Teachers Flock to Northwestern University for 'Marxist Conference'

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 06:48 AM
link   
Socialism is the main enemy of TPTB. They would never want the worker to actually have full control over their own lives.

This is why when unions (a product of capitalism) were newly forming they murdered the workers.

If the right wing studied history, very few of them would still be on the right.




posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Trustfund
 


Just to butt in again before I eat lunch,
unions were invented by the church in response to the new democratic ideas in Europe and predominantly in the US and Latin America. The former colonies were gaining ground for their liberty and that word "liberty" was silenced in the past through monarchal loyalty. That scheme was not working anymore, and especially so in the colonies. A new form of appeasement was needed to quell the people but at the same time keep power from their hands directly.

Special interest groups were devised for all facets of society. This way the "responsible" men that own the land anyways could decide amongst themselves how best to handle business and at the same time keep the people in check by giving the illusion of representation from amongst themselves.

and so we had the birth of corporatism that makes one small group somehow representative of a larger one.

Unions have almost never been true to their purpose because those that validate them are the forces that they are supposed to keep in check.

more social interference with the natural state of man. "We want this, it should be done", not "we want this, let us know if you can do it for us."

social order is best decided by the people, not their special interest groups that complex social structuring makes so as to make things appear fair and controlled for a common good. The common good is self expressed when interference is not produced.

Capitalism hates interference since its arch enemy was always government regulation. That was governments only purpose in capitalism, (limits). Now, business loves interference from government because it means they get public money and authority over the people so as to "help" them.



Corporatism, also known as corporativism has more than one meaning. It may refer to political, or social organization that involves association of the people of society into corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations, on the basis of common interests.Corporatism is theoretically based upon the interpretation of a community as an organic body.The term corporatism is based on the Latin root word "corpus" (plural - "corpora") meaning "body".

In 1881, Pope Leo XIII commissioned theologians and social thinkers to study corporatism and provide a definition for it. In 1884 in Freiburg, the commission declared that corporatism was a "system of social organization that has at its base the grouping of men according to the community of their natural interests and social functions, and as true and proper organs of the state they direct and coordinate labor and capital in matters of common interest".
en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 13-11-2012 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
reply to post by ANOK
 


no that is ONE point of socialism. The main point is communal effort for a common good where social pressure is distributed over the whole of society rather than on any one group or classes shoulders.

Like there is more than one type of communism, there are several interpretations of socialism. How they vary is not important. That they all try and serve the same goal is.


edit on 13-11-2012 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)


No, he's actually gave you the accepted definition of Socialism. Even on mises.org you'll find people accepting his statements as being true.

Socialism means that the workers own the means of production. If that ownership isn't happening then what you're referring to isn't socialist.

If you run around creating and redefining what words mean then we live in a society where communication is impossible. It'd be like me saying your mothers an idiot, but then saying oh but don't worry, there are several interpretations of idiot and I meant it in a nice way.

You can't just magic up your own understanding of socialism and capitalism, they're already defined and well established.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
There is nothing wrong with this. Workers want worker ownership, simple as that.

If you don't see how worker ownership is the future then you're too naive to even understand.

Yes, socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production. Marxism is simply a political path to that goal.
Whether you support the Marxist path to socialism, or not, there is still a lot can be learned from studying Marx. He wrote what is still one of the best critiques of capitalism.

Most of the nonsense written about socialism is based on the USSR, China etc., who were communist in name only.
Those governments simply used left-wing terms to take state power. None of them had any intention of giving the means of production over to the workers.

No political ideologies are needed when workers do this...


The workers of the just-formed New Era Windows cooperative in Chicago—the same workers who sat in and forced Serious Energy to back down on a hasty shutdown of their Goose Island plant a few months ago, and famously occupied the same factory for six days in December 2008—not only are putting together a bold plan for worker ownership, they are likely to move the entire subject into national attention, thereby spurring others to follow on. Though they have a powerful start, if the past is any guide, they will need all the help they can get—financial as well as political.


A New Era for Worker Ownership?

But workers do have to first realise what is in their best interest. What is in your best interest, wage slavery, or ownership? You also have to realise socialism is not the bad guy.


Shared ownership helps diversify rather than concentrate wealth – which is what we desperately need to do to revitalise our economy. It roots the value it generates in communities, keeping assets and resources from being transferred from local communities and low-wage employees to multinational corporations and their owners.


The key to global prosperity: worker ownership


Let us talk about being "Naïve" for a moment, shall we? You wrote:


Most of the nonsense written about socialism is based on the USSR, China etc., who were communist in name only.

and



Those governments simply used left-wing terms to take state power. None of them had any intention of giving the means of production over to the workers.


And you don't see the parallels? You need to take a look at EVERY movement in the US over the last 40 years. Each has been co-opted by groups who would exploit the will of the people and parlay those into greater plays for power. From the Hippy Peace Movement to the Tea Party - EVERY one has been co-opted.

Finally, this country was NOT founded on the principles of Marx, Socialism, Communism et al. Nope, it was founded as a Constitutional Representative Republic and will remain one until such time that it is over-thrown - most likely through extreme acts of violence against its population.

Consider the following:




If a man proposes to redistribute wealth, he means explicitly and necessarily that the wealth is his to distribute. If he proposes it in the name of the government, then the wealth belongs to the government; if in the name of society, then it belongs to society. No one, to my knowledge, did or could define a difference between that proposal and the basic principle of communism.


and




Observe that any social movement which begins by “redistributing” income, ends up by distributing sacrifices.


Both attributed to Ayn Rand.

Now I ask... Can anyone demonstrate the success of Communism anywhere in the history of human-kind? I recognize and accept that "Socialism" as a theory sounds great. However, it is not in the hearts of men to treat each other equally nor ethically. Hence the cause of failure in every instance it has been tried.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   
This is off-topic a bit. I apologize.
Whenever I read a few comments from the people who will endlessly extoll the virtues of a non-capitalist system, I can't help but wonder:

What would really, truly happen if the capitalism haters suddenly became wealthy? If those who preach out against the evils of wealth, ownership and 'class' won a lottery and suddenly had $100 million?



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by mark1167
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Oh a douche bag with the first post having a hard time understanding that socialism doesn't work. Never has and never will and all I see is a bunch of arrogant kool aid drinking dummies who think they can change the world by controlling everyone else. Pretty pathetic.


Tell the Scandinavians that socialism doesn't work -- or the British and French to a lesser extent.

You also don't like socialized police, fire department and emergency workers, as well as a socialized military? Ask people on Social Security if they like it or not, and if it works for them.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 


oh, but they aren't socialists according to some, they say socialists must OWN production. PERIOD.

You can't just redefine things willy nilly.....


the truth is the entire system does not work. Socialism must borrow more than is produced because the entire premise is not sound. The bill for the party is passed to a farther and farther off generation until it all comes crashing down. Like now.

Even countries with capitalism as a the norm are suffering for not remaining true to their design and messing around with these ideas of MY 1 = 2 for both of us, when REALLY it is more like 1/2 for each of us to share, both MY whole production.



edit on 13-11-2012 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrInquisitive


Tell the Scandinavians that socialism doesn't work -- or the British and French to a lesser extent.

You also don't like socialized police, fire department and emergency workers, as well as a socialized military? Ask people on Social Security if they like it or not, and if it works for them.


I don't have to tell them - and besides, people have demonstrated again and again and again that they will vote to keep the gravy train going at any cost. Maybe YOU should ask the Greeks, the Spanish, The Irish, The Italians and dozens of other failed countries where Socialism has caused pain and suffering.

In fact, in 2 of your examples, France and the UK, socialism has cost the country so dearly that France now has a top tax rate of 75%! In the UK, doctors and hospitals are getting paid by the government to let patients die!!! It doesn't seem like Socialism is working out so well for those folks. Just sayin'...



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by mark1167
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Oh a douche bag with the first post having a hard time understanding that socialism doesn't work. Never has and never will and all I see is a bunch of arrogant kool aid drinking dummies who think they can change the world by controlling everyone else. Pretty pathetic.


What type of socialism are you talking about? Because there are some socialist nations that are doing very well.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrInquisitive


Tell the Scandinavians that socialism doesn't work -- or the British and French to a lesser extent.
]

We aren't any of those people....


You also don't like socialized police, fire department and emergency workers, as well as a socialized military? Ask people on Social Security if they like it or not, and if it works for them.


First of all, those are examples of local governments taking care of their own, not socialism. Second, when you're in the military you're no longer a free person. You're property of the government. Is that what you really want?

You people scare me. I hope you're ready to fight for the socialism you want, because it will eventually come to that.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinaski77
Why is socialism a dirty word in America? The basic meaning of socialism is this: equality.
People keep repeating 'it doesn't work, it doesn't work' but people with socialist ideals are not necessarily calling for strict Stalinist communism, just a more equal, fairer society. That's all.


Not according to every economist ever, who say that Socialism is a planned economic system whereby the means of production are in the hands of the collective or government trust. No property ownership, no owning of the fruits of your own labor, no personal liberty, no opening your own fruit stand, etc.

You really should educate yourself and not ever post again until you can post with some knowledge of your subject.

/TOA



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


the socialist goal is simple: an equal and classless society. thats it. simple eh?
now, people like stalin (who unfortunately, was a psychopath) have tried to acheive this, in this case 'stalinism'. see the difference? you equate (like most americans do) socialism with stalinism. can you see your mistake?
marx had his ideas to acheive this goal, 'marxism', so did many others. but it has never been fully acheived. castro has made lots of ground i suppose; cuba has a much better infant mortality rate, and literacy rate than the US for example.
and there is no need for your aggression, i would suggest you dont ever post again until you learn to control your emotions.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinaski77
reply to post by The Old American
 


the socialist goal is simple: an equal and classless society. thats it. simple eh?
now, people like stalin (who unfortunately, was a psychopath) have tried to acheive this, in this case 'stalinism'. see the difference? you equate (like most americans do) socialism with stalinism. can you see your mistake?
marx had his ideas to acheive this goal, 'marxism', so did many others. but it has never been fully acheived. castro has made lots of ground i suppose; cuba has a much better infant mortality rate, and literacy rate than the US for example.
and there is no need for your aggression, i would suggest you dont ever post again until you learn to control your emotions.


My mistake was telling the factual difference between that tripe you posted and the definition of the social and economic system of Socialism? Sorry I brought facts to the table that confused you. Educate yourself on economics and sociology instead of spewing some idealistic dream.

/TOA



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


Ok your argument is watertight, facts indisputable, and presentation flawless.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinaski77
reply to post by ANOK
 


I'm not being dismissive with the semantics thing. I still insist that socialism equals equality, and not necessarily strict communism. You can take the path to Stalinist Russia or the Swedish democratic socialist model of the 70s/early 80s.


The term socialism does not mean equality, it is just a more equal system than capitalism.

I mean we could have a totalitarian government that runs industry and pays every worker from the CEO to the cleaner equal pay, but it wouldn't be socialism.

Communism and socialism are the same thing. The term 'communism' became popular among [Marxist] socialists because the term socialism was being appropriated by middle class liberals. Also they did it to differentiate their socialist movement from the older utopian socialist movement of Robert Owen etc. Just like the socialists who apposed Marx started using the term 'Anarchism' to differentiate their socialist movement from Marxism.

Lecture 22 The Utopian Socialists: Robert Owen and Saint-Simon (2)

edit on 11/13/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trustfund
Socialism is the main enemy of TPTB. They would never want the worker to actually have full control over their own lives.

This is why when unions (a product of capitalism) were newly forming they murdered the workers.

If the right wing studied history, very few of them would still be on the right.


Wow someone who gets it!


Yes, just like liberalism, the welfare state, unions are a product of capitalism. If the workers owned the means of production we wouldn't need any of them. But instead of socialism the state created compromises to appease the workers. None of those compromises solves the problems of capitalism.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by chinaski77
 


Stalin had no plans to create equality, or implement communism.

Stalin and Bolsheviks used a bastardised form of Marxism in order to gain support, they never intended to form a socialist economy.

They created a state-capitalist economy. No better than private ownership capitalism.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo

And you don't see the parallels? You need to take a look at EVERY movement in the US over the last 40 years. Each has been co-opted by groups who would exploit the will of the people and parlay those into greater plays for power. From the Hippy Peace Movement to the Tea Party - EVERY one has been co-opted.

Finally, this country was NOT founded on the principles of Marx, Socialism, Communism et al. Nope, it was founded as a Constitutional Representative Republic and will remain one until such time that it is over-thrown - most likely through extreme acts of violence against its population.


I have no idea what you're talking about? Who said any country was founded on the principles of Marxism?


Now I ask... Can anyone demonstrate the success of Communism anywhere in the history of human-kind? I recognize and accept that "Socialism" as a theory sounds great. However, it is not in the hearts of men to treat each other equally nor ethically. Hence the cause of failure in every instance it has been tried.


Socialism is not about treating each other equally. It is a system that reduces the chance for people to exploit you. It's silly to base an argument against socialism on the idea that people can't be equal. And your answer to keep a system that is based on inequality is highly ironic.

But you're wrong, most people do want to treat each other equally and ethically, but we have a system that encourages corruption. If people have what they need to live and enjoy life, without having to exploit someone to get it, then people will change. You can't claim we are naturally that way because we are not, we are a product of our environment.

edit on 11/13/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


What economists are you talking about?

Marx was an economist.

Here is a list of socialist economists...

List of socialist economists...

None of them agree with you.

You mean all capitalist economists.


edit on 11/13/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by chinaski77
reply to post by ANOK
 


I'm not being dismissive with the semantics thing. I still insist that socialism equals equality, and not necessarily strict communism. You can take the path to Stalinist Russia or the Swedish democratic socialist model of the 70s/early 80s.


The term socialism does not mean equality, it is just a more equal system than capitalism.

I mean we could have a totalitarian government that runs industry and pays every worker from the CEO to the cleaner equal pay, but it wouldn't be socialism.

Communism and socialism are the same thing. The term 'communism' became popular among [Marxist] socialists because the term socialism was being appropriated by middle class liberals. Also they did it to differentiate their socialist movement from the older utopian socialist movement of Robert Owen etc. Just like the socialists who apposed Marx started using the term 'Anarchism' to differentiate their socialist movement from Marxism.

Lecture 22 The Utopian Socialists: Robert Owen and Saint-Simon (2)

edit on 11/13/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)


What you are saying makes no sense though. I think you are more obsessed with the names, kind of like someone saying it's not green it's chartreuse. Just look at that paragraph starting with the word communism and ending with Marxism, you're tripping over all these titles that are really meaningless. Throw them around if they make you happy but in the end its just empty rhetoric. Like telling your girlftriend or wife you are cooking her a special dinner and then bring out a plate with a boiled pea on it and expecting her to not notice the difference.

edit on 13-11-2012 by Malcher because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join