Is Obama the most pathetic "socialist" ever??

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by 11235813213455

 

Property is limited to personal such as your home, currency, transportation etc.
And I guess you could look at shareholding as limited to workers only.

Unfortunately, the plan is to abolish all private property. This means that the workers do not really own anything. Everything would be owned by the State. This is the real meaning of the worker ownership, there is no private property under Marxism. It's really a kind of sleight of hand.
The goal of Agenda 21 interestingly enough is to abolish private property and put it all in the hands of the State. The goals of Agenda 21 are virtually the same as the goals of marxist communism. Abolition of private property.

And control of all the resources by the State. That means land, water rights, electricity, everything. This is also what happens when they "nationalize" industry.
I know somehow you think this will give you a bigger piece of the pie but it won't.

reply to post by 11235813213455


My poor feelings...again!
I'm not confusing anything, it's just common sense to me. How can there be responsibility or stakes laid at any other feet other than the individual worker under Socialism? Independent contractor would be the best way to describe the status of a worker post capitalism as opposed to proprietor, liability would be the workers.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


You describe Statism, not Socialism.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by 11235813213455

 

Oh My God... you have to be one of the most agonizingly ill informed knee jerk reaction posters on this site..

Gosh, I feel unloved

Fascism and Socialism are demonstrably and historically NOT polar opposites.

Really? Apparently there's at least one poster more agonizingly ill informed than myself.

Mussolini's own words:

No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State (15). 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 (16).

I'll couch that because trying to explain that to you is like me trying to have a conversation with a brick and convince it not to be a brick.

Ouch, my feelings!

As far as I can tell there are exactly as many definitions of socialism as there are socialists

No, there is only one correct one... you mentioned it already.

Frankly what you propose scares the hell out of me and would burn the world down.

Some people are scared and need Nannies, I understand.

I would choose Obamas socialism over yours any day of the week.

Naturally. Why should a Capitalist be un-agreeable to a Capitalist?

All that means is that Mussolini opposed the International Socialist. Mussolini and Hitler were both for Nationalism, which is why Hitler's Nazi party was called National Socialism. There is a difference between National Socialism and Intl Socialism. The only difference being that the boundaries of a specific country are still recognized.
In the NWO those boundaries will no longer be recognized, it will be truly global if they do accomplish their goals.
It must be recognized that the monied interests of the West propped up both Hitler and the Bolsheviks.

Hitler National Socialism
Bolsheviks Intl Communism

Monied Interests Rockefellers, Bushs, Harrimans, Rothschilds, JP Morgan, warburgs etc

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

You describe Statism, not Socialism.

Socialism IS Statism, sorry to inform you. You may personally be of the bent of anarchy, but Socialism and Communism are both Statist forms of management and they have to resort to it to enforce the rules.


That is just the way it is, no matter how many times you keep repeating the same ill-informed mantra.

Anarchy is just a tool used by some Socialists and Communists to tear down existing structures so they can replace with Marxism, but Statism is the true mechanism of Socialism and Communism

Please roll your eyes in another direction

www.voltairenet.org...

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by 11235813213455

 

My poor feelings...again!
I'm not confusing anything, it's just common sense to me. How can there be responsibility or stakes laid at any other feet other than the individual worker under Socialism? Independent contractor would be the best way to describe the status of a worker post capitalism as opposed to proprietor, liability would be the workers.

Uh huh.. Just what I thought.... You dont even know how those things operate in any system and making things worse for yourself by trying to bs your way through it...Cant even answer simple eco 101 questions.

You might try "thinking" more about things instead of arriving at your conclusions based on "feeling".

Check and mate.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by 11235813213455

 

My poor feelings...again!
I'm not confusing anything, it's just common sense to me. How can there be responsibility or stakes laid at any other feet other than the individual worker under Socialism? Independent contractor would be the best way to describe the status of a worker post capitalism as opposed to proprietor, liability would be the workers.

Independent contractor is what we have under free enterprise, not socialism. Under the Socialist or Communist State, the worker will have NO rights other than those afforded them by the State.
It should become more apparent as Obamacare begins to be more operable. Doctors will be told who they can treat, where they can practice, what treatments they can give patients. I'm sorry you keep trying to transfer what we have now under a mixed economy to what you have been brainwashed by your fellow travelers to believe what will be under Socialist rule.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


No they're not Socialism/Communism = Worker owned means of production, the end. Therefore State owned anything by default is not Socialism, how hard is this to comprehend? It is as absurd as trying to claim that private ownership is Socialism too... they are three separate economic systems. Your continued paranoid delusions do not make me wrong no matter how many times the voices tell you so.

Originally posted by 11235813213455
reply to post by spacedog1973

 

Well it seems the only requirement here on ATS for one to be a socialist is for one to be for worker ownership of the means of production....

So Obama being a union stooge (SEIU)... then ya... he's a socialist.

Well spoken and true. Obama is definitely in the pockets of the Unions and their leaders. Giving them special treatments, for instance Obamacare WAIVERS so they do not have to comply with even this Draconian legislation which they supposedly are supposed to want overwhelmingly.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
So he's a Socialist Nazi Capitalist Muslim Anti-Christ Nobel peace prize winner with fascist tendencies...?

Epic.

Justs say NWO Globalist and you cover all those. Antony Sutton said that under Hegelian Dialectic of the Order of Skull and Bones, the synthesis of left and right becomes neither left nor right. The Synthesis is the NWO.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Free enterprise would flourish under Socialism, because again the State would have nothing to do with it and flourish more so because access to exploitation is 100% denied.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
It should become more apparent as Obamacare begins to be more operable. Doctors will be told who they can treat, where they can practice, what treatments they can give patients.

Are you sure this is right? I may have be misinformed on this but as I understood it, if you have money/insurance you can still pay privately for treatment.

Social Healthcare is for those who can't afford insurance or who don't want to pay for it and admittedly they'll get whatever the State can afford.

reply to post by 11235813213455


I answered your questions. Your dislike of my answers doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about. I get it, you don't like Socialism in it's correct definition or incorrect definition.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

No they're not Socialism/Communism = Worker owned means of production, the end. Therefore State owned anything by default is not Socialism, how hard is this to comprehend? It is as absurd as trying to claim that private ownership is Socialism too... they are three separate economic systems. Your continued paranoid delusions do not make me wrong no matter how many times the voices tell you so.

You are just plain wrong. How many times do I have to tell you that Worker owned production is State owned because it is Collective. No one owns anything individually.
But Fabian Socialism means that there is a process whereby some private industry is left to function before the State takes over completely.It is just part of the process and not the end. It is incremental. You can call it State Capitalism if it makes you feel better. Then you will finally understand what I have been trying to tell you all along.

Originally posted by region331

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
It should become more apparent as Obamacare begins to be more operable. Doctors will be told who they can treat, where they can practice, what treatments they can give patients.

Are you sure this is right? I may have be misinformed on this but as I understood it, if you have money/insurance you can still pay privately for treatment.

Social Healthcare is for those who can't afford insurance or who don't want to pay for it and admittedly they'll get whatever the State can afford.

Well, you see, they wanted single payer. In other countries where Socialized medicine is being practiced, yes, there are long waiting lines and people may not get the treatments they want or need. Yes, rationioning will happen in some form or another. This is what the Independent Advisory Boards are for. (aka death panels)
These people pushing it are just so slick in their ability to use semantics and word play that they have convinced everybody that they will get what they want under the system. But doctors are already leaving the practice and premiums have already skyrocketed so many people will not be able to afford it, and will end up paying the penalty instead, plus it will run many private insurance companies out of business. Also it has been stated by lots of people that many coprorations and small businesses are not going to provide coverage so it will leave larger populations of people uninsured so they will have to go for the subsidized govt insurance(which means that someone else does have to pay for the part which is subsidized, as that is what subsidized means.)

Even Forbes ran an article talking about medical rationing under Obamacare

The latest front is the opinion pages of the New York Times, which recently published two Op-Eds openly advocating medical rationing. The first was by their economics columnist Eduardo Porter, “Rationing Health Care More Fairly” (8/21/2012).
Porter argued that rationing was “inevitable” and the only question was how best to implement it. He advocated a system like Great Britain’s, which doesn’t pay for medical therapies costing more than $31,000 – $47,000 per year of life gained. Similarly, he praised New Zealand’s approach of not paying for vaccines that cost more than $20,000 per year of life gained.

The second pro-rationing piece was by Obama administration advisor Steve Rattner, “Beyond ObamaCare” (9/16/2012). Rattner stated up front, “We need death panels.”
Rattner advocated restricting medical spending on the elderly, especially on patients in their last year of life, because such spending “consumes more than a quarter of the [Medicare] program’s budget.
/ex]


From this, it is clear that they DO mean to use rationing of services to keep the budget, and that any claims to the contrary are just lies to get unsuspecting people on board, and any time you hear people saying this isn't socialism, they are either lying or they don't understand fabian socialism, which is socialism enacted in increments, that is, not all at once. They know what their end game is, but most people do not.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Free enterprise would flourish under Socialism, because again the State would have nothing to do with it and flourish more so because access to exploitation is 100% denied.

Yep... Capitalism would flourish under Socialism.....

By your definition all socialism is is collectivised capitalism.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


I already call it State Capitalism because that is the correct term, how about you join me? Use the correct term and I even agree with you at times. See? Now we're no longer divided on every single thing.
Do you get it now?

reply to post by 11235813213455


You think you are mocking me but you aren't. I know full well what I'm saying. The term Free Enterprise well predates the term Capitalism.

reply to post by Kali74

No. Socialism falls under Libertarianism

There is a branch of Libertarianism called Libertartarian Socialism
This seems to be where you might be coming from, as I have seen in your posts. Also Noam Chomsky is famous for his stance on this. However, the truth of the matter is that Libertarianism and Socialism are really two different schemes, and ultimately Socialism cannot exist in the same sphere as a system where liberties remain in place, because Socialism requires forcing people to do things. In other words, people have to give up their private property and their freedoms to make way for Socialism, no matter how many pretty words they frame it in. Socialism is forced redistribution, they just would prefer it if people would willingly give up their property and their rights, but most people really do not wish to do so, and if they get tricked into it they finally figure out what really happened. Ultimately the State tells them what to do, where and how to do it. Agenda 21 is a good example, as all this "sustainable development" is is just the State telling people what they can and cannot do on their property or having their property seized by eminent domain so others can use the property, also something called "Conservation easements", which is another way of saying you can't use your property, which means ultimately that the State CONTROLS it.

Here is what wiki says about your beloved Libertarian Socialism

Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism[1][2] or left-libertarianism)[3][4] is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic society without private property in the means of production. Libertarian socialists believe in converting present-day private productive property into common or public goods, while retaining respect for personal property.[5] Libertarian socialism is opposed to coercive forms of social organization. It promotes free association in place of government and opposes the social relations of capitalism, such as wage labor.[6] The term libertarian socialism is used by some socialists to differentiate their philosophy from state socialism,[7][8] and by some as a synonym for left anarchism.[1][2][9]

en.wikipedia.org...

I know it sounds lovely to a lot of people of your persuasion, but the truth of the matter is it will end up like the old Totalitarian Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or the People's Republic of China.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

I already call it State Capitalism because that is the correct term, how about you join me? Use the correct term and I even agree with you at times. See? Now we're no longer divided on every single thing.
Do you get it now?

I will not join you because I believe in Free Enterprise NOT State Capitalism, Crony Capitalism, Oligarchy, Socialism, Communism, Globalism, or Totalitarianism.