The Chart That Scares The 1% The Most

reply to post by Leftist


I am a 1% and this does not scare me : ) actually I see this and am thankful for the money I have (inherited TBH and when I come home from deployments) to live where I do, because the criminals could not get near my house.

In reality the criminals will go after the weak and poor, look at what happened with the LA riots, did they goto the rich homes / areas, no they vandalized and stole from their own community...idiots...

Sniper...

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Anonymous404

 

Hmm.. Thanks for pointing that out. I will have to reevaluate my position on that book and also make a note to look into the source in future reading. Something I normally do.

Correlation is not causation as well, and I should probably review their material again.

Glad you read that book.

I think what some people do nowadays is automatically ignore/demean an author if that author is "from the other side", that is how polarized society has become. There is nothing wrong with reading from a source, as the choice is always there to accept or reject the information, agree or disagree.

Often times, there is a problem that needs to be addressed, and if we automatically reject "the other side" on an issue, we open ourselves up to failure to solve the problem. I can remember a time when people came together to find a compromise, meaning the solution was acceptable to both sides, but neither side got everything they wanted.

When Americans have been purposefully turned into "enemies"/two distinct camps, politicians can gain political power but in turn become submissive to whoever controls them. Thus, Americans vote, but corporations/money control those elected. And, by being divided, Americans cannot come together either to fight the problem or push their elected leaders to fight the problem.

When Newt Gingrich voiced that Democrats are "the enemy of normal Americans", when Tea Party Senate candidate Richard Mourdock says, "bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view", the nation falls further into war with itself, citizens suffering under an abusive, dysfunctional climate.

What politicians fear are citizens organizing, at grass roots level not astroturf, to fight against problems affecting citizens. Since 1980, such collective action has been demonized as being anti-American, Communistic, Socialistic, unless, of course, such organizing is done by politicians (Tea Party, ex) or through churches beholden to a political party.

Originally posted by Kali74

Fascist will never equal Socialist, they are opposite, get over it.

Is that what your buddies Hitler and Mussolini are telling you through your ouija board?...

You need SOCIALISM in order to have FASCISM... get over it...

"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...

You don't even need nationalism, since there is also internationalist fascism as your buddies at the UN want to implement...

“The governments of Europe, the United States, and Japan are unlikely to negotiate a social-democratic pattern of globalization – unless their hands are forced by a popular movement or a catastrophe, such as another Great Depression or ecological disaster“

These governments would not accept a "social-democratic pattern of globalization" unless their hands are FORCED by a popular movement (Occupy and Anthropogenic Global Warming movements), another Great Depression (the current GLOBAL economic crisis), or an ecological disaster (Global Warming been blamed on humans)

Democratising Global Governance:

The Challenges of the World Social Forum

by

Francesca Beausang


ABSTRACT

This paper sums up the debate that took place during the two round tables organized by UNESCO within the first World Social Forum in Porto Alegre (25/30 January 2001). It starts with a discussion of national processes, by examining democracy and then governance at the national level. It first states a case for a "joint" governance based on a combination of stakeholder theory, which is derived from corporate governance, and of UNESCO's priorities in the field of governance. As an example, the paper investigates how governance can deviate from democracy in the East Asian model. Subsequently, the global dimension of the debate on democracy and governance is examined, first by identification of the characteristics and agents of democracy in the global setting, and then by allusion to the difficulties of transposing governance to the global level.

www.unesco.org...

If you had been born during Hitler's and Mussolini's time you would be cheering them on...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


You know, throwing a bunch of random links and making every other word bold and big doesn't negate her point.

Socialism and Fascism can be mutually exclusive. They're on opposite ends of the political spectrum, even.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Fascism

Fascism (fæʃɪzəm/) is a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2] Fascists seek rejuvenation of their nation based on commitment to an organic national community where its individuals are united together as one people in national identity by suprapersonal connections of ancestry, culture, and blood through a totalitarian single-party state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through discipline, indoctrination, physical training, and eugenics

Socialism

Socialism /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system characterised by social ownership and/or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to any one of, or a combination of, the following: cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises.[2]

These are not the same. Not even a little. Fascism is a racist form of government that has a dictator at it's helm. Socialism doesn't even have to be a form of government, simply an economic model in which the people who work to produce a product or service own the company for which they work, also known as worker cooperatives. This has very little to do with social control and more to do with workers' incentive to see a company flourish and thrive due to a vested interest in such.

american.coop... This webpage shows a list of American worker cooperatives.

Originally posted by drwizardphd

You know, throwing a bunch of random links and making every other word bold and big doesn't negate her point.

Socialism and Fascism can be mutually exclusive. They're on opposite ends of the political spectrum, even.

And claiming that fascism and socialism are on the opposite ends of the political spectrum because you have been brainwashed to think so doesn't make it so...

How about instead of making asinine arguments in the face of facts you learn to make a concise argument on how the SOCIALIST programs implemented by Hitler were not socialist... Or how about his speeches were not socialist either...

How many branches of socialism exist with "different ideas on what socialism should be like exists out there"?...

Even in communism there is nationalism such as Stalin's view and ideas on communism being for the betterment of the mother land and it's people only...

For example, and again, just to prove that my arguments about Hitler being a socialist are not just "mine", here is what a libertarian political commentator, and activist Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. has to say on Hitler...

For today's generation, Hitler is the most hated man in history, and his regime the archetype of political evil. This view does not extend to his economic policies, however. Far from it. They are embraced by governments all around the world. The Glenview State Bank of Chicago, for example, recently praised Hitler's economics in its monthly newsletter. In doing so, the bank discovered the hazards of praising Keynesian policies in the wrong context.

The issue of the newsletter (July 2003) is not online, but the content can be discerned via the letter of protest from the Anti-Defamation League. "Regardless of the economic arguments" the letter said, "Hitler's economic policies cannot be divorced from his great policies of virulent anti-Semitism, racism and genocide…. Analyzing his actions through any other lens severely misses the point."

The same could be said about all forms of central planning. It is wrong to attempt to examine the economic policies of any leviathan state apart from the political violence that characterizes all central planning, whether in Germany, the Soviet Union, or the United States. The controversy highlights the ways in which the connection between violence and central planning is still not understood, not even by the ADL. The tendency of economists to admire Hitler's economic program is a case in point.

In the 1930s, Hitler was widely viewed as just another protectionist central planner who recognized the supposed failure of the free market and the need for nationally guided economic development. Proto-Keynesian socialist economist Joan Robinson wrote that "Hitler found a cure against unemployment before Keynes was finished explaining it."

What were those economic policies? He suspended the gold standard, embarked on huge public works programs like Autobahns, protected industry from foreign competition, expanded credit, instituted jobs programs, bullied the private sector on prices and production decisions, vastly expanded the military, enforced capital controls, instituted family planning, penalized smoking, brought about national healthcare and unemployment insurance, imposed education standards, and eventually ran huge deficits. The Nazi interventionist program was essential to the regime's rejection of the market economy and its embrace of socialism in one country.
...

mises.org...

Now try to DEBATE how the socialist programs implemented by Hitler were not socialist, instead of just saying, or making statements which imply "just because I say so, or because leftwing writers have been claiming so for decades"...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


1.) Because Hitler was more interested in social control than getting the economy on the right track.

2.) (and this is the main one) because state owned doesn't equal worker owned. State owned is nationalism, worker owned is socialism.

Were the workers in those "companies" the owners? No. They were, as your article suggests, "centrally planned," or owned by one person.

And emboldening statements in your link doesn't make them more correct.

Originally posted by Anonymous404
...

These are not the same. Not even a little. Fascism is a racist form of government that has a dictator at it's helm. Socialism doesn't even have to be a form of government, simply an economic model in which the people who work to produce a product or service own the company for which they work, also known as worker cooperatives. This has very little to do with social control and more to do with workers' incentive to see a company flourish and thrive due to a vested interest in such.

american.coop... This webpage shows a list of American worker cooperatives.

First, ANYONE can write anything they want in wikipedia, which is part of the reason why you will find differences in the definitions of OLDER, non-leftleaning sources on politics. For example the claim you find from todays socialists/closet communists, including wikipedia that "socialism is the means of production controlled and owned by the workers", when that is the definition for SOME of the branches of socialism, but not what the original definition for socialism has been for decades.

Second, in fascism there doesn't have to be a "racist dictator at the helm"... Mussolini wasn't racist, he was a socialist, who had known only socialism ALL HIS LIFE, but had different ideas on what form of socialism should exist... He drew ideas from KARL MARX on how social reforms lead to "violent revolutions" which is why he changed his mind and decided to enter Italy into WWI, which got him kicked out of the CONTEMPORARY socialist party.

Mussolini also saw that instead of using "class struggle" to fight the inequalities he saw, he thought that the answer was "class collaboration".

Does the fact that Mussolini had some different ideas than the "classic/contemporary socialists" make him any less socialist?... NO... Just like the ideas of Stalin to implement NATIONAL COMMUNISM in the U.S.S.R. didn't make him any less communist than Lenin, even though Lenin and Trosky wanted to implement INTERNATIONAL COMMUNISM...

Originally posted by Anonymous404

1.) Because Hitler was more interested in social control than getting the economy on the right track.

Really?, and all the left-leaning social programs are not interested in "social control"?...

Originally posted by Anonymous404
2.) (and this is the main one) because state owned doesn't equal worker owned. State owned is nationalism, worker owned is socialism.

Were the workers in those "companies" the owners? No. They were, as your article suggests, "centrally planned," or owned by one person.

Oh boy...here we go again...

Definition of SOCIALISM

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

www.merriam-webster.com...

Notice the part that specifically states "socialism is a system in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state"?...

Originally posted by Anonymous404
And emboldening statements in your link doesn't make them more correct.

Making NEW claims about what socialism is doesn't make them facts...

Originally posted by Anonymous404
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

 

1.) Because Hitler was more interested in social control than getting the economy on the right track.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

As we can't ask Hitler what his reasons were, we can't really make that determination.

Regardless, social control and economic change routinely go hand in hand. To say that he was more interested in one or the other becomes moot at that point.

Originally posted by Anonymous404
...
And emboldening statements in your link doesn't make them more correct.

BTW, my emboldening statements is an attempt at fighting the ignorance shown by so many members such as yourself.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Personal attacks, while cute, don't help the cause.

Also the form of socialism that we may want to see doesn't interfere with democracy and would simply put more accountability in the hands of the workers in a particular business or economic structure. As a matter of fact the cooperatives that I mentioned earlier are far more democratic than the other businesses that exist in the current economy, for the people putting their work into seeing a business succeed have more say in the direction the business goes.

Originally posted by Anonymous404

Personal attacks, while cute, don't help the cause.

That wasn't a personal attack, it was a statement based on fact, and I proved it.

Originally posted by Anonymous404
Also the form of socialism that we may want to see doesn't interfere with democracy and would simply put more accountability in the hands of the workers in a particular business or economic structure. As a matter of fact the cooperatives that I mentioned earlier are far more democratic than the other businesses that exist in the current economy, for the people putting their work into seeing a business succeed have more say in the direction the business goes.

What EVERY socialist dictator has ever claimed... 'Our NEW form of socialism is better, and for the people..." At the end they are ALL dictatorships...

BTW, care to comment how it is possible for "the workers" to own and control anything" when one of the main attributes of socialism and communism is ABOLITION OF ALL PRIVATE PROPERTY?...

Karl Marx
Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844


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

Private Property and Communism
Re. p. XXXIX. [This refers to the missing part of the second manuscript. - Ed.] The antithesis between lack of property and property, so long as it is not comprehended as the antithesis of labour and capital, still remains an indifferent antithesis, not grasped in its active connection, in its internal relation, not yet grasped as a contradiction. It can find expression in this first form even without the advanced development of private property (as in ancient Rome, Turkey, etc.). It does not yet appear as having been established by private property itself. But labour, the subjective essence of private property as exclusion of property, and capital, objective labour as exclusion of labour, constitute private property as its developed state of contradiction – hence a dynamic relationship driving towards resolution.
...

www.marxists.org...

In order to OWN or CONTROL something it must be yours...

In socialism/communism all the products of labour are also a form of private property, just like the view of some branches of socialism/communism that wives are property of their husbands hence their disdain against matrimony.

I'm not talking about turning an entire country into some nationalist machine. I'm talking about giving equal say in the direction of a company to those who put their hands and minds to work within.



And yes, calling me ignorant is a personal attack.


But, if we are to debate, then your arguments contain the following logical fallacies:

Genetic

This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone's argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit.

Composition/Division

You assumed that one part of something has to be applied to all, or other, parts of it.

Black or White

You presented two alternative states as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist.

The Slippery Slope

You made out like if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.

______________________________________________

Many people have come to understand the differences between socialism and fascism, and just because prominent historically bad men have worn a mask of socialism, doesn't mean they believe what they say.

Politicians, especially the ones you love to cite, will put on a mask that is most pleasing to whomever they are addressing. This makes them socialists as much as sitting in a garage makes me a car.

Originally posted by Anonymous404
I'm not talking about turning an entire country into some nationalist machine. I'm talking about giving equal say in the direction of a company to those who put their hands and minds to work within.

Naaa, you are talking about turning an entire country into socialism, in which AGAIN despite the claim that "the worker's own the mean and production" they can't simply because in order to OWN and CONTROL anything you must OWN IT...

BTW, India is a very socialist country...how is it going for them?... Not to mention that every communist nation is also socialist... Every one of them seem to be "working for the people right"?... Oh wait, "let's blame capitalism" for what "socialism/communism" have been doing...

Originally posted by Anonymous404
And yes, calling me ignorant is a personal attack.

Sorry, but you are ignorant for calling socialism "the means of production owned and controlled by the workers" when that is the definition for SOME of the branches of socialism. I even gave you an excerpt to what socialism really is, and has been for decades before leftwingers like yourself decided to change it's meaning...

Originally posted by Anonymous404
But, if we are to debate, then your arguments contain the following logical fallacies:

you are not debating ANY of my arguments... You just gave asinine comments which have no relevance whatsoever to what is being discussed...

Debating arguments would mean for you to present FACTS that contradicts the evidence I presented, which you didn't do...

Originally posted by Anonymous404
Many people have come to understand the differences between socialism and fascism, and just because prominent historically bad men have worn a mask of socialism, doesn't mean they believe what they say.

Politicians, especially the ones you love to cite, will put on a mask that is most pleasing to whomever they are addressing. This makes them socialists as much as sitting in a garage makes me a car.

Aaahhh...so just because you say so, they were just puting on the mask of socialism"... I get it... It doesn't matter that they implemented SOCIALIST programs in their countries... or that they FORCED capitalists/corporations to do their will "for the good of the people"... riiiight...

You should learn how to actually debate...

You have to wonder why is it that leftwingers can't understand it... If the "workers" OWN and CONTROL the means of production THIS IS CAPITALISM...

It is almost the same as shareholders/stockholders who own a part of a company. They are the ones who CONTROL AND OWN the company. Even if the "OWNING and CONTROLLING" is "SHARED" by the workers this means every worker OWNS a share or piece of that company/corporation... But since in socialism ALL PRIVATE PROPERTY IS ABOLISHED it means no individual (workers are individuals) can own and control the company/corporation...

This is the reason why in EVERY socialist/communist nation the STATE/party owns and controls the means of production, and they claim "they do it representing the workers"...

These are the SAME OLD LIES that have trapped millions of people in the past into believing "socialism/communism is the answer" just to wake up under ANOTHER socialist dictatorship...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Good post, it's good food for thought as you've made some good points there I'd not considered in the past.

Few shareholders/stockholders actually work for the company. Most are simply people playing the stock market.

When companies offer stock options they give such an insignificant portion to the workers that they literally have no say.

When the views of a MAJORITY of the workers are represented by the company as a whole, I'll agree. As of right now they're simply working to stay alive.


Also for a debate to be logical, it shouldn't contain so many fallacies.

reply to post by Leftist


The poor may think they are fighting the rich, but in actuality the rich are fighting the poor by using the poor to fight the poor.

The only thing the 1% is scared of is the poor deciding to stop fighting with each other. For now matters of race, gay marriage, religion, and nationality will keep that from happening.

Originally posted by conspiracy88
I wonder if their last words will be, "So let them eat genetically modified organisms"?

Ladies and Gentleman, I think what we are witnessing is the beginning of a revolution. It's a great time to be alive!

Tptb dont want a bunch of people running around happy and high all day,because they are not easy to control and the closest this country has come to a revolution,other that the revolutionary and civil wars,was the counter culture movement of the 1960's,but tptb and their cia mkultra mind control drones ruthlessly eliminated most of the cultural icons from those days,like brian jones,jimi hendrix,jim morrison,john lennon,janis joplin, marilyn monroe ect,ect and so a country filled with robotic tax paying slaves is what tptb really want and need and thats just about what they've got...