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.
Originally posted by Skyfloating
There are different ways to see it. The polar-opposites way is the way its taught in school. So when talking to someone programmed by school, one uses the polar-opposites model in order to be understood.
[edit on 8-10-2009 by Skyfloating]
Originally posted by Skyfloating
Where exactly does the OP or the Video make such a claim?
Where exactly does the OP or the Video endorse such utterly oppressive organizations?
So rather than discussing the issues raised in the video (critical theory, the frankfurt school, media-manipulation, the vilification of America), lets just point to a few fascists and the case is closed?
Both the Facism you pointed out and the Marxism and its spawns are among the biggest problems we face as a Planet today. They are mindsets that act like pollutant viruses weakening the structure of everything we hold dear.
Originally posted by I_am_Spartacus
For the upteenth time. Fascism, marxism, etc, etc are all RELATED. Fascism is a means used to impose socialism. You cannot have socialism without some form of Fascism.
Originally posted by I_am_Spartacus
Socialisms goal (in its pure utopian form) is to evenly distribute the wealth from production. There is no way (in the real world) to evenly distribute "fairness" unless a central power controls production and distribution.
Originally posted by I_am_Spartacus
Oh boy here we go.....I love it when the ignorant get condescending.
Never is EVERYONE in a society going to support socialism thus fascism is needed to "get the job done".
[edit on 12-10-2009 by I_am_Spartacus]
Originally posted by I_am_Spartacus
This state of existence could theoretically be achieved by a well intentioned hippie commune with no central power but its almost complete absence in human society proves it can't.
[edit on 12-10-2009 by I_am_Spartacus]
Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by Remixtup
What? Caps lock will not help your argument.
Please explain where I'm wrong. I would suggest educating yourself first though.
What you don't understand is that socialism is a system of the people, by the people, not of the government or the corporations, or the rich. What is there to fear by shaking off the shackles of exploitation by the minority wealthy?
The system we have now is the one that exploits you and controls you.
The system of the 'state', the state is the system that allows one class of people to control another, is exploitative and oppressive. Capitalism feeds that unbalanced control. Wealth appears to bring you freedom, but it's an empty freedom. All it really brings is haves and have nots, slaves to wealth, or slaves to poverty. Wealth is a ghetto, poverty a prison.
Originally posted by ANOK
Socialism is the 'workers ownership of the means of production', and that is the goal. ........ The workers will benefit directly from their labour, increasing the motivation to work harder. Capitalism motivates the hourly wage worker to do the least they can get away with, much like the 'boss' will pay the least they can get away with regardless of profits made.
So no need for a central anything to decide what's 'fair', that is required by capitalism.
Originally posted by Remixtup
reply to post by ANOK
of the people for the people eh?
Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837
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...
funny I dont see Of the people/for the people miles near this. Is this just your personal definition or???
edit to add: I am exploited and controlled?...damn. I might as well change my entire ideology of self determination and self sustainability and start working for the collective good. Now I have to ask myself before every decision, is this good for me and my family?.....no no no, is this fair for my neighbor and society.
[edit on 10/14/2009 by Remixtup]
OED definition of socialism
socialism (sou.Saliz'm). a. Fr. socialisme (1832), or independently f. social a. + -ism. See also next. The early history of the word is somewhat obscure. The first use of Fr. sociaed in common. to have been in the Globe of 13 Feb. 1832, where it was employed in contrast to personnalito. In its modern sense it is variously claimed for Leroux or Reybaud, writing within three or four years after this. A different account, assigning the priority of this use to England, is given in the Encycl. Brit. (1887) XXII. 205; according to this the word originated in 1835 in the discussions of a society founded by Robert Owen.
1. A theory or policy of social organization which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all.
2. A state of society in which things are held or used in common.
Originally posted by drwizardphd
Liberalism is a belief in the importance of personal freedom. Nothing more.