Do you really know what Democracy is ? Or, do you THINK you know ?

And how about Capitalism, Socialism, Aristocracy and so on ?

Everyone and their dog has very strong opinions on all of these, and its my experience that most actually dont know zit about them, and yet talk.

Below article catches such people by their ..... well, sensitive parts. Also quite educational.

radicalbuzz.com...

Wonder how many people will come up to have known actual definitions of these. This being a conspiracy forum with active-thinking people and all ....

a reply to: unity100

Wonder how many people will come up to have known actual definitions of these. This being a conspiracy forum with active-thinking people and all ...


Weak sauce.


You generalize without offering anything up other than a link.





Next time you want to Fact Check, lead by example...

a reply to: facelift

i thought the reason why articles on internet existed, was to provide easy reference - in discussions and research. that article is quite easy to use as far as i see.

too lazy ? let me shoot some of what i can here then :

- republic is actually democracy - contrary to what many in the right, think.
- communism is not 'tyranny' as advertised - it requires DIRECT democracy both in economy and politics. and this seems to be its major weakness
- fascism is actually a hardliner form of capitalism.
- corporatism does not exist. its just capitalism.
- capitalism takes away freedom from all, but the few in the long run - due to wealth concentration mechanics

aaaah. what else.

- aristocracy and capitalism seem similar - just that in capitalism they tell that 'anyone can be a lord'. but there are less lords now than they were in middle ages.

and some other stuff.

a reply to: unity100

i thought the reason why articles on internet existed, was to provide easy reference - in discussions and research. that article is quite easy to use as far as i see.


Apparently you don't see too far...


You're asking people to validate their knowledge of the political landscape, yet you offer nothing more than 'easy reference'.


It's kinda like a Hallmark card - you have good intentions, but you're still standing on the shoulders of others...pretty goddamn disingenuous.

Also, some very interesting tidbits :

That a country claiming to be using a certain system does NOT mean that they are actually using it. And sometimes it may be so that a country can show another country to be totally different than what they are.

Case in point for example, seems to be ussr. Everyone and their dog know them as communist. Whereas not only they were never communist (except at the very start it seems), but also they never included the word or definition 'communist' in their official name. ussr means united soviet socialist republics.

but, for propaganda purposes and to scare people, the mccarthy & co in usa advertised them as communists. the other side apparently did not object to this, and even allowed it to happen. because apparently this was good points for the party inside ussr itself.

the hilarious catch seems to be that ussr was not socialist either - they seem to be a highly centralized state capitalist economy, with a good dosage of socialism.

now here's the kicker : USA IS ALSO THE SAME !!!

except that, in usa, there is much more liberties and autonomy allowed to the massive megacorporations that actually run the economy - like military-industry complex, big banks etc.

in ussr, these were allowed less autonomy, but still they were different 'companies' with huge degree of autonomy - for example mikoyan gurevich and sukhoi design bureaus always competed for government contracts in ussr.

what's more stunning is that, usa was also a good measure socialist - at least back in the good ole days of eisenhower - MASSIVE tax rate for the top, and corporations, and huge social programs.

ussr was stronger in the socialist part it seems - with total guarantees for everyone.

a reply to: facelift

im at a loss to understand HOW much of my own would satisfy.

i already told a lot. you cant be expecting me to compile an article like that here in the forum thread can you.

US is a constitutional republic, not a democracy, fwiw.

originally posted by: lynxpilot
US is a constitutional republic, not a democracy, fwiw.

aaaah....... no. here is the exact section on that :

radicalbuzz.com...

there being a constitution in a republic, does not make that republic different than democracy. it just means that you tie some things to hardcoded laws so it will be convenient.

i guess opinions like these are why that article exists.

I think by keeping us ignorant and mislead, they are holding us under control. For see :

McCarthy & co made americans think that they were actually living in a system that was different from USSR's system. whereas, they were just clones of each other.

So americans thought they were 'free', all the while their taxes, economy and their sweat was being used to feed a military-industry complex, incessantly profiting off of irrelevant and contrived wars overseas - for 'democracy' of course.

Whereas the party in USSR made people think that they were living in a system which is totally different than USA's on the other side of the ocean !!!!

Get a load of that funny circus.

a reply to: unity100

The definition certainly isn't what our governments are doing today, that's all I need to know.

a reply to: DarknStormy

well, why dont you just check and read that part in that article then ? it was written to be useful to people. like you.

if you dont know the exact and true definitions of these concepts, how can you expect that they wont deceive you ?

so lay it down for us then, what are you trying to say here? give us the skinny so to speak.

originally posted by: caterpillage
so lay it down for us then, what are you trying to say here? give us the skinny so to speak.

holy.

crap.

what's this 'skinny' business. how more 'skin' can i give.

it is what it is

people dont know zit, and yet speak.

that's the gist of it.

everyone talks about democracy or republic or capitalism or socialism, but THEY DONT KNOW WHAT THEY MEAN.

geeeee.

holy hell.

im outta here. i already talked a lot without anyone properly discussing.

good evening.

The best definition of democracy that I have read is "Two wolves and sheep voting on what's for dinner."
I only vote local. I do care about who is Sheriff in my county, and even then it's usually picking the lesser of two evils.

originally posted by: unity100
a reply to: DarknStormy

well, why dont you just check and read that part in that article then ? it was written to be useful to people. like you.

if you dont know the exact and true definitions of these concepts, how can you expect that they wont deceive you ?

Too be honest with you, I don't care about the concepts or definitions, if our governments today are the supposed true definition of what democracy is, then it means nothing to me. No-one is equal, in my country you are forced to vote otherwise you are fined, I have better things to put my mind to and a lot of that is not being deceived by puppet masters. BTW, I don't vote in my country, I would rather be fined than elect some bull shiiting idiot.

As for the rest of them, they are the different side of the same coin..

a reply to: unity100

A better discussion would be about the similarities and anything identical between all of the above.

And about how many of those "systems" borrow from each other.



One comparison would be "Capitalism" using "front money" by issuing (selling) stock and a "free market" businessman not using investors for initial funding. Are both examples "Capitalism"?

a reply to: unity100

Thanks for the link . . . However, I have a major problem with this thread. You assert that posters here don't actually know the definitions for the labels they throw around, to which I can agree in a lot of cases. However, your "evidence" for this assertion is nothing more than a blog by an anonymous author or authors. What exactly gives this blog any more credibility than those anonymous authors of ATS who also "don't know zit", as you would say?

I can agree with some of the authors points, even many of his conclusions. However, I also disagree with several of his "definitions" for the isms. For instance:

Corporatism is supposedly the dominance of corporations in political and economic life. Who subvert democracy, kill ‘small businesses’, and then exploit everyone and wreck nations for their own profit.

Where the actual definition of classical Corporatism is:

Corporatism (also known as corporativism) is the socio-political organization of a society by major interest groups, or corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations, on the basis of common interests. Corporatism is theoretically based upon the interpretation of a community as an organic body. The term corporatism is based on the Latin root word "corpus" (plural – "corpora") meaning "body".

Which is actually more closely associated with Communism. In America today, the argument is against neo-Corporatism, usually defined as:

Corporatism may also refer to economic tripartism involving negotiations between business, labour, and state interest groups to establish economic policy. This is sometimes also referred to as neo-corporatism.

Which is more about using the power of mutli-industry/national conglomerates for political subterfuge, in order to shape public policy to their advantage. Not simply "getting rid of the little guy", but to gain a position of power in the government. It would also include the labor unions, in a true Corporatist government.
Source - wiki

That is simply going off of Wikipedia, which is sourced and cited infinitely more than the blog you referred to (which has zero citations to back their assertions).

So, in essence, you are doing the exact same thing you are trying to talk down to others for doing. Going with the definitions that fit your personal prejudices and saying everyone else is wrong.

Bad form . . .

a reply to: unity100

But the real point is, it is corrupted. Even Yellen can't define what kind of a system we are.

The questions we should be asking is, how do we fix it? Their are reasons this has happened, and it becomes obvious what they are when you see it.

Lawlessness.

a reply to: unity100

Democracy - 51% of population telling other 49% what to do.
Republic- 1% is protected from the other 99%

Aaron Russo puts it a bit better

a reply to: unity100

- republic is actually democracy - contrary to what many in the right, think. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

No it isn't.

Democracy is mob rule, and if anyone is in the minority sucks being them.

'Majority' rules.

Republic minority rights are protected from the mob.

Also one of the reasons they wrote the US constitution, and the Bill of rights.

One of the most important amendments in it is this one:

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

www.archives.gov...

Which pretty much tells the mob to eff off.