Communism, Socialism, and Marxism should be declared Treason:

reply to post by nightstalker46


So, you're saying that, as an American, having a affinity for some other form of government is treason and should be punished as such? What if one were to say, based on your obvious disapproval of freedom of speech and expression, that your own beliefs are contrary to those of "real Americans?" Wouldn't that make you guilty of "treason" as well?

Originally posted by andrewh7
reply to post by nightstalker46

 

So, you're saying that, as an American, having a affinity for some other form of government is treason and should be punished as such? What if one were to say, based on your obvious disapproval of freedom of speech and expression, that your own beliefs are contrary to those of "real Americans?" Wouldn't that make you guilty of "treason" as well?

I think he is saying it is considered treasonous within the confines of the United States, since that is not our chosen form of government and it is seen as dissension from the government put in place at the outset of the founding of the nation. I don't think he said anything about limiting freedom of speech, he said the conversation would most likely be interesting. He can correct me if I am wrong.

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776

Originally posted by Unvarnished
reply to post by nightstalker46

 

If there is anything socialism promises, its the equality of every human being.

That is the problem. All people are created equal, but not all put out an equal amount of effort. If I work 6 days a week 50-70 hours a week to get the things I want, why should I be forced to donate part of my very life to support those who WILL NOT do the same? If I work all day, and you play video games all day, why should you benefit from my labor?

With that attitude we would not have police officers or firefighters as unemployed individuals are getting a benefit from their service and protection at no charge. In addition, unemployed people would not be able to use the roads, benefit from streetlamps, or even receive support after a natural disaster. All governments are inherently socialistic in that all people have access to such public services without having to have paid taxes in advance. Poor kids would also not be able to attend public school.

Unless you want to start changing street lamp bulbs yourself and hangout out next to them, staying vigilant by turning them off and on depending on the taxpayer status of each approaching car, you have stated no alternative.

Originally posted by bigrex

Originally posted by andrewh7
reply to post by nightstalker46

 

So, you're saying that, as an American, having a affinity for some other form of government is treason and should be punished as such? What if one were to say, based on your obvious disapproval of freedom of speech and expression, that your own beliefs are contrary to those of "real Americans?" Wouldn't that make you guilty of "treason" as well?

I think he is saying it is considered treasonous within the confines of the United States, since that is not our chosen form of government and it is seen as dissension from the government put in place at the outset of the founding of the nation. I don't think he said anything about limiting freedom of speech, he said the conversation would most likely be interesting. He can correct me if I am wrong.

edit on 21-8-2011 by bigrex because: (no reason given)

On the contrary, our constitution permits amendment at any time. One of those constitutional amendments could implement and guarantee socialist benefits of some kind, and you would have nothing to say about it.
If people don't have the right to protest the government, then what exactly did we achieve by leaving the British Empire? Our chosen form of government is whatever the people want it to be - which comes from the laws their elected representatives have chosen.

Accusing anyone who disagrees with your ideals of treason is the voice of a fascist dictator who puts his will ahead of the people. Frankly, you people sound like McCarthy. Why bother debating your ideas when you can simply throw your opponent in jail?

Originally posted by WXBackdoor
Another ignorant american.

We have socialism in Europe/Canada..and its doing okay (specially in the Scandinavian nations)

Its sad that the american public perceives socialism/communism in a negative way.

Besides our health care, we are no more socialist here in Canada than the US.

Thank god.

I keep hearing about this 'Socialism' and I think a lot of people don't really understand the term.

You live in a Society. You hold a door for someone who is carrying bags. You call 911 if you see an accident or a crime being committed. You help out in your community. You go to a spaghetti dinner fundraiser for someone in your neighborhood that has cancer.

You can work together to help make the Society a better place.

Or you can be selfish and not help your Society.

You can make a choice to help other people, but you balk at being told you should.

Are the Boy Scouts Socialists because they are told to help their Society? Are the Shriners Socialists because they help people with disabilities? Are members of the Military and Veterans Socialist because they volunteered to put their life in harm's way to help protect others. Are people who make donations to a food pantry Socialist? How about people whose Church tells them to help other people? Are they Socialist?

People give to help or protect their Society every single day and ask nothing in return for it.

Are those people Socialists?

As I said, you can either help your Society to be better or be selfish. Enough with the labels - because there are really only two types of people out there. Me personally, I don't want to be around the ones that are selfish.

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
- Benjamin Franklin, in the Continental Congress just before signing the Declaration of Independence, 1776

reply to post by nightstalker46


I don't understand your point at all.

They are political ideologies, not crimes.

Originally posted by andrewh7

Originally posted by bigrex

Originally posted by andrewh7
reply to post by nightstalker46

 

So, you're saying that, as an American, having a affinity for some other form of government is treason and should be punished as such? What if one were to say, based on your obvious disapproval of freedom of speech and expression, that your own beliefs are contrary to those of "real Americans?" Wouldn't that make you guilty of "treason" as well?

I think he is saying it is considered treasonous within the confines of the United States, since that is not our chosen form of government and it is seen as dissension from the government put in place at the outset of the founding of the nation. I don't think he said anything about limiting freedom of speech, he said the conversation would most likely be interesting. He can correct me if I am wrong.

edit on 21-8-2011 by bigrex because: (no reason given)

On the contrary, our constitution permits amendment at any time. One of those constitutional amendments could implement and guarantee socialist benefits of some kind, and you would have nothing to say about it.
If people don't have the right to protest the government, then what exactly did we achieve by leaving the British Empire? Our chosen form of government is whatever the people want it to be - which comes from the laws their elected representatives have chosen.

Accusing anyone who disagrees with your ideals of treason is the voice of a fascist dictator who puts his will ahead of the people. Frankly, you people sound like McCarthy. Why bother debating your ideas when you can simply throw your opponent in jail?

edit on 21-8-2011 by andrewh7 because: (no reason given)

It permits amendments, but amendments are difficult to pass, and rightly so due to the checks and balances of power as provided for in our mode of government. We are talking about destroying that balance of power, amending that, not about further defining liberty through additional amendments, at least that is what I am talking about.

The fact is that this governmental structure is what our founding fathers provided us with, if you want to live and die under Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Pol Pot, etc. (which I would assume is not the case) then you're out of luck if you're living in the good ol' U.S. of A. Here you have the right to expound upon your thoughts without fear of retribution, but if you support a governmental structure which is contrary to what gave you your freedom of speech, that is just a plain lack of logic and reasoning.

I think the OP's use of the word treason was used in it's logical and literal sense of the definition, but I doubt he would favor literal execution of those that prescribe to debate. Again, I suppose he can correct me if I am in error as to his personal viewpoint.

reply to post by intrepid


Agreed. On paper communism and socialism are actually the most suitable governing methodology right now.

How are you free when you have to work to live? You're only free if you've reached financial freedom.

Capitalism is defined by the TPTB privatizing our free earth and then issuing money for us to earn to allow us to gain a part of that "free" resource that was never theirs in the first place. So we're working to make fake money to buy resources that belongs to everyone in the world.

Communism and socialism both advocates ownership of said resources to the people or to the controlling body. Singapore is an excellent example of a socialist country. OP, if you've been there, you'd understand how wrong you are.

In Singapore, the govt builds houses for the people, and allow them to buy those houses at a cheap price that they can afford.

Believe it or not, in terms of level of effectiveness to reach the happiness and liberty of the majority of people, capitalist or democratic state is considered elementary school as socialism and communism are considered middle school or high school level of governance. Especially now that free energy is possible.

Look at the McCarthy ages when they accused people for communism like the church burnt witches. It's because the TPTB like Rockefeller and Rothchilds knew that if something that benefited everyone like communism and socialism took place, then scumbags like them would not be able to steal from the rest of us.

Any form of government can become bad when the citizens allow corruption to take over. It starts out a little at at a time,
until there is enough that it starts imposing restrictions and limits on freedom to protect itself. If the constitution was followed and upheld, We wouldn't be in the mess we're in today. There was at one time, a balance of power with checks and balances to keep the system on the straight and narrow. It started with politicians going into office with the intent of personal gain instead of the preserverance of this great nation, and being fair representation of their constituants and the will of the people. What has corrupted the system was the federal reserve act. Allowing the banks and corporation to influence our lawmakers with their money. Kill the federal reserve, take out all corporate money from politics, impose term limits on the house, senate and supreme court, and see who would want those jobs today? The answer would be no one. -0- . Somethings very wrong with a system that you have to be rich in the first place to get into, and after your first term, your net worth more than doubles, and the laws your voting on to pass, benefits the same banks and corporations where your money is invested. Wich system is better? None of them with corruption! One thing the constitution gives you is freedom of speech, and if you charge people with treason over idealistic beliefs, then you are doing just what are government is doing today! Usurping The Constitution!!!!!

reply to post by AwesomeOverload


You point at Singapore.

I'll point at the Soviet Union, China, Cuba and North Korea. While you say communism looks good on paper (and I disagree), I see financial security at the price of freedom. I know you do not believe us to be free, as you stated because we have to work (lol), I suggest we are much more free than our brothers and sisters in North Korea.

If I want to go on a trip to another country, I can. If I choose to take up the Muslim religion, I can. If I dislike my job and want to pick another career path, I can. Try those things in most of your communist countries and and see how far that gets you.

Communism is a blight on humanity. No matter the good intentions some may have when instilling it as a form of government,'it's has never failed to go horribly wrong. Thank god i live in Canada.

reply to post by daskakik

Also a quick question is Corporatism left or right?

Depends on how you define Left vs Right.
If you consider Individualism - All rights belong to the individual who grants some rights to the state - "The Right"

And if you consider collectivism - All Rights belong to the group aka the STATE - "The Left"

Then Corporatism, an unholy amalgam of the State and the corporate cartels, would have to be "Left" because it is about the state and the cartels two "Collections of individuals" having All the "rights" and not the individual. Individuals would only have those rights that are graciously given to them.

We can see that philosophy in the statements made by the USDA and FDA.

....In July 2000, USDA officials claimed in our court hearing that, “The farmers have no rights. No right to be heard before the court, no right to independent testing, and no right to question the USDA.” The arrogance of the agency has only grown.... Linda Faillace: Mad Sheep

USDA To Meatpackers: You Have No Right To Test For Deadly Diseases

The USDA has vowed to safeguard your meat by fighting reckless meatpackers that want to test their dead cattle for mad cow disease. The USDA's current policy of testing less than 1% of cows is clearly succeeding since none of you have caught Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, the human variant of mad cow disease....

FDA Says You Have No Right to Real Food Unless They Give You Permission First

The FDA has finally made its food-rights policy crystal clear. Here's the agency's position, made evident in their response to a lawsuit filed by the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund:

* They believe you have no absolute right to any raw unprocessed food, unless the FDA says it's okay

* They believe you have no right to good health, except as approved by the FDA

* They believe that there is no right for citizens to contract privately for their food

The actual wording by the FDA:

...Here are some of FDA's views expressed in its response on 'freedom of food choice' in general and on the right to obtain and consume raw milk in particular:

* "Plaintiffs' assertion of a new 'fundamental right' to produce, obtain, and consume unpasteurized milk lacks any support in law." [p. 4]

* "It is within HHS's authority . . . to institute an intrastate ban [on unpasteurized milk] as well." [p. 6]

* "Plaintiffs' assertion of a new 'fundamental right' under substantive due process to produce, obtain, and consume unpasteurized milk lacks any support in law." [p.17]

* "There is no absolute right to consume or feed children any particular food." [p. 25]

* "There is no 'deeply rooted' historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds." [p. 26]

* "Plaintiffs' assertion of a 'fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families' is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish." [p. 26]

* FDA's brief goes on to state that "even if such a right did exist, it would not render FDA's regulations unconstitutional because prohibiting the interstate sale and distribution of unpasteurized milk promotes bodily and physical health." [p. 27]

* "There is no fundamental right to freedom of contract." [p. 27]
www.ftcldf.org...

It seems the US government has decided that individuals do not have the RIGHT to determine what they want to eat and also do not have the right to enter into a contract.

The USDA/FDA have made it plain that small businesses do not have the RIGHT to test their products for disease in an attempt to differentiate their products from the crowd if the Big Boys object. This is what Creekstone Farms attempted to do by testing all their cattle for Mad Cow disease. The USDA, knowing that they had allowed contaminated bone meal to be shipped to the USA from the UK AFTER it was banned in the UK, did not want to take the chance that diseased cows would be found. (Egg on Face big time) The large slaughter houses did not want a premium slaughter house forcing them to compete.

The safety of the US consumer never ever entered into the decision. The raw milk controversy is the same. WTO and the big boys are allowing TB and other disease to cross the border in live cattle. They do not want the public to know that the WTO's risk-based assessment/regulatory system and "Traceability" is about facilitating trade across borders and NOT about Consumer safety. The do not want the American public to realize the USDA and FDA sold out public food safety.

reply to post by AwesomeOverload


So what is considered Graduate school level governence? That is what we should be shooting for and skipping the "middle school" level governence IMO. If we don't reach graduate level after how many thousands of years then maybe it's true we don't need to be here.

reply to post by crimvelvet


The reason I asked was because when the defenders of capitalism and bashers of everything else speak up the discussion usually ends up on the topic of corporations.

Now the corporation can't exist without the state. But I think that capitalists stop short of the whole truth when they say the state creates corporations. I would say that capitalist (the ones who made it work and have the wealth) create the state, or at lest influence it, so that they can in turn use it to further increase their wealth.

Forget left and right because those are just sales pitches to get the people behind them. There's big money on both sides. Both benefit from the state.

I had read this a while back and it is interesting:

The History of Corporations

While it seems true that:

The modern corporation dates back to 1601, when Queen Elizabeth I created the East India Trading Company. At the time, the concept of a corporation was quite different than today. Corporations were small, quasi-government institutions chartered by the crown for a specific purpose. The idea was to bring together investors interested in financing large projects, such as exploration.

and Americans where able to fend off corporations for 100 years until:

As industrialization began reshaping America, great fortunes began accumulating in the hands of canal owners and financiers and later railroad and steel magnates. And as great fortunes accumulated,a new wealthy class began influencing policymaking, changing the rules governing the corporations they owned. Charters grew longer and less restrictive. The doctrine of limited liability – allowing corporate owners and managers to avoid responsibility for harm and losses caused by the corporation – began to appear in state corporate laws. Charter revocation became less frequent, and government functions shifted from keeping a close watch on corporations to encouraging their growth. For example, between 1861 and 1871, railroads received nearly $100 million in financial aid, and 200 million acres of land.

So if the corporation is such a leftist idea why would the captains of industry embrace it? Well because it isn't. If anything it's a capitalists idea of heaven.

Originally posted by daskakik

Now the corporation can't exist without the state.

Why is that?

In our current age, we simply need stock exchanges for the corporations to exist. A state is not needed. If a stock exchange was set up in Somalia, people could buy and trade stocks. I dont see why you believe a state is required.

I guess we might as well not waste our time with the commie lemmings, it is like Yuri Bezmenov explained:



I will paraphrase him: The facts mean nothing to them, even if we shower them with proof, authentic documents, they mean nothing, even if I take them by force to Russia and show them former concentration camps they will refuse to believe it until they finally receive the literal kick in their fat bottoms, when a military boot crashes in, then they will understand, but not before then, that is the tragedy of the situation. End of paraphrase.

We'll see how their utopia feels then, if you imagine you are giving your money to your neighbor by giving it to an all powerful government, you have been lied to and I have a boat load of valuable perestroika artifacts that I want to sell to you. Our universities are against us, they turn out mis-educated fools that think communism is the best thing since sliced bread when we see in practice, the purest forms of it to exist on earth were a case study in how to destroy a civilization.

reply to post by nightbringr

Funny but that is the part that those defending capitalism always agree with.

Of course, your right, we don't need the state to deal with each other but I would be hard put if I had to name a capitalist country where you didn't have to follow some laws to actually set up a stock exchange. Plus, the state grants the charter to the corporation which brings it into existence. Otherwise it is not recognized. In the US corporations even have the same rights as people under the 14 amendment.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by nightbringr

 

Funny but that is the part that those defending capitalism always agree with.

Of course, your right, we don't need the state to deal with each other but I would be hard put if I had to name a capitalist country where you didn't have to follow some laws to actually set up a stock exchange. Plus, the state grants the charter to the corporation which brings it into existence. Otherwise it is not recognized. In the US corporations even have the same rights as people under the 14 amendment.

All fair and i agree. I simply wanted to show how it is not strictly necessary for a state to be in place for the corporation to exist.

And while ill defend capitalism till the end, i will never say it is without flaws. Corporations need to be held to the same standards any citizen who commit crimes is.

Unfortunately the difficulty lies in prosecuting those who are not the board itself. Should shareholder who are not aware of the wrongdoings of businesses they buy into be help culpable in criminal cases? Its tricky.

I believe the main cause for most wrongdoings as far as corporations go is their drive to provide earnings and increased share values for their holders. In their drive to succeed, they tend to move into grey or criminal areas to achieve gains. This must be strictly watched and any wrongdoings must be prosecuted to the full extent of the laws. Many of these corporations make large financial contributions to presidential candidate campaigns. So obviously this is an issue.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

No, I am not.

Real slavery existed in the western world up until the 1860's - throughout the middle ages, etc - long before....

Slavery has nothing to do with capitalism. It is the antithesis of slavery because "Capitalism,is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned."

Real slavery still exists today.

Slavery exists here in the USA and else where. It was not even made ILLEGAL in Mauritania until 1981 or Saudi Arabia until 1962. In the 1950s, Saudi Arabia had an estimated 450000 slaves or 20% of the population. The fact slavery was made "Illegal" through international pressure does not mean it is no longer practiced in Saudi Arabia. There is no religious prohibition against owning slaves. It is known that high ranking Saudis even bring their slaves to the USA to this day.


There are actually more slaves today than there were during the height of the slave trade.
It is also nastier today than it was in the early days of the USA because today it is illegal and slaves are cheap. $5 - $90 bucks a piece instead of the old price of $3,000 and $8,000. This means the slaves have little value and are treated as "Disposable Goods" instead of a high price "Status Symbol"

Human trafficking is the world's third most lucrative illegal commercial activity, generating an estimated $8 billion dollars a year in profit...

An estimated 27 million people are living in slavery around the world today....

A one-hour investigative documentary exposes the painful,rarely seen human side of illegal immigration - including the growing black market trade in human beings...
www.livesforsale.com...

...The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency estimates that 50,000 people are trafficked into or transited through the U.S.A. annually as sex slaves, domestics, garment, and agricultural slaves.

The United States is a destination country for thousands of men, women, and children trafficked largely from Mexico and East Asia, as well as countries in South Asia, Central America, Africa, and Europe, for the purposes of sexual and labor exploitation. Three-quarters of all foreign adult victims identified during the Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 were victims of trafficking for forced labor. Some trafficking victims, responding to fraudulent offers of employment in the United States, migrate willingly—legally and illegally—and are subsequently subjected to conditions of involuntary servitude or debt bondage at work sites or in commercial sex. An unknown number of American citizens and legal residents are trafficked within the country, primarily for sexual servitude....

gvnet.com...

...Today’s slaves are also, arguably, more expendable than at any time in history. Using historical data to look at slavery throughout the Atlantic slave trade, Bales concluded that when owning a slave was a “status symbol,” during the years of the Atlantic slave trade, the average price of a slave was $40,000, adjusted to today’s currency, and a slave represented a significant investment. Today, the average price of a slave on the world market is $90.

In North America, a slave can range between $3,000 and $8,000, and in India and Nepal, slaves are a mere five to ten dollars. While at one time you had to pay the equivalent of a year’s tuition at Columbia University to get a slave, now you can buy a human being for the price of a Starbucks coffee. According to Bales, “People have stopped being capital and have become like a Styrofoam cup. You buy them cheaply, you use them up, and when you’re done, you throw them away.”...
www.cpreview.org...

Modern slavery in China
Modern-day slavery is still a problem in China. Every so often Chinese authorities will close down a factory that was caught using slaves. Most often the victims of the slavery are the mentally ill. Advocates say that a lack of laws protecting the mentally ill from being sold into slavery. Sometimes it is their very own caretakers who are doing the selling.

From the Inter Press Service, writer Mitch Moxley tells us more about the practice of slavery in China.

In May 2009, police in Anhui province arrested ten men for allegedly enslaving more than 30 mentally handicapped people who had been forced to work at brick kilns. In 2007, hundreds of brick kiln slaves, many of them children or mentally handicapped, were freed in raids across northern China.....
povertynewsblog.blogspot.com...

reply to post by nightbringr


Actually corporation by definition is

an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members.

So some form of government has to authorize it. I'm sure that in an anarchist scenario there could be something that would be the same as a publically traded company but it wouldn't be a corporation. It wouldn't have the same rights as a person.

I understand those that defend capitalism but just like everything else it doesn't work. Some will say it's because it has never really been tried. It's been tried but it falls to curruption just as fast as the others.