Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

DOH! It's About SOCIALISM !!!!

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmiec
reply to post by daskakik
 


Socialism has a few different forms. You aspouse to know which form the current or next administration would choose? Or would they just play it by ear and see what they get? Their version may look nothing like what you envision.

I didn't espouse anything. I was commenting on hawkiye's clumping together words that are not interchangeable.

I don't envision anything. I'm pretty much apolitical but I have this thing about people calling things by names that don't fit their actual definition.

edit on 24-12-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmiec
 


Never said you were warmongers either.
Most americans Ive met have been really nice people. And some of the tourist asks funny questions like when the northern lights gets switched on.

But come on, many of your operations abroad did not happen because of your nations safety. And no nation with a tiny bit of sanity left would attack on US soil even if your military was cut 50%.

But Im greatfull for what you did during WW2.

And guess what, the Norwegian military actually still uses quite a bit of the equipment we recieved from the Marshall aid :p



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


Thank you for the reply. It is not anything new. It is common knowledge that most Liberals favor socialism. It simply can not be done as long as the Second Amendment exists. Common sense dictates in order to create it in America the Second Amendment must go. If you read " dreams of my father" you will see where our POTUS stands on it. It is not a huge leap of reason to deduce that he favors/wants socialism. I will admit that it could be good or it could be bad. I personally think it would turn out badly. The day may come when it will work in America. I do not believe we are anywhere near that day. The world is not ready for that day.



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Gromle
 


Sorry, the war monger comment was generalizing about the world view of the U.S. I agree that the powers that be in our government have screwed up many many times. Sometimes people do the wrong things for the right reasons. We are all guilty of that. Irregardless the American people and the American government are in reality miles apart on their world view in most cases. We elect them, what they do with the four years they serve is pretty much out of our hands.



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by hawkiye
Anyone else tired of all the little wannabe commies trying to redefine socialism/communism/fascism and then argue endlessly that we do not know what the definition of socialism is and then post a wiki page as their reference... Sigh!

Actually it was the OP that posted the wiki page as reference and while socialism/communism may be interchangeable, fascism is something completely different, which pretty much proves that you don't know what these words mean. Sorry, just saying.


People claiming we don't know what socialism is have also posted wiki pages. They are all parts of the same coin with emphasis on different aspects. The Nazis are considered fascists and their official name is: National Socialist German Workers' Party...

And the official definition of socialism:


so·cial·ism noun ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm

Definition of SOCIALISM

1
: ANY of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is NO PRIVATE PROPERTY
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
www.merriam-webster.com...

edit on 24-12-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 

Fascism is anti-socialist and anti-communist so the terms are not interchangeable. Nazis used the term socialist to gain popularity with the workers then turned on them. They could have been Fascist or Socialist but not both.


Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State.



We uphold moral and traditional values which Socialism neglects or despises; but, above all, Fascism has a horror of anything implying an arbitrary mortgage on the mysterious future.


Doctrine of Fascism



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by hawkiye
 

Fascism is anti-socialist and anti-communist so the terms are not interchangeable. Nazis used the term socialist to gain popularity with the workers then turned on them. They could have been Fascist or Socialist but not both.


Definition of SOCIALISM

1

: ANY of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods



Fits the NAZIS just fine. Like I said wannabe commies keep trying to redefine terms to fit their agenda....



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 

Actually it doesn't fit the Nazis:

Later, the Nazi regime transferred public ownership and public services to the private sector. In doing so, they went against the mainstream trends in the Western capitalist countries, none of which systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s. Privatization in Nazi Germany was also unique in transferring to private hands the delivery of public services previously provided by government.


Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by hawkiye
 

Actually it doesn't fit the Nazis:

Later, the Nazi regime transferred public ownership and public services to the private sector. In doing so, they went against the mainstream trends in the Western capitalist countries, none of which systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s. Privatization in Nazi Germany was also unique in transferring to private hands the delivery of public services previously provided by government.


Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany


This is laughable the State controlled the means of production despite if they called it privatization or what ever. These so called private companies were state controlled/connected hence fascist but socialist since the state still controlled the means of production which fits the definition of socialism...



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 

Are we to take your word for it? Here is more:

Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, still had ample scope to devise their own production and investment profiles. Even regarding war-related projects, freedom of contract was generally respected; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from. There were several motives behind this attitude of the regime, among them the conviction that private property provided important incentives for increasing efficiency.


The role of private property in the nazi economy

Actually very fascist but not socialist.

ETA: Using your logic the whole world is already socialist except for maybe Somalia. Does the means of production under control of warlords also fit under socialism?

edit on 24-12-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



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


Absolutely the whole world is socialist pretty much! All controlled by international banksters disseminating their propaganda and redefining terms and influencing weak minds to advance their agenda and doing quite well at it...


As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s),..

Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions...

The fascist leaders’ antagonism to communism has been misinterpreted as an affinity for capitalism. In fact, fascists’ anticommunism was motivated by a belief that in the collectivist milieu of early-twentieth-century Europe, communism was its closest rival for people’s allegiance. As with communism, under fascism, every citizen was regarded as an employee and tenant of the totalitarian, party-dominated state. Consequently, it was the state’s prerogative to use force, or the threat of it, to suppress even peaceful opposition...

Hitler’s regime eliminated small corporations and made membership in cartels mandatory.1 The Reich Economic Chamber was at the top of a complicated bureaucracy comprising nearly two hundred organizations organized along industry, commercial, and craft lines, as well as several national councils. The Labor Front, an extension of the Nazi Party, directed all labor matters, including wages and assignment of workers to particular jobs. Labor conscription was inaugurated in 1938...
www.econlib.org...

edit on 24-12-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-12-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   


Any true concerted effort to remove the 2nd Amendment will be basically the end to what we have in America.


Is there any proof of this whatsoever, or even a logical basis for this belief?

Or is this one of those conservative myths, like how everyone in America is a conservative, or gay marriage will end straight marriage?



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


International bankers sounds very capitalist to me. They are free to keep the upper hand and in a free market they are free to use whatever they can.

Political ideals can have many things in common but still not be the same because of small differences. The US is capitalist and the whole country has to follow the Constitution. In that regard they are the same as the fascist but it doesn't make the two ideals the same.


edit on 24-12-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by hawkiye
 


International bankers sounds very capitalist to me. They just have to keep the upper hand and in a free market they are free to use whatever they can.

Political ideals can have many things in common but still not be the same because of small differences. The US is capitalist and the whole country has to follow the Constitution. In that regard they are the same as the fascist but it doesn't make the two ideals the same.

edit on 24-12-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)


What utter nonsense. We have anything but a world free market that is just more bankster propaganda that weak minds eat up. The US has not been a capitalist society for at least 70 years and the constitution is all but ignored these days. Which makes us fascist socialist but has nothing to do with the constitution which if adhered to we would still be free...

God I hate the delusional communist wannabe propaganda spewing all over the net these days being soaked up by the weak minded and lazy... Sigh!

edit on 24-12-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
What utter nonsense. We have anything but a world free market that is just more bankster propaganda that weak minds eat up. The US has not been a capitalist society for at least 70 years and the constitution is all but ignored these days. Which makes us fascist socialist but has nothing to do with the constitution which if adhered to we would still be free...

The thing that you don't get is that the world has always been like this. The idea that the US was ever really free and capitalist is also bankster propaganda.
edit on 24-12-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by CB328
 


The Constitution is the single most important document for the people of the world in mankinds history. It should be kept as pure as possible. Any changes to the Constitution should be met with extreme scrutiny. The Second Amendment was second purposely to protect the First Amendment and the document as a whole. Abolishing the Second Amendment is not possible in America's current environment anyway. The mental health problems associated with the occurences leading to the knee jerk reaction of banning guns must be addressed as well as gangs and the media who personalize the violence by interviewing the victims loved ones and bombarding us with every spec of the murderers life effectively making them famous. All for fat profits, because we crave violence and they feed on our cravings.



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by hawkiye
What utter nonsense. We have anything but a world free market that is just more bankster propaganda that weak minds eat up. The US has not been a capitalist society for at least 70 years and the constitution is all but ignored these days. Which makes us fascist socialist but has nothing to do with the constitution which if adhered to we would still be free...

The thing that you don't get is that the world has always been like this. The idea that the US was ever really free and capitalist is also bankster propaganda.
edit on 24-12-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)


The thing you don't get is historical facts. America was free and prosperous for a short time from about 1867 to 1913 when it was a relative free market.



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Socialism in it's simplest form is a redistribution of wealth.

Why do you Americans cling to capitalism that serves only a few?



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaltireWarrior
Socialism in it's simplest form is a redistribution of wealth.

Why do you Americans cling to capitalism that serves only a few?


Because that is not what capitalism does despite you wannabe commies incessantly trying to redefine it. Capitalism cannot exist without free markets. America is not a capitalist country and hasn't been for nearly a century... What you wannabes call capitalism is socialism!



posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmiec
 


At the very least I agree that a notional eradication of the 2d amendment could facilitate a socialist-oriented order in the United States. And I suppose there are more than a few revolutionary intellectuals who advocate for a strain of socialist order, which makes the prospect of a socialist order formation in the United States a possiblity under their continued influences in the MSM, think tanks, government and academia.

(Here's an example of one revolutionary vanguard [the bald gent]. Funny enough the man standing behind the center podium, Yuri Maltsev, is a former Soviet economist who worked under Gorbachev's administration. Prof. Maltsev eventually immigrated to the U.S. & has provided his insights about the functions of a socialist economy and political order.)


I think some of those who have replied dismissively to your OP neglect that while Marxist socialism represented an economic order, it also represented a revolution. Key here, I think, is revolution, because revolution presupposes action on the part of some body against another body; and we don't have to imagine whether or not such revolutions resulted in massacre. But, as I suspect, those who will disagree with me will simply point out that socialism had been constructed by bad men. One ATS member's outlook on communism/socialism went so far as to draw an analogy between (I'm going to paraphrase) a person who uses a vehiclel for nefarious purpose as opposed to another person who does not. Hence, it is not the vehicle that is to blame when a vehicle is used for violent purposes, but rather the driver. (The analogy being that socialism is like the vehicle, therefore whatever was bad about communism/socialism was the result of those who drove socialism.)

If folks who lean toward socialism think as this unnamed ATS member does then it is pretty clear they cannot blame guns for violence. At least if they regard consistency to be a worthy goal.


edit on 24-12-2012 by Kovenov because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join