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 MasterGemini
reply to post by petrus4
Now, all your hate posts against me make complete sense.
You to Chrysalisedit on 8-9-2011 by MasterGemini because: (no reason given)
So, yeah...why use Marxism as a particular means of control?
Originally posted by petrus4
So one phrase I've heard thrown around a lot lately is "cultural Marxism." Supposedly, this is what the NWO has used to destroy Western society. I've been accused of being a cultural Marxist myself, and it's probably true. The ideology is apparently so prevalent in society, that I probably can't help it.
The thing that I don't understand though, is why Marxism in particular? Why did they choose that particular ideology to use against us? Why not Capitalism, or fascism, or just keeping us all Christian still, if they really have that much power?
The main reason why it really doesn't make any sense, is because Communism was depicted as a threat to America for a long time; and now everyone is saying that society is irreversibly infested with it.
So, yeah...why use Marxism as a particular means of control?
Originally posted by RRokkyy
Originally posted by petrus4
It seems there is always this dynamic between capitalism which is a form of slavery and
communism which claims equality but ends in totalitarianism.
Communism is Leninism, socialism is Marxism. True socialism actually depends on the "dictatorship of the proletariat" as Marx put it, i.e. direct democracy. It's so frustrating when people look at Russia and China and conclude that that is socialism - it is NOT - refer to my posts above for an explanation os socialism and why it would work if ever implemented faithfully.
And that's why socialism is the way forward
It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished—just as in the case of ants and bees.
Production is carried on for profit, not for use.
The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers’ goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.
What I'm seeing in this thread so far, is people critiquing one system that hasn't worked, (Marxism) and then advocating another system that hasn't worked. ("Free market," Capitalism)
Not all people are the same, and not all contributions are the same. Ants are pretty simple - as are bees. Their behavior and function are quite simple. However... how does one compare the farmer's contribution to someone whose job is to prepare salads and cold dishes in the back of a restaurant? Which is more vital to society?
Socialism would hold that both are equal....This is the inherent lapse in socialist logic. Not all jobs and contributions are equal. A doctor or nurse has a contribution that is infinitely greater than a dishwasher in a restaurant. Anyone with a functioning brain and body can (at least in theory) wash dishes. Someone who both has the mind and training to heal another person is much more difficult to come by.
That which is profitable is that which has a use to another person. While what is of use cannot be reduced to a universal constant, the person purchasing it must value the item to be worth the money spent on it.
Productivity breeds free time and wealth - which breeds pursuits of leisure and entertainment and creates an array of roles in society that gain value
Un/Under-employment is an opportunity in and of itself within a free market. No one is reliant upon corporations to hire them.
Socialism and many of its forms all predicate their solutions on the basis that wealth is somehow a fixed or limited resource that must be evenly distributed.
Socialism would hold that what is vital to society should be democratically decided, for example a doctor's work would doubtlessly be voted as of more worth than a cleaner's, and their wage would be decided accordingly. The key difference is that the cleaner would not have to work outrageously long hours for outrageously low pay - as he does under capitalism.
Here he is making the connection between the profit motive and unemployment - if production were carried out solely for use rather than profit then (involuntary) unemployment would not exist. It is the drive for profit which restricts the amount of workers the capitalist employs - if he has too many and is therefore producing more than there is demand for his profits suffer.
Again the economy would be democratically planned, that's one of the central pillars of socialism, so if there were a desire for game programmers, for entertainment (as there of course would be) then they would be valued accordingly.
Productivity under socialism would be significantly increased due to many factors both psychological (youtube "rsa animate - drive the surprising truth" for the psychology) and practical. Due to the risk factor of an unplanned economy much productivity is wasted due to lack of demand, lack of profit. Also due to the competitive nature of the system much duplication of research etc occurs - more waste. Many studies have shown that cooperation on a large scale (i.e. a planned economy) is the most productive way to organise. So under socialism there would in fact be more opportunity for games designers and the like due to the lessened amount of work we would all have to do just to survive.
Utterly ridiculous, the vast majority of people are reliant upon employment - that's a central pillar of the free market.
Even if everyone were innovative enough to start their own business the businesses would fail because they need employees and everyone would be too busy trying to start their own business... Your argument here makes absolutely no sense, real sloppy thinking.
I bet you're still wondering who the author of the article is, the author whom you claimed was "not smart enough to be correct", the author whom you said was confusing himself by trying to use big words.
The author of the article was Albert Einstein.
No it doesn't, at all. Do some research, you're making yourself look like a fool.