Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

A quick question for communists before bed...

page: 11
6
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by definity
 





To me seams like Marxism, socialism and Communism are getting mixed up.


Have you read the entire thread? Marxism is set out in stone to a degree because it is what marx wrote, but there are many forms of socialism as there are communism etc... So I don't quite see how you can even say this...

Any way I don't care what you want to call it, my problem is with what anok and others like him TELL ME is their philosophy... They don't even know what they believe really... An example of a commune was put forward as an example of socialism, it turns out that on closer inspection this was infact a capitalist commune that happened to have some nice bosses. 7 people owned the company that was trading and making a profit. It was a private business! Anok tells me he is against these things so many times! Then he advocates the company in the video... Oh but THIS corporation is nice so we can let it slide!...


Then I have anok telling me that capitalism concentrates the wealth into the hands of the few, and that owning the means of production is stealing off "the people" and making it unable for people to compete. And then later he goes on to tell me that worker owner companies or common that union run businesses...

I was given an example of a very successful socialist corporation. Turns out it was a very successful capitalist corporation that offered shares! Like this is revolutionary...

If there is someone confused here it is not me...




posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


Yeah I will agree with that to an extent, but then the thing is without the state how would you enforce it? Mobs? There would be civil war so it wouldn't work then either... Maybe it could work if absolutely every single person VOLUNTARILY joined together, but this is not going to happen either so it just fails on all counts. However that being said there is nothing to stop small communes getting together and sharing those kinds of ideals.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 





These 2 points get the same answer. I'm sure he wouldn't do that and unless you can come up with the thread where he said that, I am going to have to think you misinterpreted what he said.


Here is an idea.. He is here in this thread, why don't you ask him?




You are oversimplifying it and honestly I don't really feel like getting into it because once you realize that, no matter what a revolution claims to be getting rid of and what they are replacing it with, the truth is that what is being put in place is an oligarchy.


I don't want to replace it with anything though... I think that if we can just agree to not use force against each other (like most of us do today in our everyday lives) everything will work insefl out. And quite frankly it doesn't matter what happened after the governments fall, the truth is they are corrupt, immoral and have to fall... Just like slavery was corrupt and immoral, it didn't matter how the cotton was going to be picked! It just needed to end...




Actually it is the illusion of freedom. Taxes are the way that they are being forced to share their company.


Which is a socialist principle right? Not capitalist... I in no way said we are free NOW, because NOW we have no choice in the wider scheme of life. We can not choose to pay tax, we can not choose to not register our children... Other than the mundane, and much of that is 'regulated'... I would totally agree that what we have now is an illusion of freedom, but we do not have capitalism. You keep pointing out socialistic traits within our current system. But at the same time be in support of it...




That is why I don't care what they call it. You will never have what you consider real capitalism and supporters of socialism or communism will also never see real examples of their systems put in place.


Well just shrivel up in a corner and give up then aye? lol



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


BTW can I ask, are you quite old? Maybe you have had the fight drained out of you? That I can completely understand.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by mee30
Here is an idea.. He is here in this thread, why don't you ask him?

I don't have to because I have a good grip on what he believes but you said he stated this in another thread so unless I have the link to the other thread your claim is unsubstantiated.


I don't want to replace it with anything though... I think that if we can just agree to not use force against each other (like most of us do today in our everyday lives) everything will work insefl out. And quite frankly it doesn't matter what happened after the governments fall, the truth is they are corrupt, immoral and have to fall... Just like slavery was corrupt and immoral, it didn't matter how the cotton was going to be picked! It just needed to end...

See this is a good example of you misconstruing things. I didn't say you wanted to change anything. I said that when groups overthrow governments they claim to be doing it for the good of the people when in fact it is almost always the good of a few, an oligarchy.


Which is a socialist principle right? Not capitalist... I in no way said we are free NOW, because NOW we have no choice in the wider scheme of life. We can not choose to pay tax, we can not choose to not register our children... Other than the mundane, and much of that is 'regulated'... I would totally agree that what we have now is an illusion of freedom, but we do not have capitalism. You keep pointing out socialistic traits within our current system. But at the same time be in support of it...

No there were taxes before socialism.

The term socialism is attributed to Pierre Leroux,[71] and to Marie Roch Louis Reybaud; and in Britain to Robert Owen in 1827, father of the cooperative movement.

Taxes:

The first known system of taxation was in Ancient Egypt around 3000 BC - 2800 BC in the first dynasty of the Old Kingdom.



Well just shrivel up in a corner and give up then aye? lol

Is it much different than going on the internet and venting pointlessly?

ETA:

BTW can I ask, are you quite old? Maybe you have had the fight drained out of you? That I can completely understand.

What am I supposed to be fighting for or against?

edit on 19-11-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 





I don't have to because I have a good grip on what he believes but you said he stated this in another thread so unless I have the link to the other thread your claim is unsubstantiated.


Oh boy you are a stubborn one aren't you... Do you really think I would openly call him out many times in front of everyone if it were not true? Do you really think anok would allow me to continuously state these thing if it wasn't true? If I really really must I can find the thread I just quite honestly can't be bothered... I would of thought a little reason and common sense would be enough... I mean the guy is here!! lol...




See this is a good example of you misconstruing things. I didn't say you wanted to change anything. I said that when groups overthrow governments they claim to be doing it for the good of the people when in fact it is almost always the good of a few, an oligarchy.


Well I am part of a revolution (though that doesn't have to be violent), so it seemed to address me well enough... I advocate and practice non-compliance... See that is because we have always had or thought we needed some kind of government... It's like today where people keep thinking that the next guy will save them, every 4 years it is the same old thing... I advocate the slow grinding eventual education of the masses, I advocate a lot of what stefan molyneux talks about although I disagree with him about his stance on non compliance...

I think what stefan talks about is something new and quite exciting actually. He believes in short that we have to start really looking into how we bring up our children. He believes the move to anarchism will be a multi-generational thing. I just hope not too many... He extends property rights to children... We are constantly telling our children to share, share. But how about you? Say some guys pop by and want to come in and sit on your couch and watch your tv and drink your beer etc... Imagine if you refused they would have the right to punish you! Maybe take your tv/toys away from you... Now don't get me wrong here, I think sharing is wonderful but it has to come from the heart via choice... So say my children start to fight over a toy, say my daughter who is 3 has something my son who is 1 wants, this is the stage at the moment... Or hell I could even say my 3 year old and my 7 year old daughters...

Anyway... So they are fighting, Instead of telling them all off for fighting and telling them they must share else I'll take the toys off all of them (i've been guilty of this in the past), I just explain to them (more so for my 3 year old as it is that age) that if she doesn't share with her brother or sister that when she wants to play with their toys perhaps they will act the same way, and then she will have less toys available to play with. I can point out toys that the other 2 own but she likes to play with, and remind her that she plays with them. It works a charm and she gets it... The frequency is reducing rapidly. Because she is learning to make the decision instead of just being told off and forced to share...

Just today I was at a friends house and my friends sister was explaining how she hits her children. So I asked her if it is okay to hit people with Alzheimer, as they can not understand reason, she said no of course not... I said why? When you would hit your children for the same reason... She said no but if say my child hit another child I will grab his hand and hit him in the back of the hand. I said so what have you taught him there? DO NOT HIT! *SMACK* (but I can hit), now don't do it again it is very naughty (when you do it)... A lightbulb went off in her head and I really think she could change her ways because of it... You see stefan argues that there is scientific evidence to show that being hit as a child physically alters the brain, leading to drug use and violence and a whole host of other things... Any way regardless of that it is (not so) common sense right?

She said she didn't want me round anymore by the way.
(jokingly of course)

So anyway do you notice how these bad interactions mirror how the state operates??? You can not use violence, but we can... You have to follow the law, but we have immunity... You have to share, but we are not obligated to do anything and often go against your wishes...

So the theory goes that we are conditioning our children from day 1 to accept this kind of mentality. And that if we can break that chain of violence and coercion that the very idea of the state and what they want to do will be alien to them, even laughable... It makes a hell of a lot of sense to me... I home educate all my children btw... I see them all as being in education from day 1 and the education will stop the moment their life ends...

This is organic change and philosophical shift, not regime change.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 





No there were taxes before socialism.


But redistribution of wealth features heavily within socialism and it doesn't exist in capitalism... Which is the point, right? What people have done throughout history is besides the point. We are talking about ideological markers to try to determine what system we have today... As capitalism doesn't advocate redistribution and socialism does it is a check in the socialist box...




Is it much different than going on the internet and venting pointlessly?


Ha, it's quite funny reading this after what I just posted to you before this... I think I've already answered this for you... Shame on you for assuming yet again.





What am I supposed to be fighting for or against?


If you see nothing within our world to fight against then I guess you are in paradise, I would love some of your rose tinted glasses though.


I mean blatant government corruption, lies and immorality is not good enough for you? Do your glasses have the uv (unbelievably violent) protection?



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by mee30
Oh boy you are a stubborn one aren't you...

But I've seen you read something and take from it something completely different than what was meant, so, no, I will not take your word for it. Again, I don't have to ask him because I already know his answer. So unless he let something slip in the other thread and I can confirm it, we may just as well let it go.


Well I am part of a revolution (though that doesn't have to be violent), so it seemed to address me well enough...

But I did not know this, so how could that be what I meant?


I think what stefan talks about is something new and quite exciting actually. He believes in short that we have to start really looking into how we bring up our children. He believes the move to anarchism will be a multi-generational thing. I just hope not too many...

Anarcho Capitalism? Waste of time. When I first started posting here I went back and forth with someone who supported it and probably still does. Doesn't matter, it will also never happen, no matter how many generations.

ETA:

But redistribution of wealth features heavily within socialism and it doesn't exist in capitalism

Actually it does in the form of taxes, tariffs and backroom deals, always has.


If you see nothing within our world to fight against then I guess you are in paradise, I would love some of your rose tinted glasses though.

I mean blatant government corruption, lies and immorality is not good enough for you? Do your glasses have the uv (unbelievably violent) protection?

Good luck with that.

edit on 19-11-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 





But I see you read something and take it as something completely different so no I will not take your word for it. Again, I don't have to ask him because I already know his answer. So unless he let something slip in the other thread and I can confirm it then we may just as well let it go.


Utter nonsense, point out exactly what I got wrong? You kept on at me for half the thread telling me that the people in the video were socialist and then finally admitted that they are not, but it is MY word that is somehow untrustworthy?

Besides you are ignoring the logic and reason side too... I mean for crying out loud most of what I have said you admit you have seen it yourself anyway! The only thing you haven't seen him say is how he has a distaste for stupid stuff like iphones etc... What you're doing is you're being ignorant. But hey that is fine by me, it is said to be bliss...




But I did not know this so how could that be what I meant?


You didn't need to know it... You were addressing a large portion of people for which I happen to be one... The meaning doesn't change just because I happen to be one of the people you are talking about, does it?




Anarcho Capitalism? Waste of time. When I first started posting here I went back and forth with someone who supported it and probably still does. Doesn't matter, it will also never happen, no matter how many generations.


Says you who would rather just do nothing because there is no point in anything... lol That seems like a pretty big waste of time to me... Who was it that said "all there needs for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing" Or words to that effect... To be honest you are just one of the many naysayers, you would of told the wright brothers that there was no way they can fly...




Actually it does in the form of taxes and always has.


Look you can't have things both ways. Either capitalism is economic darwinism or it is for redistribution of wealth and therefore not darwinistic at all... Besides as anok says for communism and socialism 'just because someone says they are so, doesn't make it so'... You have even said I will never see the pure capitalism that I want, and never before have we had it and we don't have it now... Redistribution of wealth by force does not sit with capitalism at all.




Good luck with that.


Makes no sense in relation to my comment you quoted... But okay, thanks... I guess. Or do you mean you are going to be a greedy capitalist pig and horde all the glasses for yourself???



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by mee30
Utter nonsense, point out exactly what I got wrong?

Put up or let it go.


You didn't need to know it... You were addressing a large portion of people for which I happen to be one... The meaning doesn't change just because I happen to be one of the people you are talking about, does it?

I made a general statement. I had no idea if revolutionaries were reading or not so that was not my meaning. I stated so in my previous post. Can't get much clearer than that.


Says you who would rather just do nothing because there is no point in anything... lol That seems like a pretty big waste of time to me... Who was it that said "all there needs for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing" Or words to that effect... To be honest you are just one of the many naysayers, you would of told the wright brothers that there was no way they can fly...

Politics and physics are two completely different things. Politics contains the human element that seems to lead every system astray.


Look you can't have things both ways. Either capitalism is economic darwinism or it is for redistribution of wealth and therefore not darwinistic at all... Besides as anok says for communism and socialism 'just because someone says they are so, doesn't make it so'... You have even said I will never see the pure capitalism that I want, and never before have we had it and we don't have it now... Redistribution of wealth by force does not sit with capitalism at all.

So you just want to talk about the capitalist pipe-dream. What is the point in that?


Makes no sense in relation to my comment you quoted... But okay, thanks... I guess. Or do you mean you are going to be a greedy capitalist pig and horde all the glasses for yourself???

Your are fighting against government corruption, lies and immorality. Good luck in your fight against those things.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 





Put up or let it go.


Shouldn't that be aimed back at you also? You are making claims about me without providing any evidence but I must?




I made a general statement. I had no idea if revolutionaries were reading or not so that was not my meaning. I stated so in my previous post. Can't get much clearer than that.


Yes and I replied to your statement as a revolutionary, so what is your problem? What does it matter if you knew anyone at all was reading, the statement still stands as does my reply... To be honest I don't even know what you're going on about...




Politics and physics are two completely different things. Politics contains the human element that seems to lead every system astray.


LOL Again you don't get the point and make these silly arguments from nowhere... My point wasn't about politics nor physics, it was about naysayers. I think the wright brothers were pretty human...

But yes I do agree that human nature does lead systems astray and it is most damaging when that system is a centralized one. We can not give the monopoly of the use of force to any small group of people and expect it to end well... That is one of the many reasons it needs to go. I think it is inevitable.




So you just want to talk about the capitalist pipe-dream. What is the point in that?


More naysaying.... The capitalism part is only a small portion or the philosophy that I advocate, I tried to share a little of it with you earlier but you didn't seem too bothered and decided to ignore the lot, lol... The point was to get a conversation going. Maybe get some people posting examples so that I could check them out... I got that in the end and I found that really interesting. I like to debate with people but I do find it rather frustrating when people twist or ignore or assume what you are saying.

I do not think I am perfect but I do try to be respectful and give everyone that messages me a FULL reply...

Any way, it is good to talk and maybe there was some people on the fence or in the sidelines that were listening in and perhaps took something from it too...

Better than talking about football...

Bored of looking at fake UFO videos...

Any number of reasons...


Let me ask you something... What is YOUR philosophy on it all, I know you say that all systems turn to crap etc I get that... Do you really see no way out? Do you just go along to get along sort of thing or what? I kinda wish I could be like that, but I just can't...




Your are fighting against government corruption, lies and immorality. Good luck in your fight against those things.


Well I never said it would be easy!
I do honestly think it is achievable, more and more people are coming to similar conclusions and fighting back in their own way. Little by little by exposing them again and again and by pointing out the immorality/hypocritical nature inherent in all these systems one day I hope people can be persuaded to change course rather than be coerced...

I have had a few runins with the gov so far on my journey. I think I didn't do too bad... My son is 1 and still not registered. The "authorities" know that and I have been blatant with my reasons why! No sugarcoating here. I told the general registrar exactly what I thought of our little rulers and system and that I can not morally or ethically co-operate with such a regime... I don't care if they don't like hearing it... I have had the social services involved with my children because our son was born at home via an unassisted natural home birth, like women have done for thousands of years! We broke no law etc yet still had police force there way into our home in complete violation of our human rights. They had with them in toe midwives that forcibly "checked our son out"... The national midwifery council website states that any treatment or care without CONSENT is battery... So why bring the police? They NEED consent, these control freaks make my blood boil... As soon as I informed them that they needed consent they jumped up and ran out!!!

The whole system is criminal... After that episode because we dared to exercise our right to not consent we had the visit from the social services... I told them to go away, and they did. They came back with police and I told them the same and they did (after hearing our side on the doorstep). We were threatened at the door that they could take our kids! These are sick evil people... Weeks went by with no word... Then I heard from a senior police officer that they (SS) had dropped it... Great we thought, so we moved away , not too far, and got on with our lives only to be harassed by these people yet again.

In the end they actually said that they have to respect my views etc, yeah like no sh!t!

But we just sit back and comply???



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Anarcho-capitalism?

You want to stop corruption and you suggest anarcho-capitalism?

Can you imagine capitalism with no over-site, think things are bad now?

Government under capitalism protects both the capitalist and the worker.

It's an oxymoron because without government capitalists would become the de-facto government. We would become a complete corporate dictatorship.

Only people who fail to understand what capitalism is and does to the economy would ever suggest capitalism with no state system, that would be more like the system they had in the USSR. The capitalists would be the state.

No real capitalist would ever want to get rid of the state because the state is the only thing that gives them the legal right to use their property to exploit labour. Without the state there would be nothing stopping the workers simply refusing to work for the private owners and taking over industry.

It would never happen. Break down the state, and unless organised, the economy would simply fail. Capitalism does not organise the economy, it's based on who can afford to demand are the ones supplied.

"Private property rights" is not freedom, it's the right by law for property owners to use their property to exploit labour. Why do people seem to think it means individual freedom? If you own no property you are not free, you are at the mercy of the property owners. The laws were written by ''property owners'' for ''property owners'', 'economic property owners', not just people who own a house and a car. "Personal property rights" is a whole different argument.

edit on 11/20/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
These 2 points get the same answer. I'm sure he wouldn't do that and unless you can come up with the thread where he said that, I am going to have to think you misinterpreted what he said.


I believe I already explained this to him in the other thread, but as usual he either didn't understand, or didn't accept my answer.

Workers have been exploited by private owners for over 200 years, that is what I call theft. It is the labour of working people that created the wealth that capitalists used to increase their production and personal wealth.

Taking back the means to produce for the good of all is not theft.

Dude seem to think the rights of a minority class to live by exploiting the majority are more important than the right of people to live free.

Socialism is based on the concept that property is theft. They are wealthy only because they own property, not because they worked hard. If working hard was the way to wealth then the slaves would be millionaires.

"Since property is the grand cause of privilege and despotism, the form of the republican oath should be changed. Instead of, ‘I swear hatred to royalty,’ henceforth the new member of a secret society should say, ‘I swear hatred to property." Proudhon



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by mee30
Shouldn't that be aimed back at you also? You are making claims about me without providing any evidence but I must?

I am more than willing to let it go.


Yes and I replied to your statement as a revolutionary, so what is your problem? What does it matter if you knew anyone at all was reading, the statement still stands as does my reply... To be honest I don't even know what you're going on about...

That seems to happen a lot. See what I mean about missing the message in the posts? I explained it twice. I will try again. This is not aimed at you and is in regard to historical revolutions in general. The revolutionaries often claim that they fight for the people but as soon as the new government is in place the power goes back into the hands of a small group.


LOL Again you don't get the point and make these silly arguments from nowhere... My point wasn't about politics nor physics, it was about naysayers. I think the wright brothers were pretty human...

But yes I do agree that human nature does lead systems astray and it is most damaging when that system is a centralized one. We can not give the monopoly of the use of force to any small group of people and expect it to end well... That is one of the many reasons it needs to go. I think it is inevitable.

The way I see it, we are not giving that small group the monopoly, they are taking it and they are willing to kill any and all that try to take it away from them.


More naysaying.... The capitalism part is only a small portion or the philosophy that I advocate, I tried to share a little of it with you earlier but you didn't seem too bothered and decided to ignore the lot, lol... The point was to get a conversation going. Maybe get some people posting examples so that I could check them out... I got that in the end and I found that really interesting. I like to debate with people but I do find it rather frustrating when people twist or ignore or assume what you are saying.

I've already heard the whole philosophy before and have come to the conclusion that it is flawed.


Let me ask you something... What is YOUR philosophy on it all, I know you say that all systems turn to crap etc I get that... Do you really see no way out? Do you just go along to get along sort of thing or what? I kinda wish I could be like that, but I just can't...

My philosophy on it all is that I'm only going to be here for a short stint. If I am allowed to die of old age, I am at about the half way mark. I'm at peace knowing that I am not going to change the way things are. I refuse to take part because, as the revolutions of the past have shown, nothing really changes. The power structure, use of force, exists at every level. I remember going back and forth with another member of ATS which was an anarcho capitalist where I pointed out that under anarcho capitalism there would be nothing to keep a gang/criminal organization/mob/mafia/warlord or whatever you want to call it to come together and extort the citizens under the threat of force. The only thing he could come back with was that he would rather pay the extortion by this type of organization than pay the government. Honestly, I didn't see a difference.


Well I never said it would be easy!

I was just agreeing.


The whole system is criminal...But we just sit back and comply???

Sorry to cut your words short but I thought this was the main idea. I think that the answer is a very personal one. I see three options. Become a criminal and work the system, which in a way is a form of compliance, take the role of the victim, which is also compliance, or fight it and become a statistic. I guess that to answer your question about seeing a way out, the answer is obvious, the only way out is the final way out.

Reading it over before I click reply, I can't help but notice how sad that reads. Some things just can't be sugarcoated.
edit on 20-11-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by mee30
reply to post by shansen
 


Thank you for sharing your experience... I honestly can't believe people actually call for communism, it boggles my brain... Just read this thread, it is unbelievable... They spin and lie and ignore, it is pathetic to say the least... You just can't have a civil convo with most of these people...

Glad you got out anyway and good luck for your future..


It's not possible to have a civil convo about "communism is good or bad?". Period. Communism is a pest, communism is hell. Period.
The people in this thread - without any intention to offend someone - are like Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotski and the rest of the bunch: they're talking about the good of the working class but in the same time they don't have the slightest idea what the working class is, because they're enjoying a comfortable life, provided by the "evil capitalism". For them, I only wish that one day they will wake up in a communist country, to live their lives in the "perfect system" they're claiming it to be; maybe even a Gulag experience would be great for them. Enjoy!

To debate if communism is good or not is nothing more than a huge offense to the tens of millions who died by the hands of these regimes and to the more others who are still living it around the world and suffer for the single second of their life.

In the meantime, you, theoreticians of communism, apologists of a criminal system, believers in the justice of a system which represents injustice by itself, at least have the common sense to shut up or if you can't, how about splitting everything you have and worked for with the others because, as they say, in communism "we are all equal".

edit on 20-11-2012 by shansen because: Correction



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
That same argument relates more to capitalism than communism.

Capitalism is the system that perpetuates bad human traits by allowing a small minority of people to become far more wealthy than the majority, giving them the economic power to manipulate and control other people and the state, the government, the economy itself.


As far a small minority of the people becoming more wealthy than the majority.. that would be communism (not in the intended form, but in the form that presents itself in the real world). A very minuscule group of people would have more money than the rest.

Right now in the corrupt capitalist system a small group of people are multi-million and billionaires.. however a very large group of 45% of the country is middle class. That's pretty good. Almost half of our country is living better than the majority of the people in communist countries in the past.

Just face it no political or economic system on this planet can work free from corruption, the more power the government is given over citizens' health/work/housing the more it will be abused. It would happen slowly until one day everyone is living in poverty and no one could remember what it was like before.. they accept the horrible corruption because all of the schools in the country will be fed propaganda by the government. History repeats itself.

The best we can hope for is a republic free from an over-reaching federal government. If California wants to be socialist let it be, they can tax the heck out of their citizens and provide free healthcare to everyone.. if Texas wants to be extremely conservative than it can be.. all without interference of the federal government regulating and taxing and over-riding.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 





Anarcho-capitalism? You want to stop corruption and you suggest anarcho-capitalism?


Oh anok I do love how bonkers you are... Without a government how could you have corruption? The people you despise work WITH government to get what they want, that is the corruption! Like making a corporation a "person" so that the owners are not responsible for anything. They use the force of the state for their own benefit...

Would ending the government end unethical companies? Of course not but at least they wouldn't have the power of the state behind them anymore and they could be MADE responsible by the people...




Can you imagine capitalism with no over-site, think things are bad now? Government under capitalism protects both the capitalist and the worker.


Yes I can, it is called the black market and on the whole it seems to run pretty smoothly... Do people get ripped off? Sure, but so do people on the open market...

Really, they protect the worker by stealing the fruits of their labor? They have war after war and run up astronomical debts... I think in america every man woman and child owes over 50,000 each!!! That is not including the interest on the national debt... Protect the workers? It is hard to take you seriously...




It's an oxymoron because without government capitalists would become the de-facto government. We would become a complete corporate dictatorship.


Government gives corporations their power! Also this term capitalists you like to throw around is quite funny... Do you know how many "capitalists" there are in america? You make out like capitalists are just the big shady evil corporations yet anyone that owns a business is a capitalist right? Do you know how many people own businesses in america? The latest count of small business owners is 27 MILLION, I don't think that will include people that work in the co-ops and/or has shares. It doesn't include the evil shady corporations either, nor their shareholders...

You say capitalism is against the people but these ARE the people! Millions upon millions of people! And for the rest that WANT to work for someone else they have a mighty fine choice in front of them with all the co-ops you pointed out...




Only people who fail to understand what capitalism is and does to the economy would ever suggest capitalism with no state system, that would be more like the system they had in the USSR. The capitalists would be the state.


I know full well what it is and this is a very boring tactic of yours where you just declare I don't know and you know all. Whereas back here in reality you flip flop all over the place... Then that is great because the capitalists are the people... USSR had a state, that is what YOU want, you want state controlled businesses! Otherwise you want mob stolen and ruled businesses... How you can compare the USSR to capitalism is beyond me...




No real capitalist would ever want to get rid of the state because the state is the only thing that gives them the legal right to use their property to exploit labour. Without the state there would be nothing stopping the workers simply refusing to work for the private owners and taking over industry.


Oh boy oh boy... So you don't think that you could arrange security without the government? Here's a heads up, businesses do it everyday! No, common sense gives them the right. You work hard, you earn money, you go on to make it on your own, maybe employ some people yourself. Remember that lots of people CHOOSE to work for someone else! Students are a great example...

Do SOME companies exploit their workers? Sure they do, so the workers should LEAVE and get another job or work for themselves.They should tell their story and persuade others to do the same or boycott. I wont work for someone else unless I help out someone I know but that's just me... Like I have said, I know people that want to work for someone else and they are VERY happy... It's personal choice...

And if you are to look at the bad you ALSO have to look at the good! You pointed out how many co-ops there are and that is really good, isn't it? The fact that there are 27 million small businesses is good too right? A lot of these are just 1 man bands and such. Proving it can be done and is being done...

But you want to ignore these people right?



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 





It would never happen. Break down the state, and unless organised, the economy would simply fail. Capitalism does not organise the economy, it's based on who can afford to demand are the ones supplied.


It would never happen? Well many states have fallen throughout history, lots of systems have been tried and I think that more and more people are coming to the realization that the governments are always corrupted... The economy would fail? LOL... People would have WAY more money and prosperity would thrive... There would be an abundance for all... It's even funnier because the current system WITH government has landed the people in 16 TRILLION dollars of DEBT and counting!

The economy would fail indeed! I'm sure you must just be a troll because you can't believe what you say... It doesn't make ANY logical sense.




"Private property rights" is not freedom, it's the right by law for property owners to use their property to exploit labour. Why do people seem to think it means individual freedom? If you own no property you are not free, you are at the mercy of the property owners. The laws were written by ''property owners'' for ''property owners'', 'economic property owners', not just people who own a house and a car. "Personal property rights" is a whole different argument.


See just more flip flopping and nonsense... You have said that your problem is about PROPERTY, "Socialism is based on the concept that property is theft. They are wealthy only because they own property, not because they worked hard."... But now personal property is okay...

Everything you have said here is ridiculous! Personal property rights and private property rights means the same thing! You have the exclusive right to use something! We all want that and we all exercise this everyday! You do know that millions of people run a business out of their homes! Don't you? Your thinking is beyond a joke...

You have stated to me before that you would somehow want to control what was being made, so that we wouldn't have all the waste and useless junk.. Didn't you? I'm sorry but all your talk is that of a complete control freak tyrant who couldn't give a damn about anyones freedom of choice or the millions of people that work damn hard to have a business. Here you are telling them that they haven't had to work for it.. Yes businesses just float out of thin air... please...



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 





I believe I already explained this to him in the other thread, but as usual he either didn't understand, or didn't accept my answer.


Oh yes you did, and I have shown on this very thread that I know exactly what you said... I even gave the same excuse that you use... How could you try and spin it that I didn't understand or accept it? I both understand and accept that as your answer and I think it is bloody disgusting...




Workers have been exploited by private owners for over 200 years, that is what I call theft. It is the labour of working people that created the wealth that capitalists used to increase their production and personal wealth.


What like the millions working in co-ops today? Or the 27 million small business owners? You do not know what theft is! If you offer someone a bad contract and they agree to it then that is their choice! There are well over 27 million people that have gone out and made something for themselves! I would so love to get you in a room with this people and hear you tell them they are thieves and lazy good for nothing exploiters!

Laborers get compensated for god sake! And they didn't have all the stress the owner has trying to make ends meet and keep people in work! You do know businesses go bust right? People lose their homes their business their LIFE! Many can't handle it and blow their brains out! Many work 60 - 80 hours a week! They sleep breath and dream about their business...

The people you're talking about are a tiny tiny minority, and that minority only has the power it does because of the state! Get rid of the state and these too big to fail monoliths would come crashing down!




Taking back the means to produce for the good of all is not theft.


Don't make me laugh! You just do not want to have to do any work! You want to come and STEAL what someone has done! What they have put blood sweat and tears into! You do not give a damn about anyone... For the good? Who's good? Who decides what is good? You? I sure hope not...

See this is why you are a hypocrite too, you FAKED support for that commune, but in reality your hatred for people runs much deeper and you want to go and "take back" their private property! What you suggest is shameful and ignorant not to mention the very definition of theft!

Land and such was divvied up many years ago, it is irrelevant today... It would be like telling all the americans to leave america, They thing that gets me is you can still buy land! Work hard and get a business going and join forces with some or your friends and off you go... It is not like all the land and everything is owned by a handful of people, the idea is total non-sense...




Dude seem to think the rights of a minority class to live by exploiting the majority are more important than the right of people to live free.


Millions and millions of people is not a "minority class"... I would love for you to go on a business start up forum ans spout this kind of stuff, or even better to tell them to their face... You want complete control over peoples lives and talk to me about freedom. Makes me sick...




Socialism is based on the concept that property is theft. They are wealthy only because they own property, not because they worked hard. If working hard was the way to wealth then the slaves would be millionaires.


Everytime I read this it just makes my skin crawl... How you got 2 stars is beyond me... People have some really twisted concepts...




"Since property is the grand cause of privilege and despotism, the form of the republican oath should be changed. Instead of, ‘I swear hatred to royalty,’ henceforth the new member of a secret society should say, ‘I swear hatred to property." Proudhon


Oh well in that case I take it all back... Some dude spouted some pure BS! Oh yes we shouldn't have "privilege" for people that have worked damn hard in their lives... No course not...



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drezden
As far a small minority of the people becoming more wealthy than the majority.. that would be communism (not in the intended form, but in the form that presents itself in the real world). A very minuscule group of people would have more money than the rest.


No that is not communism, please read through the thread for an expiation of communism, thank you.

If you are referring to the USSR etc., they had state-capitalist economies not communist.

Communism is the same as socialism, and they both mean workers common ownership, not ownership by a small elite minority.


“well it by no means was an example of “public ownership of the means of production” and economic hierarchy was a defining feature. I mean production and distribution were carried out exactly how they are in a capitalist firm – the only difference is it was done by the state and not be CEO’s....


USSR was NOT Communist


… but another example of the capitalists using the discontent and numbers of the working class in Russia to sweep away the Feudal rules and restrictions so strongly symbolized in the Czar and the Council of Nobles, and to establish a system of government’ in line with modern capitalist needs and notions.... The Socialist Standard’s first editorial commenting on the Bolshevik Revolution



With the fall of the Berlin Wall, many on the left concluded that socialism had failed. Others of us saw these countries as state capitalist and an integral part of the world system. This theory has renewed relevance today....


State capitalism - the theory that fuels the practice


Dunayevskaya’s essay, which carried the title “The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a Capitalist Society.” was written in February 1941 under the pseudonym “Freddie James.” It was published by the Workers’ Party in mimeographed form in an internal discussion bulletin of March, 1941....
"....that is to say, the ownership of the means of production by a state which in no way resembles the Marxian concept of a workers’ state, i.e., “the proletariat organized as the ruling class.”...


The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a Capitalist Society

edit on 11/20/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution