36% of Americans have a positive view of socialism

Which lines up with left slope of an IQ bell curve.


"I ain't gonna have to worry about gas, my mortgages, or money!"


And folks wonder how the psychic network became a billion dollar corporation!

Originally posted by Chevalerous

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Socialsim:

# a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
# an economic system based on state ownership of capital
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Socialism

en.wikipedia.org...

Snipped and shortened

Here we go again! and here we can see many of the problems with the definitions from these different websites trying to explain what SOCIALISM really is, often from an American point of view.

They are doing their best to explain things in their favour

What they often do and what they are explaining here is some kind of definition of STATE SOCIALISM, like the system we saw in USSR - which wasn't real and true Socialism because Rothschild and Rockefellers owned all the means production from the beginning. Without them and the Fabian Society financing the authoritarian state communist dictatorship - there would not had been any USSR in history.

So to use this as an example of Socialism is flawed and biased.

USSR was not a socialist system, it was an Authoritarian Dictatorship where the state and the means of the production was owned by western capitalists.

USSR was nothing more than a constructed gigantic social experiment - and the experiences and knowledge thereof will be an important part for them to implement in their New World Order. A capitalistic free market systems with a social conscience as it was meant from the beginning of Capitalism.

(Therefore I suspect the NWO will be a new mix of Capitalism and the better parts of Social Democratic theory)

If we want to have a fair explaination about what Socialism really is, we have to look elsewhere, like the real & genuine Oxford English Dictionary:

socialism

• noun a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

www.askoxford.com...

And finally! here we can see the real definition about what Socialism is.

Socialism is workers/community ownership of the means of production.

Nothing more, nothing less! if someone are trying to tell you anything
else, it's biased propaganda and they are lying.

But I also understand that by the American standards and by the American political spectrum is almost impossible to apply what socialism really is.

If you take traditionally center-right politics here here in Europe applied to the American political spectrum - you'll get on the left side of the economic spectrum in USA.

It's impossible to translate the European political spectrum to the American political spectrum directly!

And to get a fair view one need to understand what happened in the Industrial cities during the early 1900th century

The meaning of the workers/community ownership of the means of production is that the workers can enjoy the fruits of their labor & sweat and share the profit in the community instead of having all the profit going down the pockets of a few that gives little back to the community in the society; the majority of the society who created this wealth from the beginning with their labour!

Socialism evolved from the industrial revolution that shook Europe in the first half of the 19th century and where the workers were exploited by the factory owners and Industrialists.

The condition of the worker community was often horrible, and they were no more than under-paid slaves to the ownership of the production in dirty Industrial cities in Europe where also the Industrialist owned all the housing around the factories, and the workers had to pay a huge part of the salary for a small dirty room as rent when the families where forced to move from the countryside to the cities to survive the higher living costs brought upon them by the Industrialists and capitalists in the society.

"No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable."

"Labour was the first price, the original purchase - money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all wealth of the world was originally purchased."

"As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce."

"To feel much for others and little for ourselves; to restrain our selfishness and exercise our benevolent affections, constitute the perfection of human nature."

ADAM SMITH

In the end even Adam Smith saw all this misery in the worker communities and workers living in poverty, and that absolutely uncorrupted free markets where the market forces are guided by the great theory of an invisible hand, witout any interference was not without flaws

Adam Smith had a genuine and abiding concern for workers and the poor where the worker should recieve high wages for their labour so they could be an important part of the capaitalistic system - he wanted that everyone should enjoy more of the fruits of their labour which would then increase their contribution to capitalism as a whole in the society - this was the core essence of Adams Smith's economic theory about capitalism and society (and we have now seen how that went in reality)

Adam Smith's ideal was a market comprised solely of small buyers and sellers, and with high wages for the poor workers for their labour- but this theory was soon out of the window and outdated by evil forces who wanted to control the population and further exploit the workers by all means possible.

The invisible hand was quickly manipulated by cartels and monopolies of big corporations and therefore also offset the rules and the core of capitalism which then led to more exploitation and higher living costs and horrible conditions for the workers.

The invisible hand had become hijacked, crippled and lame - and out of order!

The American workers has to be the only people indoctrinated enough to openly take the same side as their elite rich Industrial oppressors and also defend that politic against themselves and their better judgement - and I find that to be very amusing!

but also very sad!

And mind you! I'm not a practicing socialist! I created my first company when I was 19 years old, but I have also lost everything a couple of times, and I'm almost out of business right now.

And here in Europe it's damn much harder to start a new business, and sometimes I personally wish that creating a business should be much easier, like it is in the USA.

But everyone in a capitalistic society can't be self employed and have their own companies - you'll need workers and resources to exploit for the system of Capitalism as it is now - to work!

IMO the best society model and dream would be a cooperation of self employed workers who together started their own small corporations with good loans from some uncorrupted institution with low interest (similar to credit unions maybe?).

And then shared the profits of the fruits of their labour based on how much work you have produced and done.

If you want to work 60 hours a week to buy a bigger home, fine! you'll get a bigger share of the profit compared to Johnny who prefer to live small and chose to work only the minimum 30 hour a week this year, so he can enjoy more time with his hobbies like fishing and hunting together with his kids.

What I say is; cut out the main hand who take the profits of your work in their own pocket!

We would be much better off as a society and feel so much better about ourselves if we lived in such society and together owned the means of production ourselves.


[edit on 7-2-2010 by Chevalerous]

You explain it very well. May more drop their blinkers over their eyes, read your post and consider seriously what are the actual political paths the voters should be voting for.

Mankind must never settle anything less than the best for our own survival. Various forms of government had been tried and tested over time, with history being the record book of their achievements and failures, and must never rely on dogmatic faith and adherence to one single political belief.

The penalties for that may be dear, and far too costly not only for himself, but for his next generations as well, as the russians and chinese found out too late.

[edit on 7-2-2010 by SeekerofTruth101]

Carl Marx said socialism is just a step between capitalism and communism. SO the more people that are leaning toward socialism the better the job the NWO is dumbing down the masses to actually believe that its a good thing. In a true socialist society everyone is equal with redistribution of wealth and no property rights. It always slides into dictorial communism.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Stalin was a socialist, he chopped off the heads of capitalists in the streets. They called it the USSR, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic right up until their anti-economic system imploded in the late 1980s, then all the good comrades caught a boot in the ass.

Call it whatever you want, it doesn't work. It didn't work in Eastern Europe, it's not working anywhere else, and it sure as hell won't work in the USA, comrade.

— Doc Velocity

No Stalin wasn't a socialist or a marxist or a communist he was a despotic gangster like most of the Soviet leadership.

If your looking for a Russian socialist albeit a revolutionary I think you mean Prime Minister Alexander Kerensky who was forced into exile during the second revolution because it appears he was a good man who wanted to do his best for the Russian people. During the Russian civil war he supported neither the Bolsheviks or the Tsarists.



I've just read what Chevalerous wrote, excellent post, brilliant understanding.


[edit on 7/2/10 by carslake]

No one has yet pointed this out, probably because they don't realize it. If you consider the percentage of the population that voted was about 1/3, just over half of that, (23% of the total population) voted for Obama.

If those of you in the moral majority don't like it then read this and do something about your voice being heard.

One way or another, socialism is coming.

Originally posted by Chevalerous

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Socialsim:

# a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
# an economic system based on state ownership of capital
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Socialism

en.wikipedia.org...

Snipped and shortened

Here we go again! and here we can see many of the problems with the definitions from these different websites trying to explain what SOCIALISM really is, often from an American point of view.

They are doing their best to explain things in their favour

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The American workers has to be the only people indoctrinated enough to openly take the same side as their elite rich Industrial oppressors and also defend that politic against themselves and their better judgement - and I find that to be very amusing!

but also very sad!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But everyone in a capitalistic society can't be self employed and have their own companies - you'll need workers and resources to exploit for the system of Capitalism as it is now - to work!

[edit on 7-2-2010 by Chevalerous]

You clearly have no understanding of what an "American" is and all you have done is to find definitions of socialism that favor your point of view. What is most telling about your point of view is that you hopelessly attempt the reduce American's to nothing more than "workers", arguing that everyone can't be self employed because "workers" will be needed, desperately attempting ti inflate the value and necessity of workers by offering narrow assumptions that merely favor your view.

www.smallbusinessnotes.com...

web.sba.gov...

help.com...

www.census.gov...

If you'll go to the last link provided from the U.S. Census Bureau you will find that in 2002 there were 17,646,062 nonemployer businesses, which jumped up to 19,523,741 in 2004. That's a lot of businesses that are clearly not relying upon the "worker" in order to survive. Many of those establishments at one point were employees for someone else, or as you like to call them; "workers", that broke away and started their own business.

While you hopelessly attempt to define socialism in a way that favors your world view, all the silly little laughing emoticons and saddened ones will never change the drive and spirit of the "American" people and the genuine dream of rather than working for the man, being the man. Typical of the poster who will claim "mind you, I personally am not a socialist, but...", they will gleefully laugh at the "Americans", scratching their heads and wondering why they "take the side of the elite rich Industrial oppressors and also defend that politic against themselves", clearly failing to understand they take the side of freedom and revile government intrusion and they do so, because of their own personal dreams of being in business for themselves.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

If you'll go to the last link provided from the U.S. Census Bureau you will find that in 2002 there were 17,646,062 nonemployer businesses, which jumped up to 19,523,741 in 2004. That's a lot of businesses that are clearly not relying upon the "worker" in order to survive. Many of those establishments at one point were employees for someone else, or as you like to call them; "workers", that broke away and started their own business.

Which is one of the greatest parts of the American experience. Being self employed. Not many make it, but people do, and it's because of these people that do start their own small business that this country can turn around.

That's a part of the American dream that socialism won't work in. Not everyone is content to be an employee of another. Some want to do for themselves, they want to work for themselves because there is no better boss than yourself.

But it's also part of the problem with this country, people that are self employed have the government taking more than they should. Small business is the backbone of this nation. It's the heart and soul of America. If they are taxed to death, where do they go? Not everyone can work at Wall Mart.

reply to post by whatukno


Well said Whatuknow, and its People like You, who are very much a part of We the People, who are what is needed in government today, not the so called "elite" that people from other countries are so inclined to declare our corporate masters. I look forward to hearing great things about you, and reading many more incisive posts.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
My view is that liberals (true liberals) and conservatives (true conservatives) both want the same thing. Freedom.

A conservative minded person doesn't wish to see a person poor any more than a liberal minded person. A lot of the separation of views just comes from where the help is derived. This is also why the country on a whole is largely middle of the road with slight conservative principles.

Most do not want a far-left country nor a far-right country. Upheaval sets in when the pendulum swings too far in either direction. As of late (past 15 or so years, the politicians in Washington have been trying there hardest to figure out ways to swing it in either direction fully.

Correct.

As well they should. A kingdom divided against itself will not stand.

America needs to pick a direction and stick with it. Everyone is not going to agree... and democracy (which America isn't even) is a horrible method of rule. Everyone wants something different and no one knows everything. Of course, they know this. Anyone who is pushing for "democracy" is a part of the lie.

However, being a part of either side is not a bad thing. Everyone has their opinion on how things should be run. But someone has got to give.

I think it's probably too late... I think maybe 50 years ago the United States of America had a chance to choose its path. Instead, the money-makers were too afraid to spread the knowledge about the ramifications of democracy and people are too selfish to do it themselves.

Even if the America people were to get together and say, "Okay, we would LIKE for things to come about this way -- but your way is better than us fighting for a hundred years over WHICH way." If both sides would submit WHOLLY to the other, then a TRUE compromise would begin.

Instead of , "I want this, but you have to give me this in return..."

It should be, "I am willing to give you this. I can deal with that and I believe that it is A method of achieving what we both want. I will accept whatever you will give me."

Of course...HAHA... welcome to the world!!

This whole come together thing is pointless. And because we as Americans have no chosen a side, the elite is going to choose a side for us now.

Remember in Kindrgarten when the teacher asks, "What would everyone like to do for the next 10 minutes?" and everyone would argue, "Recess! Movie! Book! Sleep!" Because parents raise their kids to all be selfish instead of thinking, the whole class is in disarray...

So the teacher finally says, "WELL, you all have spent the FIRST 5 minutes arguing about what to do. Now I am saying that the LAST 5 minutes will be what I want to do. We are going to write our ABC's until the 5 minutes are up!"

Well... no one gets what they want, the teacher ends up having to make a choice to calm the voices in her head, and no one is happy...

And in reality, it is all the annoying and selfish peoples' fault - because everyone wants what they feel at the time instead of thinking and giving.

So... remember that the next time you decide to blame someone.

There is nothing that says socialism...democracy and capitalism cannot coexist in a national social/political/economic complex. If you look at the majority of the modern industrialized world they wisely combine all three in some form or the other.

What they do is splinter them into specific zones...a socialist support system for the poor, disenfranchised and elderly....a parliamentary democratic government and a capitalist economy.

AND there is no reason why it would not work here.

[edit on 8-2-2010 by iMacFanatic]

reply to post by iMacFanatic


I noticed you left out the Constitutional part of your parliamentary democratic government.

Was that intentional?

See, I and 100 million other Americans do not trust our government. That is the purpose behind the Constitution. To prohibit a totalitarian democracy. Kind of what we have right now!

Frell the Constitution and all she stands for! /s

reply to post by endisnighe


You really like to read into what people write don't you?

Its a bad habit by the way.

I was making a general remark and nothing specific about this country. Elsewhere I have said that I am in favor of a constitutional convention to make some parlimentary changes in our system.

BTW capitalism is not enshrined in the constitution.

[edit on 8-2-2010 by iMacFanatic]

The Socialist Pledge Allegiance.
rexcurry.net...

Originally posted by Chevalerous
What they often do and what they are explaining here is some kind of definition of STATE SOCIALISM, like the system we saw in USSR - which wasn't real and true Socialism because Rothschild and Rockefellers owned all the means production from the beginning. Without them and the Fabian Society financing the authoritarian state communist dictatorship - there would not had been any USSR in history.

State Socialism=Communism, just like Ultra Capitalism=Corporatism

However I disagree with the assumption that the Rockefellers or Rothschilds owned anything prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union. I think you are making a big mistake here!

What many people in "the west" do not understand is that strong leadership, even ruthless killers, are often needed to enforce decisions that go against plutocracy.

Normally the wealthy elite do not surrender land, factories and other assets unless they are forced to surrender them. Castro and Stalin are/were prime examples of iron fisted "idealists" that were prepared to go all the way.

Originally posted by Chevalerous
USSR was not a socialist system, it was an Authoritarian Dictatorship where the state and the means of the production was owned by western capitalists.

Western capitalists and socialists "officially" got involved in russia after the collapse of communism in the late 80's. Before that everything was state-owned and the illuminati had no influence.

Originally posted by Chevalerous
(Therefore I suspect the NWO will be a new mix of Capitalism and the better parts of Social Democratic theory)

Haha, you wish! It will be A CORPORATE DICTATORSHIP! The WTO, UN, WHO all work for those infamous 13 illuminati families I have talked about in the past.

Originally posted by Chevalerous
If we want to have a fair explaination about what Socialism really is, we have to look elsewhere, like the real & genuine Oxford English Dictionary:

socialism

• noun a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

www.askoxford.com...

And finally! here we can see the real definition about what Socialism is.

Socialism is workers/community ownership of the means of production.

Nothing more, nothing less! if someone are trying to tell you anything
else, it's biased propaganda and they are lying.

You just described communism! Socialism is a mixture of capitalism and communism. Pretty much its capitalism except for major industry which is state owned.

Communist Russia hiding behind "socialism" and McCarthy propaganda in the 50's through 70's have both contributed to the mass confusion of what capitalism, socialism and communism are.

Originally posted by Barkster
Carl Marx said socialism is just a step between capitalism and communism. SO the more people that are leaning toward socialism the better the job the NWO is dumbing down the masses to actually believe that its a good thing. In a true socialist society everyone is equal with redistribution of wealth and no property rights. It always slides into dictorial communism.

Actually its:

The more people lean towards real socialism THE WORST job the nwo is doing dumbing down the masses. And THAT IS a good thing!

In a true socialist society everyone IS NOT equal because IT IS NOT communism. Redistribution of land and wealth takes place under a communist regime.

We need neither communism, nor ultra-capitalism! We need real socialism with A PUBLIC BANK, strict enforcement of anti-trust laws, public financing of all political campaigns, public and private transportation, public and private schools, etc.

We need competitive capitalism for small to medium size business and government monpolies for big business. However america first needs to change its constitution and do away with THE ACT OF 1871, which labels the american federal government, and as a consequence all or most states AS CORPORATIONS!

We need a mild to moderate progressive income tax system much like the current model but with a maximum of about 30% at the highest bracket. People making less than $40,000 should get a tax refund and people making less than $70,000 pay nothing.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


No the Rothschilds did own major concerns in Russia namely Noble Oil which was involved heavily in the Caspian oil fields.

36% yeah seems about right.....think I saw somewhere that around that same percentage of people consider themselves liberal/progressive. So that number makes total sense.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

State Socialism=Communism, just like Ultra Capitalism=Corporatism

Communism = an unattainable philosophical construct

State Socialism = the USSR, pre-1980s China, etc

Corporatism = Crony Capitalism + Lemon Socialism

Socialism = the workers owning the means of production

However I disagree with the assumption that the Rockefellers or Rothschilds owned anything prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union. I think you are making a big mistake here!

Wall Street and their backers in the Rockefeller and Rothschild family, not to mention Wall Street backed US government officials, made it possible for the Bolshevik revolution to occur.

Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution by Antony Sutton

It's a clear cut case of proto-Disaster Capitalism, which is the use of - intentional or unintentional - crises. The plutocracy cares not for ideology, but for money. This is why we have Lemon Socialism, the ultimate source of control: keep the masses feeding on the capitalist lie when it is a socialist-like program for the rich that is keeping their staggering giants afloat. Crony Capitalism allows Lemon Socialism to happen.

Normally the wealthy elite do not surrender land, factories and other assets unless they are forced to surrender them. Castro and Stalin are/were prime examples of iron fisted "idealists" that were prepared to go all the way.

Gotta disagree with you. Castro and Stalin were power drunk and nothing more.

You just described communism! Socialism is a mixture of capitalism and communism. Pretty much its capitalism except for major industry which is state owned.

No, true socialism would simply mean that the workers own directly the means of production. For example, your local gas station's employees would not be hourly wage earners, but would directly profit from the overall revenue in owner's shares. The only role of a very limited government would be to limit the size and growth of these companies; there would be no corporate charters given out. Small companies = more jobs = more opportunities. Competition between companies would still occur and opportunities for wealth would still be around, but the money would be a little more evenly distributed. It's only after the fact when we start factoring in the human issues.

reply to post by carslake


Care to give a time reference and a source?

Under communism(state socialism)EVERYTHING was state owned and that is why the NWO had to trick the populace into accepting capitalism and all its "great opportunities".

If you lived in europe you would know that even in socialist countries anything that was state owned had to be sold or NO EU membership! All the airlines, railroads, shipping, water supply&management, electricity, telephone etc used to be government run operations. The reasons they gave were: "too much wasteful spending", "coruption", "overstaffing", and "inefficiency". While not exactly false, they failed to explain that governments THEMSELVES ran all these operations into the ground INTENTIONALLY so they could THEN sell them at a huge discount. The politicians got paid under the table hefty money and all was sent to offshore non-traceable bank accounts.

The EU was an NWO precursor to the now proposed NAU, SAU, ASEAN, and African Union. No country will be spared in the pillage to gather all the resources into those few illuminati hands. It might not all happen this decade, but it will happen quickly unless people wise up. I doubt people will wise up because mainstream media is pumping DISINFO 24/7 and they are doing "a great job". Even alernative sites such as ATS are getting infiltrated to the point of becoming mainstream!

Those are the ones who expect everyone else to pay for them and who think tax money is free money.

It is not. It comes out of the pockets of everyone who actually pays taxes.

Not opposed to actually helping out those who can no longer work due to age or illness or disability. Not opposed to helping out those citizens who are in the category of working poor who work very hard for very little and who need food stamps and such limited aid.

However, at the core of socialism is the idea that you make everyone rich by making everyone else poor. Just end up with the ultra-rich and the poor with few people in what might be called middle class.

It presumes that everyone actually works equally hard and so should be paid the same which is as little as possible. We know that doesn't work well. Even the Chinese Communists have decided that it doesn't work very well and have become as obsessed with profits as anyone on the planet.

Capitalism may not be the best or even the easiest economic system but it has done this country very well for over 200 years. What started out as a poor, rural country became one where most people have been able to live a far better lifestyle than that of our ancestors.

Socialism would bring that to an end.