of being locked into one profession for ones entire life if they so desired.

reply to post by korathin


Well if the workers own the means of production there is no limit to what you can do. You are not tied to an employer.

Not sure about Marx and French socialists, but there is a lot of history of socialists not getting along, Marx and Bakunin is the most obvious example.

The reason it is important to understand European political history is because when you don't you can be fooled into believing nonsense like Hitler was a lefty, socialism is liberalism and the right is freedom. You have to understand what was going on then to understand what is going on now, and you must do it using the correct definitions of terms as they were before America twisted them.