The "Occupy are Socialists," Megathread

Originally posted by petrus4
Which would be great, if the psychopaths were going to let us have it. The problem is that they won't.

I completely agree, they will fight it to the last, they will even start world wars. I believe that WWII was a consequence of the Spanish revolution, and Hitler was just an excuse. Sounds crazy I know but the establishment before the revolution were pro-Hitler. Nobody cared when Hitler was dropping bombs on Spain, or invaded Czechoslovakia. He invaded France because the French declared war on Germany. The war was escalated by France and Britain, it could have stopped at Poland.

That was the conclusion I drew after reading Bellamy's novels; that a socialist scenario could truly work gloriously, but only if the psychopaths did not exist. The fact that they do, is the spanner in the works.

That's a good point. I agree they are psychopaths, or sociopaths, I think you have to be to exploit and cause such misery, and be able to justify it in your head.

We need to develop a system for definitively identifying the psychopaths, and then we need to figure out what to do with them, that minimises their potential for harm to non-psychopathic society. I do not necessarily advocate either eugenics or capital punishment, but the reality is that we do need to figure out some way of preventing the psychopaths from doing the amount of damage that they have traditionally, so far. If we don't figure out how to do that, they are going to render all of us extinct.

We have to remain vigilant for sure. But once the systems if capitalism are replaced it would far more difficult for anyone to gain ultimate power. People have to be educated though, because they still fall for the idea of picking an ultimate leader (president/prime minister) expecting the new one to be better than the old one. But history shows that nothing really changes.

One of the things which Edward Bellamy's second book helped me to figure out, was that the definition of liberty, as advocated by people like Milton Friedman, was the liberty of a single individual to theoretically acquire literally all of the property on the planet. The only problem with that scenario is, if one person literally owns everything, what happens to the other 6 billion+ of us?

Yes it is liberty from the capitalist perspective which is basically the freedom to exploit with no oversight from authority. It is not liberty for the proletariat, we are not included in 'We the People', in reality 'the people' are the capitalists, the Nobility, are still the commoners.

If nothing else, I have realised that the game of Monopoly is not a positive model for running the world. It isn't even really desirable as a board game, for similar reasons as to why people don't want their children playing Grand Theft Auto. I don't advocate anything which teaches or encourages psychopathic behaviour.

I think the state school system teaches and encourages psychopathic behaviour.

I personally do not advocate the size of groups being large; ideally no more than 50-100 people at the very most. Beyond that, I feel that accountability becomes impossible. I also, as mentioned, do not advocate any form of legislature, which makes binding decisions for anyone who is not physically present in the room.

I agree. Small companies would be the ideal. Much more healthy for the economy, and for ourselves, than huge corporations.

I do instinctively want a high level of personal freedom; but my definition of freedom does not include me having everything, and everyone else around me having nothing. Truthfully I've been very reclusive for most of my life, and that is mainly because people fairly consistently tend to bully me if I am around them. That is the main reason why I do not like joining groups, for the most part.

To me freedom has nothing to do with government or economies. True freedom is the ability to be yourself and not be judged for it. Freedom is a community condition. If communities are divided and struggling and conditioned to be overly competitive, and they're always being told how to think by the MSM, they become insular and suspicious of others. This leads to people not wanting to stand out, everyone starts to act the same in order to fit in. We become clones of what we're told to be by pressure from peers and media. All true individuality is stiffed from the fear of being different and not fitting in. Gangs are a result of this.

If Socialism is the answer, it must have been a bloody stupid question.

Originally posted by ballisticmousse
If Socialism is the answer, it must have been a bloody stupid question.

Question was:
7 out of 10 countries ranked best place to live, have which Government?

This limited character feature is annoying.

One thing that Marx and I have in common, is that I read he was never employed. I have temporarily had some telemarketing jobs, and also some freelance web design, but for the most part, I've been unemployed. The main reason why I have never got a job, is because I found out at high school that I am a berserker, and I did not want to go to jail if I ended up killing a psychopathic employer.

Most people don't realise that Marx didn't come up with those ideas. He, along with Engels, were simply commissioned to write the results of a meeting held in London by many European socialists.

I don't know why it ended up being called 'Marxism', why not 'Engelism', or simply state-socialism?

Permaculture includes equality as one of their principles; although they refer to it via the term "fair share." Bill Mollison did to some extent espouse a social model, but there isn't really a lot there, and what is there, does not get talked about anywhere near enough, in my view. Most people just want to study Permaculture in order to more effectively grow vegetables, and not to generally live in a different way.

Yeah it does seem to mostly revolve around gardening lol. But it's more than that being a way of life of self-reliance and sustainable living systems working with, instead of against, nature. Many anarchists support this.
Dial House near London do courses on it...



(BTW the background music is Crass. Dial House is where Crass lived, some of them still do. The lady with the blond hair is Gee Vaucher who did all the Crass artwork)

Originally posted by Sachyriel

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by petrus4

 

For those who are cheering the overtaking of Occupy by anarchist elements, I'm really saddened to see anyone support or tolerate it. As much as I really believe in the ideals behind the hard pushing for change...from both OWS and TPM...I'll also fight HARD against anything flying that black flag. Period. Full Stop. NO exceptions whatsoever. I've seen enough of that philosophy to know you cannot get much further into the polar opposite of what the United States was created to be, and still be on this planet.

You are wrong, almost every grassroots socialist cause is started by a few anarchists trying their best to promote it cause they see what they want reflected in it.

Occupy has been an anarchist tactic for years, a history of squatting was established before the 2008 Financial Crisis!

We squat, they tremble. The broken wind stinks, but it's not us who smell like sh*t.

Occupy tactics is what Mr. Obama used when he was a community organized that caused the bubble to pop(it would of popped anyway, but Occupy style bullying of the banks caused it to pop sooner and harder then it would have).

Originally posted by petrus4One of the things which Edward Bellamy's second book helped me to figure out, was that the definition of liberty, as advocated by people like Milton Friedman, was the liberty of a single individual to theoretically acquire literally all of the property on the planet.

this actually originates in John Locke's writings. he felt that the accumulation of property lead to accumulation of property and that unused property was an offense to nature, but only insofar as that unused property would spoil. the advent of money, to him, provided an alternative to spoilage of property and therefore was a sufficient answer to the unlimited accumulation of wealth. he recognized the possibility of unlimited accumulation but felt it was not his duty to devise a method to limit accumulation. this is from Locke's wikipedia page:

"Labour creates property, but it also does contain limits to its accumulation: man’s capacity to produce and man’s capacity to consume. According to Locke, unused property is waste and an offence against nature.[24] However, with the introduction of “durable” goods, men could exchange their excessive perishable goods for goods that would last longer and thus not offend the natural law. The introduction of money marks the culmination of this process. Money makes possible the unlimited accumulation of property without causing waste through spoilage.[25] He also includes gold or silver as money because they may be “hoarded up without injury to anyone,”[26] since they do not spoil or decay in the hands of the possessor. The introduction of money eliminates the limits of accumulation. Locke stresses that inequality has come about by tacit agreement on the use of money, not by the social contract establishing civil society or the law of land regulating property. Locke is aware of a problem posed by unlimited accumulation but does not consider it his task. He just implies that government would function to moderate the conflict between the unlimited accumulation of property and a more nearly equal distribution of wealth and does not say which principles that government should apply to solve this problem. However, not all elements of his thought form a consistent whole. For example, labour theory of value of the Two Treatises of Government stands side by side with the demand-and-supply theory developed in a letter he wrote titled Some Considerations on the Consequences of the Lowering of Interest and the Raising of the Value of Money. Moreover, Locke anchors property in labour but in the end upholds the unlimited accumulation of wealth."

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Tw0Sides


Proof please.

reply to post by Tw0Sides


www.cia.gov...

Top countries for GDP/per capita income........constitutional monarchies, republics, democracies.

Originally posted by ANOK
Most people don't realise that Marx didn't come up with those ideas. He, along with Engels, were simply commissioned to write the results of a meeting held in London by many European socialists.

Marx was guided by the bankers, from what I've been able to figure out. There are ideas associated with socialism which I consider to be inherent to human nature; but the more I learn about Marx himself, the less I want to do with him. The man was a shill and a wolf in sheep's clothing, to exactly the same degree that Friedman (as one example) was, on the Capitalist side of the fence.

Marxist ideology was designed by the Illuminati to manipulate and sabotage the inherent human desire to return to a model of relatively small, decentralised, distributed human colonies, (basically the tribal model, more or less; but which also were internally egalitarian) and con people into a scenario where, while they thought they were working towards the above, they were actually moving towards the diametric opposite; a singular, centrally planned, global federalism, which is an abomination to Nature for a multitude of reasons, and which is also the central element of the psychopathic dream to create a permanent, irremovable, universal tyranny that once implemented, the rest of humanity will never be able to free itself from.

Marx is responsible for another evil, as well. He is responsible for the deadly blending and false association of both of the above models, in people's minds. This continues to perpetuate the idea that when people use either the words Communism or Socialism, they are invariably talking about the exact opposite of what they actually mean.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by Tw0Sides

 

www.cia.gov...

Top countries for GDP/per capita income........constitutional monarchies, republics, democracies.

i think he's referring to the quality of life or standard of living scales. either way, none of the countries he is referring to (surely Sweden, Denmark, etc.) are actually socialistic. however, socialist business models, as in worker cooperatives, do, in fact, exist and they have been shown to be superior to capitalist firms generally in every aspect from productivity to longevity to job and income security. they are rare, however, because of various barriers to entry in our current system and because very few people know about them and even fewer think they are viable economic options.

Originally posted by petrus4

is why Capitalism and Communism, as ideologies, are the only two that people seem to talk about having; if you're not one, you're the other.

Correction:

is why Capitalism and Communism, as ideologies, are the only two that STUPID (mostly US American) people seem to talk about having; if you're not one, you're the other.

Reason being that the political system in the US is either D or R with not much in between, and people are used to think in stereotypical extremes either on the left OR right side, AS IF THERE IS NOTHING IN BETWEEN.

And "stupid" (yes i used that word for a reason) because *real* communism in our world (with very few exceptions like China, NK etc.) does not really exists...respective WHERE it existed a long time ago (Soviet Union etc.) has long proven to be failed and has already been replaced with other forms of governments or with only a pale reflection of what real "communism" actually once was.

The same is true for "socialism" since in a strict sense even some of those "allegedly" socialist countries in Europe are not really "socialist", respective the term "socialist" applied is just plain wrong for the actual forms of governments/societies.

So..now tell me who (in their right mind ..) in your great US of A is talking about "having Communism"...respective thinks that Communism (as in "classic" communism as i personally would understand communism) would even have a REMOTE chance of being established in the US, or whatever other country for that matter?

That's why i used the word "stupid" because the thought is simply...stupid.

reply to post by petrus4


Not sure about all that. There was a meeting of the Internationalist workers organization in London, and the Communist Manifesto was the outline of the plans drawn up in that meeting. It's why the left split between anarchists, and what became 'Marxist' socialists. I think if it was written by bankers, other socialists would have made note of that somewhere, there would be something in the literature about it even if it was rumour.

Marxism is not state control like the propaganda claims. The state was simply a temporary way to organize labour, so resources were fairly distributed, until the point where production was so high that money becomes obsolete. The workers still own the means of production. It was supposed to be a natural way to get to communism, without violent revolution.

Capitalism has turned into 'free-markets', Socialism/communism has turned into 'more government control'.

Do you think it MATTERS whether some fat, corrupt politician controls or whether some fat lawyer or corporate mogul controls?

Do you even SEE any (and i mean: ANY) difference here?

Because there is...none...the only difference that in "capitalism" you live the illusion that you have freedom while the corporates dictate your laws...and in "communism" it was the fat heads in the political party.

reply to post by flexy123


But again we're not talking about what happened in Russia, we are talking the actual theory of socialism which Russia did not practice.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by petrus4

 

I think if it was written by bankers, other socialists would have made note of that somewhere, there would be something in the literature about it even if it was rumour.

I am not saying that it was written by bankers directly. Nowhere close. That's not how the cabal operate. They work to create scenarios where, while you're doing what you think is your own thing, (which very often looks like the complete opposite of what they want) you end up assisting them in achieving what they were aiming for all along.

Marxism is not state control like the propaganda claims. The state was simply a temporary way to organize labour, so resources were fairly distributed, until the point where production was so high that money becomes obsolete. The workers still own the means of production. It was supposed to be a natural way to get to communism, without violent revolution.

That is some people's interpretation. It wasn't Trotsky's. He was the originator of the "permanent revolution," doctrine; and as it suggests in Red Symphony, I do consider violent revolution a trademark of the cabal. One of their central tenets is, "Order through Chaos." They use violence, confusion, and mayhem as a form of obfuscation, and seize control of things during the obscurity and uncertainty which it creates.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by flexy123

 

But again we're not talking about what happened in Russia, we are talking the actual theory of socialism which Russia did not practice.

We need to talk about what happened in Russia though, ANOK. I've realised that that is very important. Apart from anything else, we need to use what happened in Russia in order to try to ensure that it never happens again.

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by flexy123

 

But again we're not talking about what happened in Russia, we are talking the actual theory of socialism which Russia did not practice.

We need to talk about what happened in Russia though, ANOK. I've realised that that is very important. Apart from anything else, we need to use what happened in Russia in order to try to ensure that it never happens again.

he wasn't saying that we shouldn't talk about Russia. he was just letting the other guy know that Russia's view of socialism is not true socialism.

reply to post by eboyd


I understand what you are saying. Quality of life differs among people, some feel that hard work, freedom to work as much or as little as possible and being happy with the results you produce for yourself or having the opportunity to own your own business without gov't or union interference is ideal. Others would rather share ownership and share rewards, with no personal control...sink or swim together...pool everything then divide it up for all, is ideal. But if all don't participate but get the rewards anyway ie welfare, healthcare etc...that leads to resentment. eventually the workers will rise up against the union or government and demand freedom. that is why I believe private ownership, personal responsibility and freedom will always make a comeback.

Also, the information about the top 7 being socialist were from left leaning, socialist leaning publications.

reply to post by petrus4


I find the Occupy crowd to be very ignorant about---politics and "the establishment" in general, namely their part in society as a whole.

A look at resent history shows that revolutions are engineered. they dont just happen. And when they ignite, there is a vacuum of sorts--the air is ripe for change, but no one knows how to run the ship! Now ask yourself, if there have been revolutions in the past, why arent we in a better situation now? Anyone see a pattern?

Revolution is a business, but I dont think many have read that book. Such is life!

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by eboyd

 

I understand what you are saying. Quality of life differs among people, some feel that hard work, freedom to work as much or as little as possible and being happy with the results you produce for yourself or having the opportunity to own your own business without gov't or union interference is ideal. Others would rather share ownership and share rewards, with no personal control...sink or swim together...pool everything then divide it up for all, is ideal. But if all don't participate but get the rewards anyway ie welfare, healthcare etc...that leads to resentment. eventually the workers will rise up against the union or government and demand freedom. that is why I believe private ownership, personal responsibility and freedom will always make a comeback.

Also, the information about the top 7 being socialist were from left leaning, socialist leaning publications.

edit on 8-2-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)

again, you don't seem to understand what socialism means. as a socialist myself i will tell you that there are no currently existing socialist countries. the principles of socialism were never actually put into practice in countries commonly associated with the terms socialism or communism. the definition is simple:

socialism - workers' control over the means of production.

there is nothing more to it. there have been several socialist projects that have actually worked on this principle such as the Spanish Revolution, the Ukrainian Free Territory, the Israeli Kibbutzim, Freetown Christiania in Copenhagen, etc. also, worker cooperatives such as Mondragon and the Workers' Self-Management movement in Argentina exemplify socialism.