Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

What is Freedom?

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


You are funny. Capitalists are so evil, they even hi-jacked, or "appropriated", your left wing terms. I did not know you could do that. I do not really care about who "owns" the word, rather just the meaning. If all dictionaries are giving the "capitalist definition" than give me yours. I will be happy to use words according to your definition.

You have not heard about the Occupy movement? Also called Occupy Wall Street? They call themselves the 99%.

So what is it that can motivate people if not ownership? Or are you suggesting that you can eat food that you do not own? Yet, you say, socialism allows for ownership. Then is that not capitalism? Unless you are suggesting a mix between the two and you pretend that all the benefits are derived because of what you imagine would happen.

If you want to have a real dialog, we need to first agree on the meanings of the words. You do not want to go by the definitions most people use, the dictionary, then please tell me the definition that you like of the words that you use.




posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman
You are funny. Capitalists are so evil, they even hi-jacked, or "appropriated", your left wing terms. I did not know you could do that. I do not really care about who "owns" the word, rather just the meaning. If all dictionaries are giving the "capitalist definition" than give me yours. I will be happy to use words according to your definition.


I never said capitalists were evil, please.

It is a known fact that left wing terms have been appropriated by the state. Hitler did it, The Bolsheviks did it. The capitalists have done it. The American right-wing did it with the term Libertarian. You can't tell me this doesn't happen. You have to understand the history of the 1800's working class to understand how the terms they coined have been changed, and why. It's not hard to see.

“libertarian was a term created by nineteenth-century European anarchists not by contemporary American right-wing proprietarians.” Murray Bookchin The Ecology of Freedom p. 57


You have not heard about the Occupy movement? Also called Occupy Wall Street? They call themselves the 99%.


Of course, I just don't understand your point. Were we talking about the occupy movement?

We're talking about political and economic systems not movements, I have to repeat again to not confuse the two. Just because we have similar beliefs it doesn't mean we agree on what they're doing. This is done all the time with Marxism, you know the 'Marxism says this so socialism must be bad' sort of thing. That's kind of like throwing out an engine because a spark plug was bad. You can't use a movement to demonize a political or economic system. If you could I would make a very long list of capitalist organizations and their dirty tactics. Or just use Hitler and Lenin to demonize government. See how that doesn't work?

Angry protests have happened for centuries. When something new happens in America, people act like they invented it lol. We were "occupying" 'The City' in the 80's.


So what is it that can motivate people if not ownership? Or are you suggesting that you can eat food that you do not own? Yet, you say, socialism allows for ownership. Then is that not capitalism? Unless you are suggesting a mix between the two and you pretend that all the benefits are derived because of what you imagine would happen.


People are motivated to take care of themselves, and that is all that is needed. It's no ones business to motivate people to do anything else.

Socialism is the workers common ownership. Meaning if you can work and want to work you can. It can be done on an individual basis, but it is more efficient to work collectively. In other words cooperative businesses where all the workers equally own the bossiness, and all share equally in it's product.


If you want to have a real dialog, we need to first agree on the meanings of the words. You do not want to go by the definitions most people use, the dictionary, then please tell me the definition that you like of the words that you use.


This is the problem, if I use the modern common definitions what I am saying would make no sense. The original true definitions are still relevant, and if you understood those definitions everything makes sense. I understand your reluctance to accept the definitions I am showing you because it contradicts what you have been taught to believe. People always talk about social conditioning, well this is an example of it my friend. That is why the definition of those terms have been twisted, in order for you to do exactly what you are now doing. You have been programmed to see socialism as something negative. Just like the Germans were conditioned to hate the Jews. Just like the West is being conditioned to hate Muslims. Just like you are conditioned to think you are free. And to love god, and to obey, and to obey, and to, you get the point...

edit on 1/7/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
I never said capitalists were evil, please.

Sorry but I have yet to find where you DO say what you believe in, I only see what you say does not exist or changed into something you are unwilling to define. What ARE capitalists if not evil, in your opinion? I gather that you believe socialism is good but you did not say which definition of it. Original definition? Sorry I am not a linguist who studies the evolution of words. That is why I offered to use whatever definition you provide.

It is a known fact that left wing terms have been appropriated by the state... You have to understand the history of the 1800's working class to understand how the terms they coined have been changed, and why.

You are hiding behind terminology. This "class" and "terms" is extremely vague, covers 100 years and in which country? Just say what you mean, or drop it. Again, I told you I am happy to use your definition. But you must give me one.

“libertarian was a term created by nineteenth-century European anarchists not by contemporary American right-wing proprietarians.” Murray Bookchin The Ecology of Freedom p. 57

So what does it mean for you, if you plan to use to use it, in this discussion?

Were we talking about the occupy movement?... Angry protests have happened for centuries.

Yes I was, because it was relevant to the point I was making about how "angry protests" can be avoided.

... I would make a very long list of capitalist organizations and their dirty tactics. Or just use Hitler and Lenin to demonize government. See how that doesn't work?

Capitalists still not evil? Then most governments (other than Hitler and Lenin) are good? Nobody else using dirty tricks? Again, you say what is not, but not what is. Say what you mean so we can have a discussion about your ideas, not about semantics.

People are motivated to take care of themselves, and that is all that is needed. It's no one's business to motivate people to do anything else.

I repeat my question, if ownership is not necessary, are you suggesting that you can eat food that you do not own? If it is no one's business to motivate people, then it is no one's business to complain about the economic system, poverty, working conditions. Because things only improve when people are motivated to improve them.

Socialism is the workers common ownership. Meaning if you can work and want to work you can... cooperative businesses where all the workers equally own the business, and all share equally in it's product.

And if others do not want to work you will work for them? And if they are slow you will make up for it? And if they are lazy, and if they are late or absent, or if they are often sick, and if they do not learn and if they make mistakes? And what if you get tired of working for all the others?

If I use the modern common definitions what I am saying would make no sense. The original true definitions are still relevant, and if you understood those definitions everything makes sense. I understand your reluctance to accept the definitions...

I told you clearly, repeatedly, I am not reluctant to use any definition, you must give them to me, to be able to use them. This is YOUR threat, why did you not start out with defining the relevant words of which you do not want to use the common definitions?

People always talk about social conditioning, well this is an example of it my friend... Just like you are conditioned to think you are free. And to love god, and to obey...

I agree that we are being conditioned but - so what? How does relate to your question? What is Freedom?

edit on 1/7/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)





new topics
 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join