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.
Originally posted by NoHierarchy
Stop feigning your laughter. You are terribly uneducated on these matters and I suggest you educate yourself before you speak further. As others have pointed out, you've demonstrated serious lacking in this debate.
Originally posted by aravoth
You are incorrect, Political and economic systems are inseparable. One will always effect the other. Don't marginalize the discussion just because you are confused.
If fascism is collusion of corporation and state, and capitalism is the absence of collusion, how could a person possibly believe in, or practice both?
Originally posted by NoHierarchy
HE WAS A FASCIST.
A fascist is a right-wing authoritarian.
A state-communist is a left-wing authoritarian.
EITHER ONE IS GOING TO KILL DISSIDENTS AND SEIZE PROPERTY/POWER. End of story.
Originally posted by aravoth
Originally posted by NoHierarchy
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Originally posted by NoHierarchy
Oh shut up...
If anyone's a danger it's you right-wingers... arming yourselves to hunt down liberals... JUST LIKE HITLER DID. But no worries. we'll NEVER LET THAT HAPPEN AGAIN. If brown-shirts start storming around (I don't care if they're right or left wing) at the behest of any truly authoritarian government or economic system, they will be snuffed out. Stop attacking people who should be your allies, it's despicable and stupid.
Try to shut me up...
BTW, talking about Hitler...
"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler
(Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)
constitutionalistnc.tripod.com...
I wonder where I heard that before?..
But of course socialists are going to TRY to claim "he wasn't a real socialist" but he was...
FACTS speak for themselves...
Has it not already been stated MULTIPLE TIMES that Hitler used a budding Socialist revolution to gain power and then KILLED OFF ALL OF THE SOCIALIST-LEANING PARTY MEMBERS then instituted a FAR RIGHT-WING FASCIST GOVERNMENT and actively hunted down socialists, liberals, communists, jews, gays, union members, and so on??
Well back then right wing was essentially todays left wing, you see over time the left wing has polluted the meaning of words to hide the fact that they are psychopaths.
Originally posted by aravoth
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by aravoth
yeah, now Hitler is a capitalist? ROFL he used Jewish slaves to work in state sponsored corporations, and that makes him a capitalist?
The private ownership of the means of production is capitalism, he supported private ownership which is a part of fascism. Fascism is a political system where government, privately owned corporations, and military work together to control the economy.
First Hitler is a capitalist, then he's a fascist, those are two completely opposite ideologies, fracken pick one and make up your mind.
He was BOTH, one is a political system, the other is an economic system. You figure out which is which
Mussolini created the system of Fascism, and Italy practiced corporatism. The state came before the individual. He believed the state should be the master, not the people. It is in complete contrast to socialism, where the people have the power, not the state.
You are incorrect, Political and economic systems are inseparable. One will always effect the other. Don't marginalize the discussion just because you are confused.
If fascism is collusion of corporation and state, and capitalism is the absence of collusion, how could a person possibly believe in, or practice both?
edit on 2-2-2012 by aravoth because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by aravoth
Originally posted by NoHierarchy
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Originally posted by NoHierarchy
WRONG AGAIN.
Republicans of THAT DAY AND AGE in American history were SOCIALIST-LEANING.
The DEMOCRATS were SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS and are considered to be conservative and largely racist.
DO YOUR HOMEWORK.
The BS leftwingers try to tell themselves to twist the truth... WOW...
"Republicans were socialist-leaning"
I guess that's why they wrote the Constitution of the United States huh?...
Do you forget that the constitution states for example EVERY individual has the right to private property?...
Is that a tenet of socialism?...
How can you not be ignorant of history, socialism, and the Constitution of the Republic of these United States making claims like that?...
edit on 2-2-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)
Stop feigning your laughter. You are terribly uneducated on these matters and I suggest you educate yourself before you speak further. As others have pointed out, you've demonstrated serious lacking in this debate.
what debate? the only thing you have been saying is, "you don't know the facts", or "you are lacking", or, "you don't understand history".
You aren't debating anything, you're just considering people that don't agree with you as moronic. And you are quoting each other to prove your points, it's hilarious.
Originally posted by NoHierarchy
Originally posted by aravoth
Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
Again if you read through this damn thread you will see this have been covered already.
The right appropriated left wing terms to gain support from the people who were heavily left wing at that time. Hitler was lying about being a socialist in that speech.
Hitler supported capitalism, no workers ever owned the means of production in Nazi Germany. He was a fascist, he was in league with Mussolini and Franco, he put socialists in the camps, he fought the socialist in Spain.
You are the one that doesn't understand the history of Europe.
"I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative" Hitler.
edit on 2/2/2012 by ANOK because: typo
yeah, now Hitler is a capitalist? ROFL he used Jewish slaves to work in state sponsored corporations, and that makes him a capitalist?
First Hitler is a capitalist, then he's a fascist, those are two completely opposite ideologies, fracken pick one and make up your mind.
You say Hitler lied about being a socialist. Then you post a quote about him protecting private property. But you apparently missed the part where he seized private businesses, and all private property owned by people like me. You think he did that because he was....what..... "insisting on protecting private property"?
your entire argument is crap.edit on 2-2-2012 by aravoth because: (no reason given)
HE WAS A FASCIST.
A fascist is a right-wing authoritarian.
A state-communist is a left-wing authoritarian.
EITHER ONE IS GOING TO KILL DISSIDENTS AND SEIZE PROPERTY/POWER. End of story.
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Originally posted by NoHierarchy
HE WAS A FASCIST.
A fascist is a right-wing authoritarian.
A state-communist is a left-wing authoritarian.
EITHER ONE IS GOING TO KILL DISSIDENTS AND SEIZE PROPERTY/POWER. End of story.
And Fascism is a LEFTWING ideology...
I already showed what WIKIPEDIA has to say about socialism and that even "cooperative enterprises" as in BUSINESSES/CORPORATIONS can be in control of a nation, and that is FASCISM...
Nice try but you fail YET AGAIN...
edit on 2-2-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by mastahunta
I think you are confused... Capitalism is a form of competition, what makes you think that
some capitalists won't attempt and succeed in using any Government, law or order to aide
in their efforts and out fox competitors? Your entire premise hinges on the idea that
capitalism is naturally devoid of collusion, trickery or influence peddling.
Originally posted by ANOK
I agree that might be somewhat true but, an economic system is not tied to any specific political system. For example socialism can be practiced under state control, or be libertarian (libertarian socialism/anarchism). Capitalism can be practiced in a fascist, or democratic system.
Originally posted by ANOK
How is capitalism the absence of collusion? Again 'private ownership of the means of production' is the definition of capitalism, and fascism supports private ownership, not worker ownership, which is socialism.
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Originally posted by NoHierarchy
Actually... the progressive tax is a very common-sense and decent mode of taxation. It makes sense. Not only that but the courts have upheld it as constitutional on at least a couple occasions, it is also bolstered by the 16th Amendment to the Constitution:
Which goes against Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: Which states...
The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises...but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States...
As for the Supreme Court... it has been bought and paid for thanks to leftwingers, not that long ago they ruled that corporations have the same rights as people...
Originally posted by NoHierarchy
Not to mention, Adam Smith, the "father" of Capitalism, seems to have contributed to the invention of the progressive tax.
And no... it's not part of the "One world order".
The founding fathers all differed in some opinions...
Some thought a central bank was necessary, others thought it was a bad idea... What counts is what they had originally agreed on...
Originally posted by aravoth
Originally posted by NoHierarchy
Originally posted by aravoth
Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
Damn look at your own signature...
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams
Liberty was a left wing term until the 1950's, when it was appropriated by the right in America.
Understanding history will help you understand the rest. Samuel Adams was an early left-wing thinker.
"Were the talents and virtues which heaven has bestowed on men given merely to make them more obedient drudges, to be sacrificed to the follies and ambition of a few? Or, were not the noble gifts so equally dispensed with a divine purpose and law, that they should as nearly as possible be equally exerted, and the blessings of Providence be equally enjoyed by all?
Classic early left wing thinking, before left wing ideas were fully realised that became socialism. Again you are confused because you are taught socialism is something other than the original definition. Socialism as it is seen now by the mainstream, is not the way people saw it in the 1700, 1800 and early 1900's.
"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." --Samuel Adams
Which is what capitalism has done. That is not what Sam Adams was advocating.
EVERY SINGLE PERSON WITH ANY HISTORICAL INFLUENCE AT ALL WAS A LEFT WING THINKER TO YOU!
And liberty was NOT a left wing term, that is by far the most stupid thing you have said today. Like the "left" invented the word..... good god you people are insane.
Do your homework:
en.wikipedia.org...
Yep... Libertarianism was LEFT-WING and utilized by Anarchists and... GASP!... even Anarcho-COMMIES!!!
RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!
So let me get this straight, Anarchists, and classic liberals, people who wanted the absolute least amount of government possible, are the same people you are comparing with todays left wing?
I get it, you're confused... it's ok, there are a lot of people like you out there.
Originally posted by aravoth
Originally posted by mastahunta
I think you are confused... Capitalism is a form of competition, what makes you think that
some capitalists won't attempt and succeed in using any Government, law or order to aide
in their efforts and out fox competitors? Your entire premise hinges on the idea that
capitalism is naturally devoid of collusion, trickery or influence peddling.
Nothing makes me think they won't attempt that, but if they did, it would be fascism, not capitalism.
Originally posted by NoHierarchy
Originally posted by aravoth
Originally posted by NoHierarchy
Originally posted by aravoth
Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
Damn look at your own signature...
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams
Liberty was a left wing term until the 1950's, when it was appropriated by the right in America.
Understanding history will help you understand the rest. Samuel Adams was an early left-wing thinker.
"Were the talents and virtues which heaven has bestowed on men given merely to make them more obedient drudges, to be sacrificed to the follies and ambition of a few? Or, were not the noble gifts so equally dispensed with a divine purpose and law, that they should as nearly as possible be equally exerted, and the blessings of Providence be equally enjoyed by all?
Classic early left wing thinking, before left wing ideas were fully realised that became socialism. Again you are confused because you are taught socialism is something other than the original definition. Socialism as it is seen now by the mainstream, is not the way people saw it in the 1700, 1800 and early 1900's.
"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." --Samuel Adams
Which is what capitalism has done. That is not what Sam Adams was advocating.
EVERY SINGLE PERSON WITH ANY HISTORICAL INFLUENCE AT ALL WAS A LEFT WING THINKER TO YOU!
And liberty was NOT a left wing term, that is by far the most stupid thing you have said today. Like the "left" invented the word..... good god you people are insane.
Do your homework:
en.wikipedia.org...
Yep... Libertarianism was LEFT-WING and utilized by Anarchists and... GASP!... even Anarcho-COMMIES!!!
RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!
So let me get this straight, Anarchists, and classic liberals, people who wanted the absolute least amount of government possible, are the same people you are comparing with todays left wing?
I get it, you're confused... it's ok, there are a lot of people like you out there.
You're either trolling or you have no common sense.
I'm not confused, but your logic is confusing and silly.
I'm saying today's left-wing, the ACTIVIST left-wing is libertarian in many ways, ESPECIALLY folks that you're debating with here. Historically, libertarianism is liberalism is left-wing up until the laissez-faire crowd stole the term and forced it into the lexicon as their own.
Originally posted by NoHierarchy
*slaps head*
WHAT?!?
Oh my god you are seriously mixed up...
Corporate personhood was voted by RIGHT-WING AND CAPITALIST BARONS AND THEIR GOVERNMENT LACKEYS. CORPORATE PERSONHOOD IS BEING ATTACKED BY THE LEFT RIGHT NOW. STOP BEING A REVISIONIST AND TRYING TO RE-WRITE HISTORY.
And if you actually READ THE LINKS I PROVIDED, you'd find explanations as to how the progressive tax is constitutional. Each bracket is taxed UNIFORMLY, but each income bracket is at a different tax level. Please do your homework, how many times must I tell you??
Originally posted by aravoth
Originally posted by NoHierarchy
Originally posted by aravoth
Originally posted by NoHierarchy
Originally posted by aravoth
Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
Damn look at your own signature...
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams
Liberty was a left wing term until the 1950's, when it was appropriated by the right in America.
Understanding history will help you understand the rest. Samuel Adams was an early left-wing thinker.
"Were the talents and virtues which heaven has bestowed on men given merely to make them more obedient drudges, to be sacrificed to the follies and ambition of a few? Or, were not the noble gifts so equally dispensed with a divine purpose and law, that they should as nearly as possible be equally exerted, and the blessings of Providence be equally enjoyed by all?
Classic early left wing thinking, before left wing ideas were fully realised that became socialism. Again you are confused because you are taught socialism is something other than the original definition. Socialism as it is seen now by the mainstream, is not the way people saw it in the 1700, 1800 and early 1900's.
"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." --Samuel Adams
Which is what capitalism has done. That is not what Sam Adams was advocating.
EVERY SINGLE PERSON WITH ANY HISTORICAL INFLUENCE AT ALL WAS A LEFT WING THINKER TO YOU!
And liberty was NOT a left wing term, that is by far the most stupid thing you have said today. Like the "left" invented the word..... good god you people are insane.
Do your homework:
en.wikipedia.org...
Yep... Libertarianism was LEFT-WING and utilized by Anarchists and... GASP!... even Anarcho-COMMIES!!!
RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!
So let me get this straight, Anarchists, and classic liberals, people who wanted the absolute least amount of government possible, are the same people you are comparing with todays left wing?
I get it, you're confused... it's ok, there are a lot of people like you out there.
You're either trolling or you have no common sense.
I'm not confused, but your logic is confusing and silly.
I'm saying today's left-wing, the ACTIVIST left-wing is libertarian in many ways, ESPECIALLY folks that you're debating with here. Historically, libertarianism is liberalism is left-wing up until the laissez-faire crowd stole the term and forced it into the lexicon as their own.
So the activist arm of the people I debate here want me to pay off their student loans? What is libertarian about that?