It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Ismail
reply to post by Merriman Weir
I don't see why, really. The infrastructures all still exist. Why would it be chaos ?
Originally posted by Ismail
reply to post by Merriman Weir
Ah. Yeah sure, for a few weeks things will suck. I do think, though, you'd be surprised by the amount of solidarity that would happen, once people are "deconnected" from the grid.
It's gonna happen, but it won't be controlled.
The auto-destruction of capitalism. It's happening now. When the smoke clears, we need to remember what got us into the mess to start with, and not do it again.
Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by Logarock
So Marx bitched about it and now anyone else that does is a bitch. Solutions that came out of the Marx schools were not great its true. But its not anarchy to look for ways to change the nature of the relationship.
In fairness I don’t think you actually understand what I am saying; the post I was replying to what very much a Marxist argument with an argument about clashes arising from social stratification. The call for anarchy is a common theme in Marxism ideology calling for the rise of the proletariat through revolution which would by its nature be an anarchist movement.
Originally posted by Bildo
Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Ismail
The question is how do we change the Game. By creating a political party with the right ideas or by bringing down the system completely and building it a fresh. Either way it will be a difficult road.
Ummmm, how about re-inhabiting the Republic that the founders gave us? It's there. It always has been. The seats in the Republic were vacated. You can't fix a system(Corp US) that was never intended to be for, or by, the people of the sovereign states. We've been deceived. Big time. When did the "Federal Government" get permission to rule over the states? It was never intended to be that way by our founders. Same with the states ruling over the people. Why are you subject to statutes? Statutes are not law. Statutes are policy. Police are policy enforcers. How can there be a crime without a victim? Time for people to wake up and take a look around and see what has been done to them.
Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by Logarock
Well Marx and his often forgotten contemporary Fredrich Engels where the ones who first pioneered the ideology of Marxism (never “Marxan”) and the problems that arose from social class conflict that Capitalism creates. Others have since been influenced by this ideology to create their own versions or additions to the philosophy such as Leninism. What you have said about the “Marxism Fix” was to get Liberals to back up government is totally wrong; Liberalism and Marxism are at ideologically different however both ultimately aim to create a society in which there is no need for government, John Locke and Karl Marx had very different ideas about how to achieve this.
Whatever the Marxian fix would be, one big idea to help take care of some of these problems was government getting into the game and liberals taking up the banner.
You then move on to capitalism saying that capitalism is giving grounds to the liberals and the reds (I assume you mean communists) is again an ideological paradox. Liberals, in the classical sense proposed by John Locke on which the American Constitution is based advocates a free market, that is to say capitalism however Communism does not advocate ownership of anything (even by government) and as such is at ideological odds with Capitalism. You speak about Capitalism as an institution rather than an ideology as if the ideology can do something to fix the Marxist critique and problems of social stratification. It simply cannot as an ideology Capitalism creates economic social stratification and to some extent relies on it.
Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by Merriman Weir
I did say at the end of that post that I did find it difficult to understand because of the errors and how it had been written. So If I have misunderstood what the poster was trying to say I am sorry and would ask that he/she clarifies the statement.
Also I do know that “liberal” means different things on either side of the pond but if I talk about classical liberalism as in John Locke’s philosophy then I am talking about liberalism. I know that Americans like to differentiate between “Liberalism”(and have a different interpretation of it) and “Libertarianism”, but this thread is about the UK and I am talking about classical liberalism.
Originally posted by Ismail
reply to post by Bildo
I agree. Change the game. Reseat/reinhabit the Republic the founders gave us. When you get those banknotes, not backed by anything, for selling your labor, all your getting is debt script. (Bankruptcy United States 1933) They're just a "promise to pay" at some future future date. Definitely not a fair trade. I keep hearing people say that the US might go broke. If United States was already operating in receivership, 1933 how can it possibly go bankrupt again? Who are the trustees of the 1933 bankruptcy? They're not doing too good a job, are they?
Dude, even if we were american, which we're not, how does reinstating the Republic equate with "changing the game ?" If your republic could'nt stand once, why should it stand this time ? What magical tweak will make it work ? I don't understand why you are advocating that a return to the past is change, and that a return to a system that has demonstrated it's inability to stand up to the power of $$$, is somehow progress.
I mean you understand that the past is a build-up to the present, right ?
Sorry, but I don't get it.edit on 29-11-2012 by Ismail because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by Logarock
Your post is actually very confusing with no clear understanding of basic political ideological philosophy as such you have made multiple errors. Your post I found very difficult to understand as a result so if my response does not address the point you were making I apologise.
Originally posted by Logarock
Originally posted by Bildo
Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Ismail
The question is how do we change the Game. By creating a political party with the right ideas or by bringing down the system completely and building it a fresh. Either way it will be a difficult road.
Ummmm, how about re-inhabiting the Republic that the founders gave us? It's there. It always has been. The seats in the Republic were vacated. You can't fix a system(Corp US) that was never intended to be for, or by, the people of the sovereign states. We've been deceived. Big time. When did the "Federal Government" get permission to rule over the states? It was never intended to be that way by our founders. Same with the states ruling over the people. Why are you subject to statutes? Statutes are not law. Statutes are policy. Police are policy enforcers. How can there be a crime without a victim? Time for people to wake up and take a look around and see what has been done to them.
You cant trace the the loss of state sovereignty to a large degree right back to the banks......over time... and the growth of the federal government.
Originally posted by Merriman Weir
Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by Merriman Weir
I did say at the end of that post that I did find it difficult to understand because of the errors and how it had been written. So If I have misunderstood what the poster was trying to say I am sorry and would ask that he/she clarifies the statement.
Also I do know that “liberal” means different things on either side of the pond but if I talk about classical liberalism as in John Locke’s philosophy then I am talking about liberalism. I know that Americans like to differentiate between “Liberalism”(and have a different interpretation of it) and “Libertarianism”, but this thread is about the UK and I am talking about classical liberalism.
Yes, you're defining how you're using the term. But to be fair, you've got non-UK posters replying to the thread, including Logarock, who aren't stating how they understand liberalism and whether they're using it as a catch-all term or not.
Originally posted by Bildo
Originally posted by Logarock
Originally posted by Bildo
Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Ismail
The question is how do we change the Game. By creating a political party with the right ideas or by bringing down the system completely and building it a fresh. Either way it will be a difficult road.
Ummmm, how about re-inhabiting the Republic that the founders gave us? It's there. It always has been. The seats in the Republic were vacated. You can't fix a system(Corp US) that was never intended to be for, or by, the people of the sovereign states. We've been deceived. Big time. When did the "Federal Government" get permission to rule over the states? It was never intended to be that way by our founders. Same with the states ruling over the people. Why are you subject to statutes? Statutes are not law. Statutes are policy. Police are policy enforcers. How can there be a crime without a victim? Time for people to wake up and take a look around and see what has been done to them.
You cant trace the the loss of state sovereignty to a large degree right back to the banks......over time... and the growth of the federal government.
In the US----The States are just sub- corporations. Goes all the way down to the local level. That's why our local police get us for statutes, which are just corporation policy, not law. But, yes, it does create a good revenue stream, which eventually ends up at the central bank. And the people here in the US seem to have no qualms about supporting this corporate system.