What's with the obsession about "socialism" in conspiracy-circles lately?

originally posted by: Painterz
The thing I find most amazing on ATS is how many Americans use the word 'socialism' without having the slightest idea what it actually means.

In the ATS context, "they're paying for it, you eat it" comes to mind as a catch-all and accurate concept of what we mean when we decry socialism.

originally posted by: Painterz
The thing I find most amazing on ATS is how many Americans use the word 'socialism' without having the slightest idea what it actually means.

I'm pretty sure it means taxing the crap out of people who are too proud to live off the government and giving that money to those who aren't.

Does that about sum it up?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

It for most people represents the govt taking the majority of their money and giving it to those that don't contribute. The bottom line is that if the government takes most of your check, you work for them.

okay......can we maybe dispense with "get the popcorn" references.....I've never had nor thought about eating popcorn while on ATS (greasy hands on keyboard or mouse)....who does this?....maybe something to drink, but gees.....hey, it's better than me bitchin' about the right-wingers here

a reply to: Bone75

Sort of. It's more about trying to create abundance as a solution and deal less with money all together.

Money is honestly a huge defining difference of a perfect socialist society verses an imperfect one.

A socialist utopia would be a personal equal equitable share of the Earths resources, less based around working to make a living and more based around working out of passion.

The mediums and in-between walls to get to that actual point are huge. America probably wouldn't be a socialist utopia, but it would still be the best socialist country if it ever decided to change. I'm personally against it, it's just not health to contrast china, like that's what USA socialism would look like.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1


The average age of TV network and cable news viewership is 65 and skews overwhelmingly 'white.' Their media tells them that they are becoming a minority and that it's all the fault of socialists and other boogeymen. Their media doesn't tell them that automation will kill their children's white collar jobs by 2031, that the birthrate is falling in all western countries or that children from China and India are taking the lions share of global jobs in engineering or science and that they aren't starting their careers 60K behind the 8-ball to pay for it. They believe the networks because they talk about guns, faith and patriotism and that makes them appear trustworthy, even though the last two are literally the oldest cons in the history of the world.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: ScoochieMcGroogle
a reply to: DBCowboy

Not quite, because the government is just one part of the equation. A lot of behind-the-strings is actually pulled by Silicon Valley, Bilderberg, military contractors..

Do you think they want "communism" by the book and give up all their toys to the state? You don't have that many top of the top seats in government alone...

It's more about establishing a new aristrocracy (or strengthening it) than "communism".

A rose by any other name. . . .

Some people want big government, more controlling government. *shrugs*

Do YOU trust and have faith in YOUR government?

I trust them a lot more than the wealthy.......the wealthy have controlled humans for millennia, and the ones that were NOT wealthy always got screwed......the problem we have today in America is that over many decades, the wealthy have figured out how to regain control with less scrutiny and far less responsibility to the rest of us, by not having to answer to our representatives in government.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

...they would rightfully be strung from the street lights for doing so.

I'd usually put this down to hyperbole...

But you're not the type to exaggerate...



Tell me why Socialists should "rightfully be strung from the street lights" with your best Adolf Hitler impression.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

Why would someone do a Hitler impression while talking about stringing up people who's social views paralleled Hitler? The Nazi party was a socialist party, granted they were national socialists, which made them racially discriminating socialists, but socialists they still were. In fact, I basically just laid out why they should be strung from the street lights. Nobody who gains office through promises to flat out steal earnings and property from those who oppose them to redistribute to those who vote for them deserves a single concession.

a reply to: jimmyx

You've consistently been for big government.

here is my shocked face that you would embrace socialism.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

That's something which was unthinkable just 20 years ago, when people in elected office simply did not run on socialist platforms because they would rightfully be strung from the street lights for doing so.

Rightfully huh?

In that case I bet you'd be one of the first in line to sodomize my dead corpse for running on a Communist platform.

a reply to: ScoochieMcGroogle

There's really no conspiracy behind socialism. Its a natural trend. Socialism happens when a society overwhelmingly loses its sense of personal responsibility, accountability, and the courage to take the bad with the good. Oppotunists then see the self-centered desparation breeding within in the population, and they become politicians to take advantage of our fears and fan the flames. They make ridiculous promises, and we dish out the money, because we have become spineless.

Its that simple.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: ScoochieMcGroogle

Because this country just had an honest to God self admitted socialist come within several million votes of contending for the office of President. That's something which was unthinkable just 20 years ago, when people in elected office simply did not run on socialist platforms because they would rightfully be strung from the street lights for doing so.

So it's right to string people up for their beliefs, huh?

I'm a socialist. You want to string me up?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

The Nazi party was a socialist party, granted they were national socialists, which made them racially discriminating socialists, but socialists they still were.

Make a thread on that and we'll see how much workers party they were, too.

This stuff might be at the core of the socialist obsession. Lets forget Norway or Iceland, they didn't start any cold or hot wars... just a boring Thing for centuries, which seems to be a thing there.

*sigh*

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Why would someone do a Hitler impression while talking about stringing up people who's social views paralleled Hitler? The Nazi party was a socialist party, granted they were national socialists, which made them racially discriminating socialists, but socialists they still were. In fact, I basically just laid out why they should be strung from the street lights. Nobody who gains office through promises to flat out steal earnings and property from those who oppose them to redistribute to those who vote for them deserves a single concession.

Hitler and the Nazis/brownshirts fought against socialists in the streets because they despised them and thought they were a scourge to the country.

Don't tell me you are one of those that think they were actually socialists. That's indicative of someone that is completely ignorant.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Oh because they had "Socialist" in their name...

I guess the DPRK really is a Democratic Republic...
I guess The Congo is also really just a Democratic Republic...

Don't be ridiculous.

You do realise Hitler's Nazi army slaughtered Socialists en masse...
You do remember all the Socialist/Communist Russians they killed as well, right...




You should read this link...
It's the perfect remedy to deny such ignorance.
www.google.co.uk...

Nobody who gains office through promises to flat out steal earnings and property from those who oppose them to redistribute to those who vote for them deserves a single concession.

Then you're not even discussing Socialism, the economic system that says the whole shall be owned by the community (not the Government)...
With the exception of private property (unlike Communism).

Someone recently said on ATS you wouldn't be able to own a car because of Socialism...
So clearly you're not nearly as ignorant as some in this topic...

But you still have your flaws.

originally posted by: Bone75
In that case I bet you'd be one of the first in line to sodomize my dead corpse for running on a Communist platform.

No, it's a fairly large stretch to go from what I said to necrophilliacical buggering.

originally posted by: introvert
I'm a socialist. You want to string me up?

Are you running for federal office?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: introvert
I'm a socialist. You want to string me up?

Are you running for federal office?

So what if I am?

Do we not have the right, even if we have beliefs many people may disagree with?

Do want to take away my rights before you string me up?

Why not just get right to the lynching?

a reply to: Hazardous1408

The Nazi government established price and wage controls.
They controlled all powers of production within Germany, allowing private ownership purely as a figurehead of each corporation.
Hitler's slaughter of "socialists" was actually a slaughter of "Marxists," and it was because he blamed them for Germany's downfall in World War I, not because he disagreed with their ideologies.
He was all about "the party" and if you were part of "the party" then you were casteless, having your needs met for you so long as your support for him and his party was iron clad (Kept Voters, anyone?)
The Nazi ideology was a race-based socialism, differing from Bolshevik socialism only in so much as the Bolsheviks' socialism was class based.