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.

 

ATS and OWS: What the heck, ATS?

page: 15
193
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


Ya it gets clears pretty fast that the OP didn't really want to get an answer to their question or even have an open exchange of ideas. They are clearly just making an excuse to try and recruit democrats. Much like I fear the whole OWS movement is trying to do. Which is really OK just admit what you are doing.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


No, I mean a paradigm beyond the limitation of such institutions as politics.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Did you mean they are breaking the paradigm of Capitalism? Because what they are really doing is invoking the OLD paradigm of Marxist Socialism.
I do like your poetic description of Terra as a sapphire though.
edit on 6-11-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


When Frater said you fit the profile I outlined, I think maybe he's referring to the fact you sort of fly all over the place and don't really seem to have a handle on where you're going. Take for instance, "Marxist socialism?" You're just jamming two words together senselessly and hoping that it comes out looking double plus ungood.

Marx didn't have a special kind of socialism, and he certainly didn't invent the idea. He didn't do any innovation on socialist theory, actually. However he did come up with some pretty interesting models of capitalism that seem to be playing out. So funnily enough, "Marxist capitalism" makes a certain amount of sense, while "Marxist socialism" really doesn't.

Really, just sort of... think about what you're putting out there. Research the topics at hand. learn what words mean and how to use them. 'Cuase it looks like all you're doing is throwing out buzzwords as fast as you can.
edit on 6/11/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by elvaanseifer
 


"The democrats serve about the same purpose as large roadkill."
"The democrats are largely useless."
"They're just the branch of the republican party that doesn't want to sell all our public assets off to China just yet."

Yessiree bob, with these ringing endorsements of the Democratic Party being posted under my name, I'm a shoo-in for a handshake with the Pelosimeister herself!




posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnotherSon
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


No, I mean a paradigm beyond the limitation of such institutions as politics.



Oh, so that is why they are calling for Direct Democracy and an end to Capitalism? Ok, I've been edumacated...



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Oh cool you replied, then maybe I can try again to ask you my original question. Why don't you think OWS won't support Ron Paul? At least in the primary? He seems to be in line with many of their ideas.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by AnotherSon
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


No, I mean a paradigm beyond the limitation of such institutions as politics.



Oh, so that is why they are calling for Direct Democracy and an end to Capitalism? Ok, I've been edumacated...


At first you will be frightened but eventually you will own yourself. The realization that no one needs to be seated in some positional hierarchy that determines what you do or how you do it.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 





When Frater said you fit the profile I outlined, I think maybe he's referring to the fact you sort of fly all over the place and don't really seem to have a handle on where you're going. Take for instance, "Marxist socialism?" You're just jamming two words together senselessly and hoping that it comes out looking double plus ungood.


Oh, seriously?




This article is about socialism as a historical evolutionary stage of development in Marxist theory. For the broad concept of socialism as an economic system, see Socialism.
For the Marxist perspective of socialism as a basis for understanding social and economic development, see Scientific socialism.
In Marxist theory, socialism, or the socialist mode of production, refers to a specific historical phase of economic development and its corresponding set of social relations that eventually supersede capitalism. Socialism is a mode of production where criteria for economic activity is use-value and direct production for use through conscious economic planning, where monetary relations in the form of exchange-value and wage labor become irrelevant. Socialism is characterized by the working-class's effectively controlling the means of production and the means of their livelihood either through cooperative enterprises or public ownership (with the state being re-organized under socialism) and self management.[1]


In Marxist theory, the state is a mechanism dominated by and utilized in the interests of the ruling class to subjugate other classes, to legitimize the existing socio-economic system and to promote the interests of the dominant class.[7] After a workers' revolution, the state initially becomes the instrument of the working class. Conquest of the state apparatus by the working class must take place to establish a socialist system. As socialism is built, the role and scope of the state changes as class distinctions (based on ownership of the means of production) gradually deteriorate due to the concentration of means of production in state hands. From the point where all means of production become state property,

en.wikipedia.org...(Marxism)

Maybe you could just study Marxism a bit more and then you will understand what I am saying, and also what others here have been saying.
You may not think you are a "Marxist" per se, but you do seem to subscribe to Marx's theories, albeit in possibly a more experiential way.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnotherSon

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by AnotherSon
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


No, I mean a paradigm beyond the limitation of such institutions as politics.



Oh, so that is why they are calling for Direct Democracy and an end to Capitalism? Ok, I've been edumacated...


At first you will be frightened but eventually you will own yourself. The realization that no one needs to be seated in some positional hierarchy that determines what you do or how you do it.



Seriously, anyone who is not frightened by what Soros and his merry band of Robin Hoods are offering needs a thump on the head, and some serious schooling on socialist theory plus a bit of history reflecting the failure of a Statist centrally planned economy.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnotherSon

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by AnotherSon
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


No, I mean a paradigm beyond the limitation of such institutions as politics.



Oh, so that is why they are calling for Direct Democracy and an end to Capitalism? Ok, I've been edumacated...


At first you will be frightened but eventually you will own yourself. The realization that no one needs to be seated in some positional hierarchy that determines what you do or how you do it.



This may be a lovely thought in theory, but where has it ever truly been practiced? In the Old Soviet Union? OH wait, no, they threw people in Gulags for dissension, and thanks to Alexander Solzhenitsyn for exposing the Gulag system. Ok, where else has this theory been tried? The communes of the hippies? No thanks.
No, it is not practiced anywhere. Real Socialism and/or communism always has a ruling elite on top. Remember the Politburo?
I wonder if your ideas about OWS are what they really are though. You are even more idealistic than they are.
edit on 6-11-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by elvaanseifer
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Oh cool you replied, then maybe I can try again to ask you my original question. Why don't you think OWS won't support Ron Paul? At least in the primary? He seems to be in line with many of their ideas.


Sorry, I probably missed it.

Ron Paul is aligned on one idea.

1) No more war.

Past that? he's Michelle Bachman with a necktie. His economic "plan" does not vary significantly from that of the rest of that crew - "cut taxes at the top, then cut aid at the bottom. Sell off America to the highest bidder. Leave office with more money than i came in with."

He claims to be all for "getting the money out of politics," but I'm not sure I believe him. He's not exactly operating from people sending him $5 bills, after all. Maybe that's unfair of me, but it's hard to not be cynical.

Basically, his position amounts to "All government is too big and no corporation is too powerful." And he seems very intent on trading the first for the second. Lasseiz-faire corporatocracy is pretty much completely counter to anything OWS is looking for.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by AnotherSon

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by AnotherSon
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


No, I mean a paradigm beyond the limitation of such institutions as politics.



Oh, so that is why they are calling for Direct Democracy and an end to Capitalism? Ok, I've been edumacated...


At first you will be frightened but eventually you will own yourself. The realization that no one needs to be seated in some positional hierarchy that determines what you do or how you do it.



Seriously, anyone who is not frightened by what Soros and his merry band of Robin Hoods are offering needs a thump on the head, and some serious schooling on socialist theory plus a bit of history reflecting the failure of a Statist centrally planned economy.


Sides are the illusion silly. Stop playing that game. Existentialism/Enlightenment is unsettling if not unattainable for most that have been programmed. Trust I've been through the pains of deprogramming but the reward is there.
edit on 6-11-2011 by AnotherSon because: quantum fart: changed "will be" to "is"



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


More on Marxism


( 1 ) The central concepts of Marxist philosophy may be seen as scientific socialism, dialectics, materialism (divided into dialectical and historical materialism), and the blending of structure and action. There are other ways of analysing the components of Marxist philosophy, but that is the approach proposed here.



Marx acknowledges the contribution to his own scientific socialism of the philosophy of Hegel, the economics of Ricardo and the utopian socialism of Fourier, St Simon, Owen and others. He saw utopian socialism as idealistic, not in the popular sense of unselfish thought and action in the service of a better society, but in the sense of an ideal society projected into the future and unconnected with existing social trends.


www.worldsocialism.org...



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Yes, seriously. I'm sorry, but being able to rummage through Wikipedia doesn't make you knowledgeable about the subject. Marx didn't invent Socialism, nor did he significantly add to the idea. What he did was hypothesize that it was a natural outgrowth of capitalism (and that a communist utopia was the natural outgrowth of socialism.) he further developed the idea of capitalism being a self-consuming system, which does seem to have validity.

In other words, "Marxist socialist" is about as signifying as "Debsian socialism" or "Lincolnian socialism." it's the same socialism, and Marx didn't alter it. He simply used it as a starting point for his own ideas - communism ans socialism aren't actually synonyms, no matter how hard you try.

Which, aside from the notion of capitalism begin self-devouring, don't seem to pan out. Socialism doesn't seem to erupt from capitalist collapses (unless you're so far gone you think minimum wage and basic health care are "socialist.") and communism - utopian or otherwise - certainly doesn't seem to erupt from socialism. In fact it seems more like socialism and capitalism sort of orbit one another, seeking a mixed equilibrium of sorts.

Marx wrote his stuff in 1867. We've had a while to chew it over, test a few things out. The only people still hung up on Marx are total newbies, and people on the "other side." Sort of like how it's just the creationists who think Darwin is the be-all, end-all of evolutionary theory

edit on 6/11/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Then I would have to say they don't represent the 99% they claim to and that's why many ATS members won't support them. It doesn't seem to to be as all inclusive as it is made out to be.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnotherSon

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by AnotherSon

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by AnotherSon
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


No, I mean a paradigm beyond the limitation of such institutions as politics.



Oh, so that is why they are calling for Direct Democracy and an end to Capitalism? Ok, I've been edumacated...


At first you will be frightened but eventually you will own yourself. The realization that no one needs to be seated in some positional hierarchy that determines what you do or how you do it.



Seriously, anyone who is not frightened by what Soros and his merry band of Robin Hoods are offering needs a thump on the head, and some serious schooling on socialist theory plus a bit of history reflecting the failure of a Statist centrally planned economy.


Sides are the illusion silly. Stop playing that game. Existentialism/Enlightenment is unsettling if not unattainable for most that have been programmed. Trust I've been through the pains of deprogramming but the reward is there.
edit on 6-11-2011 by AnotherSon because: quantum fart: changed "will be" to "is"



Please do not discuss deprogramming with me. You assume I am "programmed" to begin with. You assume that I do not understand Hegelian dialectical reasoning, or that I do not understand the NWO as synthesis of the conflict between "left" and "right".
Let us just say that I do not appreciate Stealth Progressivism in the Republican Party, and I will never submit to European socialism willingly. If you have a problem with that, too freakin bad.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by elvaanseifer
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Then I would have to say they don't represent the 99% they claim to and that's why many ATS members won't support them. It doesn't seem to to be as all inclusive as it is made out to be.


Nobody's excluding you. If you are so wrapped up in a single politician so much that you absolutely can't be around people who disagree with him, then that's really you excluding yourself, isn't it?



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:07 AM
link   
And I appolagize in thinking you are a democrat. If you think Socialist is more accurate.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by elvaanseifer
 


I guess I would ask then what rallies you have been to lately where people mostly disagree with you? I think your original question is why don't more ATS members support OWS. And I think its pretty clear it is because they don't agree with their ideas.



posted on Nov, 6 2011 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by AnotherSon

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by AnotherSon

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by AnotherSon
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


No, I mean a paradigm beyond the limitation of such institutions as politics.



Oh, so that is why they are calling for Direct Democracy and an end to Capitalism? Ok, I've been edumacated...


At first you will be frightened but eventually you will own yourself. The realization that no one needs to be seated in some positional hierarchy that determines what you do or how you do it.



Seriously, anyone who is not frightened by what Soros and his merry band of Robin Hoods are offering needs a thump on the head, and some serious schooling on socialist theory plus a bit of history reflecting the failure of a Statist centrally planned economy.


Sides are the illusion silly. Stop playing that game. Existentialism/Enlightenment is unsettling if not unattainable for most that have been programmed. Trust I've been through the pains of deprogramming but the reward is there.
edit on 6-11-2011 by AnotherSon because: quantum fart: changed "will be" to "is"



Please do not discuss deprogramming with me. You assume I am "programmed" to begin with. You assume that I do not understand Hegelian dialectical reasoning, or that I do not understand the NWO as synthesis of the conflict between "left" and "right".
Let us just say that I do not appreciate Stealth Progressivism in the Republican Party, and I will never submit to European socialism willingly. If you have a problem with that, too freakin bad.


Quite the contrary. I apologize if my last post came across condescending or for that matter partisan. It was not meant in that vein by any measure. I AM simply put and we ALL ARE. I do not look for any ideology, political system or party to save me. For the love of humanity TSA please stop trying to protect me. I sincerely am trying to use the poor abstraction of language to interpret my thoughts of how I feel. How do I express I AM to anyone? I cannot. Not even the greatest masters of Self could. Words cannot contain IT. Not in tangible chop wood carry water sort of terms anyway. We have been in motion and it is time to rest. That is all. Rest in the place of Self. If your mind is in control it is very uncomfortable because it can only look to things that have subscribed or been programmed to ideology. Like, democrat, republican, capitalist, socialist, communist and beyond such labels as father/mother, sister/brother, male/female until IT is broken down to the Actual Self. For the love of Self we honestly believe that we cannot live or find happiness without the abstract thought of money. This is the Spirit of Occupy.




top topics



 
193
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join