DOH! It's About SOCIALISM !!!!

Socialism has nothing to do with gun control

Originally posted by WaterBottle
Socialism has nothing to do with gun control

Except every socialist country that murdered masses of their own citizens in the last century first implemented gun control... Learn some history before you parrot commie propaganda...

Originally posted by hawkiye

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....

Might fit the nazis, but it sure as hell doesn't fit the corporate bought politicians in congress. Corporations don't want an economy where they are weak. Socialism is a leveling of the playing field. Nobody in charge is trying to do that, they are moving in the opposite direction. In socialism, the wealth is redistributed, but the fact is wealth keeps getting filtered to the wealthy. I don't care how many times Fox News says otherwise.
Socialism is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what they want with America. They want Fascism.

P.S. Just because Nazis were socialist, doesn't mean socialism is evil. In fact they were socialist because capitalism failed so horribly there. Nazis were evil for other reasons, like killing innocent people and invading other countries.

reply to post by Kovenov


Thank you for your reply. It is well thought out and presise in concept. I look at socialism as a restraint of creative thought in many cases. To be sure it has it's good points. I do not however think it is a long lasting, all perfect system for humanity as a whole. The human factor is where all governments are led astray. Redistribution of wealth in small doses can sometimes be warranted, however it never stops at that. Reality gets in the way of good intentions all too often. Things like retiring from public office with full pay and benefits multiplied by 50 million becomes a burden on the younger generations that must continually suffer lower wages in order to pay for it. A thriving economy can never be guaranteed. A complete breakdown of a socialist system of government leads to totalitarian government. The Constitution has served the world well. It needs to be saved in it's purest form, it is the blueprint for many countries constitutions guaranteeing their human rights. It is not a good idea to change the template of a masterpiece used globally to secure freedoms for all humanity.

reply to post by Ghost375

Might fit the nazis, but it sure as hell doesn't fit the corporate bought politicians in congress.

Really? Perhaps some history study would be appropriate:

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...

Now tell me whats the difference between the corporate bought politicans and Hitlers regime? Not much they both have used government to eliminate small business and made it mandatory to become politically connected to be able to survive the massive bureaucracy they have created to control and regulate the means of production!

This is how they redistribute the wealth to themselves. Redistribution of wealth to those who did not earn it whether government or civilians is theft nothing more...

reply to post by jimmiec


Thanks for the reponse.

I wanted to add another element to my initial post, but neglected to do so. I'll add it here for any of those who may wish to read about socialism and economic calculation for reference: mises.org...

Take it easy.

reply to post by Kovenov


Haha, Now that is a huge amount of detail about socialism. I got to page 14 and my eyes got blurry and my brain started to seize up lol. There are just so many what ifs and it is fraught with human error/nature factors for it to be a lasting solution. I will go back to it and try to absorb it to the end later. Thanks for posting it.

reply to post by hawkiye

Did you just read the first sentence and not bother reading the rest? My point is TPTB want fascism, not socialism.

From your source:

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.

What TPTB want is Fascism, not socialism.....your source just proves my point.

Originally posted by Ghost375
reply to post by hawkiye

 

Did you just read the first sentence and not bother reading the rest? My point is TPTB want fascism, not socialism.

From your source:

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.

What TPTB want is Fascism, not socialism.....your source just proves my point.

edit on 24-12-2012 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)

Apparently you are the one that did not read, my source proves fascism and socialism are one and the same both cede control of the means of production to the state period! But you wannabe commies keep incessantly repeating your nonsense over and over even though it has been disproven everytime... Sigh!

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer

The Second Amendment is the mechanism by which all other Amendments are secured for ourselves and our descendants. I personally believe that newly Socialized Nations tend to ban the personal possession and bearing of Arms, is because once their respective Governments attempt to forcibly Nationalize preexisting Industries and Corporations, the ability of the People directly affected by the Nationalization, upon seeing their life's work taken away, wouldn't be too happy with that Idea and resist in greater numbers with said Armaments.

This resistance, by an armed Populous, is the very reason the Founding Father's here in America put the 2nd Amendment above the Right to a Trial by Jury, the Protection from Unreasonable Search and Seizure, etc. The possession of Guns by the People could stop a rogue element of Local, State, or Federal Government from violating these Rights, in real time, under their own volition, and without pleading for assistance from the same Governments that may be the ones infringing upon their Rights. The Founding Fathers understood that power can corrupt even the most moral man. This corruption, if left unchecked, could destroy the Freedoms and Liberties they had fought so hard for, and many had died for.

This, sadly, is the issue we face in America right now. The power vested in our elected Officials has corrupted them, which has in turn, has caused the entire system by which we elect our Office Holders to become corrupt, so that only the those with either the best connections to the largest source of money, or those connected to those who can give the most free money to the simple minded masses, will invariably win whatever office they choose to run for.

The people have realized that they can vote themselves money from Pro-Socialist Politicians, and at the same time exact revenge against the Pro-Self Reliance Politicians they feel have wronged them. Its understandable that the average citizen, who lacks understanding of our corrupt Governmental Policies, would desire a world in which they get all the breaks and the Elite are knocked from their High Horse, and they feel Socialism can accomplish this. When sadly, this will never be the case. Socialism will ultimately cause the rich to be poorer yes...but the poor will stay poor forever.

Capitalism is the only economic system that enables people from any class to move up solely on the basis of their own hard work and merit. Its a shame that America has forgotten what true Capitalism is and what is has done for them. We have a higher standard of living than anywhere else in the world. We have access to the best of everything, not because of the Redistribution of Wealth of Socialism, but because of the exceptional ability to generate new Wealth under Capitalism.

reply to post by trysts


When did I say any of that? Talk about hyperbole. You obviously have not read our Constitution. Article 1 section 8 describes the enumerated powers of Congress, one of which is to provide for the common defense.

It is in our Constitution that Congress is to manage the defense of our nation. They can collect taxes for such purposes.

I support the Constitution. Nowhere have I said that I support nation building, occupation of other countries, or killing of people for the express purposes of the military industrial complex. I do support the general defense of our nation through military means.
You on the other hand, seem to feel that we should not support the defense of our nation but that we must support a govt Nanny State which micromanages its citizens and pays for education, healthcare, and whatever else the liberal mindset thinks of.
You support socialism, I support rugged individualism and freedom which was espoused by our Founding Fathers.

Merry Christmas to you.

Originally posted by hawkiye


Apparently you are the one that did not read, my source proves fascism and socialism are one and the same both cede control of the means of production to the state period! But you wannabe commies keep incessantly repeating your nonsense over and over even though it has been disproven everytime... Sigh!

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer

Except it doesn't say they are one and the same. It talks about their similarities, but that doesn't mean they are one and the same, because they list many differences. They have differences and I'm not saying they are completely different. BUT in this conversation, it does matter what you say our government is heading towards, and it's the differences that become important, not the similarities.

Your quote starts with "as an economic system," so it's ONLY talking about the economic aspects....and even then, your quote says it's socialism with a capitalist veneer. That means they are quite different, JUST when comparing their economic aspects.

The US is moving towards a system closer to Fascism, NOT socialism, and if you know the differences between the two, and you obviously don't saying they are one and the same, it is quite evident.

reply to post by Ghost375

Except it doesn't say they are one and the same. It talks about their similarities,

Geeze it says "FASCISM IS SOCIALISM" it doesn't get any more clear then that....Sigh! and then it goes to explain why they are the same but of course you did not read the article...Bigger sigh! Talk about denial and emotional attachment to false beliefs... Do you know what the term "veneer" means? it is a fake facade to make something appear different then what it really is...

As an economic system, FASCISM IS SOCIALISM with a capitalist veneer

reply to post by hawkiye


You're taking that out of context. smh I even explain the context in the second paragraph of my last post. The article goes on to explain the similarities AND differences, I see the similarities, you completely ignore the differences.

I'm not saying they have no similarities, because they do.
It's the differences that are important, and there are differences. Even your source mentions several key differences!

and if you know the differences(which you obviously don't), it's clear the the US is moving towards fascism, not socialism.

I think most people mean this.

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

From capitalism to socialism to communism.
And let's face it, that is what S. Brady wants.
I don't think the term matters, but her idea of taking away all the guns so no one can stop their plan is worrisome.

Originally posted by hawkiye
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.

No you just bought into the other flavor that propaganda comes in. They sold the ideal that all would be taken care of to some and they sold the ideal that they would be free to others and in the end both got short changed.

Originally posted by Ghost375
reply to post by hawkiye

 

You're taking that out of context. smh I even explain the context in the second paragraph of my last post. The article goes on to explain the similarities AND differences, I see the similarities, you completely ignore the differences.

I'm not saying they have no similarities, because they do.
It's the differences that are important, and there are differences. Even your source mentions several key differences!

and if you know the differences(which you obviously don't), it's clear the the US is moving towards fascism, not socialism.

edit on 25-12-2012 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-12-2012 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-12-2012 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-12-2012 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)

Amazing what part of "Fascism "IS" Socialism with a capitalist veneer" do you not understand? It doesn't say fascism is similar to socialism it say it "IS" SOCIALISM its not out of context you are just trying to obfuscate the facts! One takes a direct approach and one takes in indirect approach and gives the false appearance of freedom and capitalism while accomplishing the same things; GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED MEANS OF PRODUCTION business and economy AND LACK OF FREEDOM!

Originally posted by hawkiye

Apparently you are the one that did not read, my source proves fascism and socialism are one and the same both cede control of the means of production to the state period! But you wannabe commies keep incessantly repeating your nonsense over and over even though it has been disproven everytime... Sigh!

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer

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

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

Just because somebody who doesn't like socialism writes a book and states "facism is socialism" does not make it it so. Just because you quote it does not make it so.

I think you will find the vast vast majority of economists and historians would vehemently disagree with what you have stated.

You can find this out in books, different books, written by people from different political beliefs.

It has not been "disproven everytime...sigh" that is merely what you want to believe.

Want to see some very happy prosperous people? Then have a look at countries which have implemented some socialist principles......nordic countries for example !

Thank you all for your contributions to the thread. I certainly learned a lot and apreciate all of it. The real issue is simply the fact that America is a two party system and that system is under assault. The knee jerk reaction to ban guns is a way to destroy that two party system through the destruction of our Constitution. Whether in the end it is better for America is not the issue, though it may one day be an issue. The issue is that it is being pushed on the American people behind their backs by taking advantage of our base instincts. The real reason they want to ban guns is to get one step closer to their vision of what America should look like. It is a huge leap of faith to assume their version looks anything like your version of a change in government. It is a given that we have our problems, They are not however insurmountable and should not require throwing the baby out with the bath water to solve.

Originally posted by jimmiec
The real issue is simply the fact that America is a two party system and that system is under assault.

Actually there are more than 2 parties and I don't think that the constitution places a limit on how many parties can exist.

The knee jerk reaction to ban guns is a way to destroy that two party system through the destruction of our Constitution. Whether in the end it is better for America is not the issue, though it may one day be an issue. The issue is that it is being pushed on the American people behind their backs by taking advantage of our base instincts.

True but many would say that both major parties do this while they play good cop/bad cop. Just the fact that they have you thinking that those two parties are your only choice shows how well the routine has worked.

The real reason they want to ban guns is to get one step closer to their vision of what America should look like. It is a huge leap of faith to assume their version looks anything like your version of a change in government. It is a given that we have our problems, They are not however insurmountable and should not require throwing the baby out with the bath water to solve.

Honestly I think it is more of a distraction and playing off of base emotions to keep up the illusion that there is a choice.

I'm actually pro-guns and believe that an armed society is a polite society but I also realize that in reality it is the ied's which have done the most harm to large war machines and these are already illegal. So if the fight ever actually becomes one of bringing down a tyrannical government it really won't matter what was deemed illegal before the tipping point.

One of the first examples of coordinated large-scale use of IEDs was the Belarussian Rail War launched by Belarussian guerrillas against the Germans during World War II.