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.

 

Democrats, Socialist , and Communist are ahead of their time!

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Democrats , socialist, and communism all have the right idea of helping others that can't help themselves and keeping things more fair for everyone.

However, all those ideologies are ahead of their time, because they can not truly exist or flourish without corruption and greed being nullified.

The bigger an industry gets and/or the bigger a gov't controlled society gets while under the influence of human factors such as greed and corruption you will end up disappointed and the likely hood of an uncontrolled entity. None of those ideology will ever come to fruition in the long term if the main players are corrupted or have self interest.

If corruption exists and greed plays a part in politics would it not be beneficial for those with the most money to flaunt their stuff and push for bigger gov't or more centralized control?

If they are the ones with the most money and they are able to influence the laws that govern the citizens (consumers) and the economic policies (market) , wouldn't they want more a bigger gov't for more control?

If corruption and greed exist in politics and the lobbying industry has major influences on the very gov't that creates the laws that effect the consumers and the market, wouldn't they want bigger gov't?

Are we getting bigger gov't from both republicans and the democrats regardless of who has full control of congress and the presidency?

I'm not suggesting the bigger gov't is necessary a bad thing nor those political ideals are wrong, but under the existing circumstances perhaps they might not be the right tool to use today.




posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Perhaps the right tool today is to shrink the gov't control to a point where it is manageable and concentrate on the monetary influences levied upon our elected officials in office?

As long as we allow corruption and greed to interfere with our system neither republicans nor democrat ideals will come to fruition.

Hence , doesn't it make sense for Democrats , Republicans or who ever to temporary put their ideals a side and join forces to tackle the very thing that is ensuring their system will never truly come to fruition. As long as the lobbyist and special interest groups with the biggest funds have a direct line to our government policies no one but them benefits.

The only way we will have the opportunity to benefit from a bigger gov't is if we make decisions on facts , correctly identify the problem and the public is presented with the truth. Today , all sides are lied to and manipulated to go with the lobbyist agenda that are marketed to us via the MSM, politicians paid by the lobbyist , or hidden when they can't spin the angle.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 11:19 AM
link   
I think you have it a little mixed up there.

The corrupt politicians want a smaller government so that their other interests (their business interests) are more free to practice their corruption with less bother from the laws in government.
I don't know how much they get paid in USA, but in the UK, politicians get £65k p/a before tax, so after tax you're looking at £40k per year. They make most of their money from their secondary job/interest, which is business. So from their perspective, a smaller government would be benificial for them because then they can work more with their secondary job/interest, which pays alot more than the £65k p/a (and most of the time, are able to avoid any tax payments from their secondary job/interest).

Also, the USA doesn't have any socialist/communists within governmnt. The USA is firmly a capitalist country (the hardest leaning right capitalist country in the world). All the democrats are just a less right leaning party (so left wing in comparison to the republicans, which is why they tend to be reffered to left wing).

You have to ask yourself, if governments are really pushing for a smaller government, you need to find out their real reasons, and that all boils down to more money for them. Why would you campaign to loose your job?? Makes no sense if you think it through a personal level.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 11:44 AM
link   
First, let me say I am not really happy with you mentioning democrats, 'socialists' and 'communists' in one sentence.

Anyway, you are entirely correct saying that those 'ideologies' won't work in real life, in the the same way as they NEVER EVER worked in the past because your given reasons, eg. corruption, greed etc.

This is why 'perfect' socialism or communism has failed regardless of the perhaps honorable intentions of whom ever thought out those ideologies.

Then...I am *not* agreeing with the fear of 'bigger government' because I strongly believe the problems we have are not because of 'bigger' government, but because of mis-use and false priorities of government.

Government intervention etc. *already* exists and cannot be prevented, we pay taxes, we have a military, we have this and that. Government intervention and a certain amount of gvt control in CERTAIN sectors DOES NOT MAKE SOCIALISM OR COMMUNISM.

Your money is already taken today, your money is already spent on idiotic things like politicians, wars etc..etc.. where you don't have any control over and where no-one ever asked you whether it is actually sensible how your money is being spent.

HOWEVER, no-one claims it's "socialism" or "communism", despite this fact. Then, as soon as someone comes up with an idea to spend your money differently (say, for healthcare reforms, etc.) people start shouting "communism" even if the underlying principle is exactly the same. Changing where the money will be spent for does NOT change the system. (Eg. say I take 20% out the military budget and put the money into unemployment insurance or healthcare.er...it still doesn't all of a sudden turn the very same system into 'communism')

Here is ONE example where I wish more (!) government control: We need more government control where companies would be fined when they outsource or manufacture in other countries. Because in my opinion, globalism destroys us. However, without any new laws/regulation, no one would care. Companies WILL continue to manufacture overseas for penny-labor. Companies/corporates *do* have too much freedom and if you let them reign freely it usually does NOT benefit society, but merely themselves, their profit. And this will not change without more government control.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by interupt42
 


I don't think that those ideologies are right for me. I can think for myself and don't need others who think that they know what's best for me, telling what I can and cannot do.

You can't legislate common sense yet that is what they try to do.

I would rather all ideology driven parties just disappear. They are a nuisance and ruining my vibe.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 11:55 AM
link   
I have no doubt the Democrats, Socialists and Communists on this website will just go bananas in joy and gratitude that you so casually corral them all together to share the same family of ideology. You apparently have no idea how many threads and how viciously I've personally debated and watched this debated by real socialists and real communists vs. Democrats for how those are 3 totally DIFFERENT things (which, in honesty, they ARE different, if somewhat related).

Ahead of their time though? Okay... That means their time is yet to come and if you'll make it about 20-25 years? Their time will come after nature has called me to other planes of existence. Whew.. Thank God for small favors!

See....the last time? It killed 60 million innocent civilians between Soviet Russia and Red China. I'll be HAPPY to see 'their time' be far beyond MY time for life in this world. Sorry for my son to have to suffer the worst sides of at least 2 of those 3 ideologies ..but better him than me.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Capitalism is stupid. It's based on the unlimited potential for growth. That's neither realistic nor feasible, which is why bubbles collapse and bankers have to adjust interest rates to keep people borrowing. Capitalism is failure.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by interupt42
 


I don't think that those ideologies are right for me. I can think for myself and don't need others who think that they know what's best for me, telling what I can and cannot do.


Lol, they do that for the longest already. This is the illusion of the masses that we would not, right now. How anyone can be so naive is beyond me.

Better even, looking at China (!!) or Russia (!!!) today, I would even go so far that those countries are more "capitalist" today than what the US ever was. Do you, for example, know that today we have super-rich people from China and Russia which invest billions of dollar into property in say, the UK or US?

China and Russia billionaires (what an oxymoron!!!) are the biggest investors today in the UK, they're buying out million $$$ property in cities like London or Detroit. So..in other words: "Communism" or socialism does not even exist anymore. It's the same illusion as keeping to the idea that "we" are truly capitalist, which of course we are not. It's all freely interchangeable, principle is the same.


edit on 25-7-2013 by NoRulesAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Trolloks
 


Why does the lobbying industry spend billions year after year if it doesn't work because the facts demonstrate that we are getting larger gov't regardless what party is in office with full control?

I think you also missed part of my point where I said that the reason they want bigger gov't is because they are able to dictate the laws due to their control of our gov't through monetary influences. If they didn't have that influence then , yes it would be beneficial for them with less gov't . However, since they influence gov't they also influence the consumers and the market, which every company wants.

The other part you are not taking into consideration is how the lobbying and special interest groups consist of an Oligopoly in the major big industry : ENERGY, PHARMACEUTICALS, HEALTHCARE,COMMUNICATIONS,UNIONS,FINANCE,ETC , basically every sector that the consumer is unhappy with.

They utilize their Oligopoly and money to influence our politicians to create laws that control their consumers (us the voters) and their market (world economies). In Essence the Lobbying and organization of their Oligopoly was the answer to a monopoly once it became illegal. The Oligopoly squashes the free market by squashing new players or new ideas that goes against them.

You are also wrong in suggesting that the US is a capitalist country. Our gov't (both sides) has and continues to take away our individual rights and has squashed the free market and taken away consumer rights.

Just recently they passed a bill that took state rights away which the republicans supported (even though it goes against their own basic ideals) that denies the state and local stores to identify genetically modified organism (GMO) on products. A capitalist society would allow the market to decide if GMO is what the consumer wants. in this case the Oligopoly hid the bill and pushed something through that the consumer did not ask for nor wanted.

In a capitalist society such as ours why is it so hard for a car manufacture to sell cars directly to the consumer bypassing dealerships. Ask Tesla how easy its been and going for them due to the current automobile dealer association Oligopoly.

What we have is a corpalist government where corporation with their influence$ dictate our laws. The best us consumer can hope for is a battle among opposing Oligopoly like google fiber versus comcast.




The corrupt politicians want a smaller government so that their other interests (their business interests) are more free to practice their corruption with less bother from the laws in government.


They tell you that but do they really. Lets take for example the OIL industry. Supposedly the OIL industry tends to lean more towards the republicans side because of their talk about deregulating more.

However, the republicans have had full control of congress and the presidency and did they deregulate the oil industry?

Is it possible that the oil industry actually makes more money by being regulated and restricted than by allowing for the free market to dictate prices? sing gov't policy they can make it harder to expand dig sites and to restrict new competitors from coming to play. More dig sites and more competitors means more product on the market , more product on the market means not as much demand, not as much demand means less prices.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaTroof
Capitalism is stupid. It's based on the unlimited potential for growth. That's neither realistic nor feasible, which is why bubbles collapse and bankers have to adjust interest rates to keep people borrowing. Capitalism is failure.

Socialism and/or communism are stupid. They're based on the assumption that people will work their hardest even when they don't get rewarded for doing so. It's based on the assumption that government knows best and is not corrupt. That's neither realistic nor feasible, which is why socialism and communism have always failed. People get lazy. Unchecked governments always corrupt. Socialism and/or communism is failure.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   


Democrats , socialist, and communism all have the right idea of helping others that can't help themselves and keeping things more fair for everyone.


Doesn't sound like it to me



Capitalism is stupid.


Anyone who believes in statolatry with the Alpha dog legislating 'fairness',wealth',''success' is not living in reality.

Democrats,socialist,communism all shades of the same thing: THIS:



Are there any real liberals left out there?
edit on 25-7-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by interupt42
 


I'll try and simplify my point in a different way.

Regulations and laws are meant to be put into place to protect the consumer from the business. Making sure that the consumer is not being ripped off, sold the correct working product, protection from health damaging products etc etc.

Business, has since got a stranglehold on this system, and have turned it on its head. Now, laws are created to protect business from consumers. Making sure that the business does not loose out if the consumer is unable to pay the business (bailouts, give them more powers to obtain the money owed to them, etc), protect their product development (even if the product is harmful, such as GMO, or even medical treatments). Their reasoning in doing so is that it would benifit the economy and the all mighty 'free market' (which just benifits the business owners and the shareholders). Since the 2007 crisis, the 360 turn has gone into full acceleration, because they believe/convinced (with a lot of money) that this is the way to fule the economy.

You can say what you want, the USA IS a capitalist country. Your country works on the market and is heavily reliant on the private sector. When capitalism goes too much towards the right (as the USA has, and the UK catching up) you get a corpartilistic model of democracy. Once a country relies too much on the private sector, they become powerless to fight against it/sort it out. The general answer to economic troubles (which tends to start in the private sector, such as banks) is more power to the private sector, which in turn shrinks the public sector, causing job losses and loss of pensions, which in turn causes more economic hardship, which in turn gives the private sector more power, and the whole thing repeats itself again and again untill the libertarian ideology comes through as some sort of political savior, giving the final rights of the public in the hands of the private, causing minimal government.

Now with the socialist/communist link to the democrats. Have they ever campaigned for the nationalisation of the energy sector? The oil industry? The financial industry? The rail industy? No? Then they are in no way a socialist or communist party.

And just on a side now, the phrase "For the people, By the people" is a socialist phrase. Capitalist is "For the capital, By the people"
edit on 25-7-2013 by Trolloks because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by interupt42
 


While I like Socialism, I've also leanings toward Anarchism in the respect of recognizing every Man and Woman as a Nation their own.
Too often in too many government systems we have the political body dictating the morality and dos and don'ts of its private citizens private activities.

We have the abortion argument. There's laws and rules about what a man or woman can imbibe for recreation regardless of whether they do so responsibly or abusive to their own detriment. We've governments telling us who can or can't get married when it comes to sexual preference and identity.
In some societies there's enforced inequality between the sexes where women are essentially property.

Even the old Gentleman's laws where two consenting adults could duel with pistols at dawn are illegal.

We're no longer allowed in some respects to make own decisions because these decisions are either taken away from us, or criminalized such that those who might, for instance have zero problems with a substance that's only recently been legalized in Colorado are left to feel like self marginalizing criminals.

So far as people making decisions in their own lives as legal adults of informed self consent, I say let private citizens do what they will with their own selves, so long as what they're doing has no negative effects carrying over into others lives.
If some big hairy macho man wants to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, let him.
If two idiots want to cross swords at sunset ala Shakespearean tragedy, for whatever reason, let them. It's quicker and cheaper than the courts so long as both parties are consenting.
If a merry band of men want to all get married to each other in a giant gay polygamist man-family, let them.

If people want to walk around entirely naked or just topless at the beach, or a pool, regardless if they are pretty, or ugly, so long as they're not being sexually harassing or vulgar about their display of nakedness, let them.

Who are we, or anyone to tell other adults, other people what they can or can't do in their own private lives so long as they aren't putting anyone else at risk of harm?

Let people be responsible for their own actions, and accountable to themselves and others if when they act irresponsibly accountability to others is called for.

Eh.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoRulesAllowed

Here is ONE example where I wish more (!) government control: We need more government control where companies would be fined when they outsource or manufacture in other countries. Because in my opinion, globalism destroys us. However, without any new laws/regulation, no one would care. Companies WILL continue to manufacture overseas for penny-labor. Companies/corporates *do* have too much freedom and if you let them reign freely it usually does NOT benefit society, but merely themselves, their profit. And this will not change without more government control.


I'm not disagreeing with you and I'm not saying no gov't is the answer nor I'm I saying capitalism is the final answer.

What I'm suggesting is perhaps we need to get control of our gov't back , restructure the lobbying industry and use technology to give everyone an equal voice, then we can re look at expanding services.

Right now we need to take a breath and stop any gov't expansion and concentrate on the lobbying industry. The very same issue you are talking about was created by the lobbying industry. That pushed and created foreign trade policies while feeding the public the instant gratification of cheap products. At the same time they hid the facts of the long term effects that we will eventually not be able to compete with those foreign countries in order to get our jobs back due to their cost of living standards unless we drop our standard of living to match theirs.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   
More than a little bit mixed up about what the end game is for Democrats, Socialists, and Communists.

Communists are all about helping out everyone? Try telling that to the average Russian circa 1975.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 


That actually wasn't Communism, though people like to call it that.
Too often people get confused and misled with the labels they're told to believe.

It's like USA isn't really a Democracy.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 12:58 PM
link   
I just want to throw this out there because it's accurate in my opinion and it sums up much of this issue in one shot.

Communism is, at it's heart, the most ideal and perfect system of Government ever devised by man, for man. On Paper.

It's perfect ...until man steps up to run that system. Then man's nature corrupts that system without exception to date. Every time, in every example and every attempt. Not all have crashed and some have morphed out the worst and most cancerous aspects of Communism while still being true communists, like China. Still.... Absolute Power absolutely corrupts. The west sees it by corruption of Capitalism and the East saw it by corruption of Communism.

Neither system...Communism or Capitalism is evil on paper and in basic design. It takes humans to really destroy all potential. The difference is. Capitalism HAS worked and for extended periods before falling into the mud pit of human corruption. Communism, in real world examples, generally has not. (60 million innocent dead attest that to that in a way beyond any debate we could ever hold)

* I'm talking about Communism here... *NOT* Socialism. Socialism can and does evolve INTO Communism. The text books even say so, outright. However, it doesn't NEED to and doesn't always do that. Ask Scandinavia about that one.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I don't think there was ever a real communist government. In both Marxist and anarchist communist there will be no government and the people will live their lives under communist principles. Karl Marx wrote that communism will be a third step where the revolution will dispose of the former government, a socialist government will replace the former government and step down where communism will take place. Anarchist communist takes away step 2 and goes straight into communism.

Anyway about the original post. I don't think any economic or political philosophy is ahead of its time. The people just have to make it work.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Well the Communist and Socialist 'idealisms' were exemplified and amplified by Grampa Karl starting in the mid 1800's.

It seems every time 'they' tried to 'make it work' always ended in utter failure as far as a general public was concerned.

Where did they go wrong ?

Grampa outlined the whole thing in what seemed to be simple enough terms.

Unless of course, some people used the 'ideal' systems selectively to achieve a corporatist agenda.

Since the big international corporations that control many governments today are the most powerful organizations in history, maybe they did take it from Marx ?

Maybe they used international banking and mixed it right with government control to gain their own 'utopia'.

Some people think Marx was a hired gun for the bankers of those old times.

Some even think Marx was a Rothschild family relative.

Hmmm.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96


Democrats , socialist, and communism all have the right idea of helping others that can't help themselves and keeping things more fair for everyone.


Doesn't sound like it to me



Capitalism is stupid.


Anyone who believes in statolatry with the Alpha dog legislating 'fairness',wealth',''success' is not living in reality.

Democrats,socialist,communism all shades of the same thing: THIS:



Are there any real liberals left out there?
edit on 25-7-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



Your comparison is wrong & stupid and you look like a fool. Keep believing in your own illusions how "free" you are. And keep mentioning democrats, socialism and communism in one sentence, makes you look very competent. lol. If you really think that the "liberal paradise" is a prison I can't help you, obviously you don't even have a remote idea what liberalism actually is.
edit on 25-7-2013 by NoRulesAllowed because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join