People have been brainwashed to believe that socialism is evil...

Originally posted by Cabin
The real reason behind this thread is the fact of the more capitalistic countries trying to brainwash their people in believing socialism is evil. As far as I know about the average American worldview or the average folks worldview around here, whenever something free or people-based is brought up, it is immediately labelled as communism. Round here news portals offer the chance to comment on the news. Whenever something even a bit socialistic comes up, most comments are bringing it down by saying: "Fuc*ing communists" (not exactly like that, but that is the point behind most comments).

I think that's really well said. A lot of people just won't accept it though. They think socialism means taking away their freedom, guns, bringing in the secret soviet/nwo plans, being a commie, etc.

It's sad, even depressing sometimes, and shows a complete ignorance on behalf of the people to do some basic research. Much easier to shout about evil marxist/nwo/commie plots than it is to spend some time doing a bit of research into what socialism actually is, and what different types there are, and how many countries they think have tried and failed at socialism have basically just been fake forms of socialism ran by fascist governments.

But if you point out that the so called democracy in the US, UK, etc, isn't really democracy but instead fascism disguised as democracy, they fail to see the irony of the whole thing.

The propaganda has worked very well indeed.

Originally posted by fishy6
People have been brain washed to believe that the govt knows whats best for the individual.

Hard to believe but true.

Whenever I see quotes like this one on ATS:

I for one love our Government and everyone who runs it.
I believe they know what's best for me and do not question their authority over me.

You really gotta wonder HOW can someone be SO blind to reality?

Originally posted by projectvxn
A free market based economic system is the only way a society that requires a means of exchange for goods and services, like money, can function.

Funny that, there is no example today of a developed country that has this free market based economic system you speak of, in fact there is no nation we can point to with such a system in place. So how can this system be the only option for a capitalist society to function if this system has yet to exist?

I am yet to find one developed country where a there is no socialist component, function in government. Not one. For all the talk about the "free markets" being the only way, conservatives, libertarians, can't seem to point to an example of one.

Good thread, I have always looked around at council workers with 50 people doing a job that 3 people could do, and a lot of other ''pure government ran projects'' and it's amazing how the people who work for these places even keep a job. I swear not one of them working hard, 75% of them just sitting on their asses.

Makes me wonder how everything else that's ran by government is so unefficient and it also makes me wonder about all that wasted money. I mean seriously if the same job that a government handles is done so overmanned and without any regard to time taken or costs involved then it really should be taken over by people who will run it efficiently.

Things really need to change.

Originally posted by LightOrange
reply to post by projectvxn

 

Socialism doesn't work in star trek. He was being sarcastic.

This is what I'm talking about when I say that people just parrot their anti-socialist rhetoric and do absolutely no research on opposing points. You didn't even do enough research to realize that this fellow is on your side.

Keep chirping, birdie.

edit on 8-3-2013 by LightOrange because: (no reason given)

I've done my due diligence on socialism.

The government control of the means of production is simply not workable.
Central control of complex organic systems like massive economies is simply not feasible. NOONE is smart enough to be able to control it.

The economy isn't a construct, its the people. Each individual giving and taking according to their wants and needs. Order for a central authority to achieve the goal of a socialist economic policy, control of the individual is required.

Whether he agrees with my point or not isn't the point. Star Trek is a great example of what people THINK socialism will lead to, in fact the level of liberty necessary to achieve such a society would
require far more libertarianism.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


I posit that the problems faced by societies today, economically, is a product of micromanaging what is at its root an organic system and self sustaining system. The people are the economy. The more central powers try to control the people the more the economy seems to suffer.

Each political system isn't evil.

However, there are people who take positions of power and use the system in the wrong ways.

Originally posted by projectvxn

Central control of complex organic systems like massive economies is simply not feasible. NOONE is smart enough to be able to control it.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

I posit that the problems faced by societies today, economically, is a product of micromanaging what is at its root an organic system and self sustaining system. The people are the economy. The more central powers try to control the people the more the economy seems to suffer.

edit on 9-3-2013 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

This seems like a case of "I don't understand it, so nobody can understand it".

Free market capitalism is not a self-sustaining system at all.

Left uncontrolled, it is "sustained" based on the exploitation of lower class workers, and the absolute ineptitude of the people making the most money to do any real work at all.

Also, I'm not sure that you understand that the fundamental failure of capitalism comes from banks, hidden agendas of all levels of government, and corporate greed. What we need is rules that control these things.

Socialism seeks to address the issue of corporate greed by eliminating the obligation for a corporation to try and monopolize their goods and services, push work overseas and utilize cheap imports over domestic goods, and regularly devalue their employees to increase profits

Letting people trample others freely is not a solution to the problem; we didn't start making unions and lobbyist groups because we felt like it, we did it because there were overwhelming flaws with the system that you seem to want to revert back to. People were being exploited, and breaking their backs for a wage that doesn't even begin to support their family. Hell, back then, in the era that many libertarians tout, we were really only successful because of the SLAVERY of an entire race of people.

What you're suggesting is social and economical regress based on ignorance, and there are far too many people parroting this tragic failure of human intellect. We're obviously not in a great spot right now, but if you blame socialism for that then I have to inform you that your are gravely mistaken.

reply to post by Indigo5

Disagree. "Societies" should be "Socialist" only as much as the most basic needs are met and not a drop more or less.

What does this even mean? Socialism by it's nature causes shortages of the most basic of commoditites, so you just ruined your whole argument in one fell swoop.

I would like anybodys response to the probable fact that what happened to the ussr a few decades ago is about to happen in the U.S.

reply to post by Cabin


Sorry to rain on your parade, but you are so wrong is not even funny.

You actually think that people like me wouldn't love to have free things as well?...

Heck, go ahead and give me a free house, free car, free healthcare etc, but make sure IT WORKS first of all...

You see, people like you are way too idealistic and not pragmatic at all.

You fail to understand that people are naturally like electrons. Electrons seek the path of least resistance. What this means in most people is that they would do the least amount of work possible. Heck, there is no reward or incentive whatsoever in working your butt off for 8 hours a day, so you might as well just work 4 or 3 hours, or even just pretend you are working your butt off...

I know most socialists/communists LOVE to claim that "capitalists are selfish" when the truth of the matter is socialists/communists are the true selfish people...

Yes there are quite a few of you who are too idealistic and you actually believe that "you want socialism for the good of all", but if you look down inside I am sure many of you are just thinking about yourselves. Heck, socialism itself is about controlling everyone with lies, and decepit about "doing it for the good of all"...

Do you people even listen to yourselves at all?... You all think you are right about everything, and want to control people's lives as YOU think they should live... An example of it is gun control. you don't even have to go too far to see the truth behind socialism. This website is FULL of leftwingers/socialists who want to control how everyone else lives because you all think "you know what's best for everyone"...

You want to deprive people the right to choose whether they can own and bear arms, just like you want to deprive people the right to choose whether or not they want to pay for your abortion, or the abortion of that woman you got pregnant...

Are there capitalists who are selfish? sure, but at least under capitalism you have the choice to control your own life, and yes capitalism does allow you to control your life. The problem comes when the government/state takes control and wants to regulate everything under capitalist systems.

One of the main premises of socialism, all forms of socialism, is that private property is abolished. Since there is no way for 30 million to 350 million people to own an entire company and all have a say on how to run such a company, instead the state/government, ran by a few who claim to represent the socialist mayority, control everything, and this is where the problem comes.

For crying outloud, just take a look at "unions"... EVEN UNIONS HAVE LEADERS, yet unions are a leftwing/socialist idea... If you want to be represented by a union you not only have to pay their fees, but you have to vote HOW THEY WANT YOU TO VOTE... You have to be a Democrat, if not a socialist/communist...

Not to mention that the biggest corporation in the world was created, and implemented by progressive Democrats in the U.S. in 1913 known as the Feds, as well as the IRS with it's "progressive taxes"...

I know socialists and even communists LOVE to claim that "ancient tribes lived in socialist societies", but the truth is that you haven't thought it over. In reality ALL ancient tribes and native people have had, or have a hierarchy. Sometimes that hierarchy is defined by strength, or age, or both.

The native people of the Americas had elder people whom the younger warriors would listen to and decide what course to take according to experience, and btw, sorry to rain in the parade of the socialists/communists, but even in these tribes people had private property. If a man was to marry a woman he had to show his love by pretty much buying her with possessions, from hides, to horses. The concept of private property wasn't invented by western society, it has existed for as long as mankind has lived on this planet.

Even in nature, all animals and insects who live in groups have a hierarchy, do you know why?...

Have you EVER mulled over what would happen if you put 30 million to 350 million people together and they ALL had to argue how to better run a country?... Can you even fathom even a small number like 30 million people all together discussing how to run the country?... Nothing would ever be done...

If you look deep inside a mayority of socialists/communists do not believe in these systems out of "wanting to give to others", but rather because they want to take free stuff, and they want to force people into doing what "socialists/communists think is best for everyone"...

I know that in any society there must be SOME rules, but I also believe that every man and woman shold be able to decide how to live their lives without having some "higher than thou" dictator, or dictators wannabes telling them and forcing them how to live their lifes...

reply to post by Cabin


I will try to be respectful in rebuttal. Who pays for this free food? This free basics that you feel should be automatic? Every time people vote for some "free" gov't service, it is at a price. Freedom of choice is an example that suffers first.

Quality in the next. Free food will lead, eventually, to a forced diet. Once one is dependent on a free service, the next step is control of that service. Limits on volume, quality, variety...even frequency of eating all becomes part of the control process that is inevitable.

People living on the streets is a regional issue , not a federal one. Freedom is choice, it is NOT "free".."no cost". Not the same creatures at all.

Socialism is merely a wealth redistribution system that requires capitalism to fund that redistribution.Simple!

Those who would take away my properties, monies and choices are in my view EVIL. THIEVES. LIARS.

Consider the possiblity it is not us who are brainwashed but the opposite.....

reply to post by LightOrange

Letting people trample others freely is not a solution to the problem; we didn't start making unions and lobbyist groups because we felt like it, we did it because there were overwhelming flaws with the system that you seem to want to revert back to.

That's really interesting you should say that because public unions and govt workers in the US are getting paid higher than the private sector and with my tax dollars out of my paycheck. They are stealing from me.

Socialism by it's nature causes shortages of the most basic of commoditites

Socialist countries in Europe generally have high standards of living compared to much of the world, so your point is wrong.

A hybrid system, sort of like what we have (or used to) is probably best.

Originally posted by Druscilla
...
Socialism, however, aint bad.

Really?... Tell that to the 120 million to 140 million people murdered under socialist systems in the past 87-90 years...

Tell that to the millions more put in gulags, and indoctrination camps because they wouldn't become "good socialists"...

Originally posted by Druscilla
Anyone wants to yell about it can pull their children out of PUBLIC School, which is a very very very Socialist program.

First of all, in case you didn't know people have options other than public schools, and you don't have to be rich to choose to take your child off the public school system... Not to mention that this claim that the public system is socialist is just a myth... But it is getting closer, and closer to being a socialist program as leftwingers are moving more and more into not allowing parents the choice to home school their children, or put them in for example a religious school...

Originally posted by Druscilla
They can also sign off to never ever ever dip into SOCIAL Security once they get old.

Social security is NOT SOCIALIST... The word social doesn't mean socialist... You should learn the difference... The way social security was set up originally was, and up to a point still is similar to a bank account... You put in a certain amount of money, the social security system invests that money, and when you retire you are paid depending on the years you worked and how much you earned while working...

Originally posted by Druscilla
There's lots of socialist programs alive and well in the USA as well as other first world countries all over that make for excellent systems.

I am sure you would also love to claim that socialists invented ice cream as well...

Originally posted by Druscilla
Typically, however, it's under-educated ignorance that brings about blind hatred toward such systems.

WRONG... it is actually the oposite otherwise the main mantra of socialism about making even the poor people rich enough wouldn't be used to this day to lure so many people...

Originally posted by CB328

Socialism by it's nature causes shortages of the most basic of commoditites

Socialist countries in Europe generally have high standards of living compared to much of the world, so your point is wrong.

A hybrid system, sort of like what we have (or used to) is probably best.

We already have a hybrid system. They call it a ?mixed economy" in the textbooks. It combines Capitalism, Socialist welfare programs, and Keynesian economic principles(that's where the Fed Reserve comes in stimulating or slowing down the economy as they please(.

Pick up a textbook.

quoted from the article..."So no, it’s not a hyperbole to say the Banking System is One.

We’re not overstating the case when we say it’s just one massive cartel.
That the banks own everything, including all the major industries. Oil, Weapons, Pharmaceuticals, Food, Telecom and IT, etc. It’s all one massive monopoly. Controlled from the top down.

The Money Power is real and these Swiss gentlemen have done us a favor by crunching the numbers.
Questions remain. How do the CAFR’s of US Governmental pension funds and the like fit in this picture? How are the companies controlled if they all own each other?

However, the last few years we have seen conspiracy theory getting validated more and more everyday. People are still surprised, but that is only because they don’t understand human nature. People conspire to do just about everything. It would have been really surprising had there not been a conspiracy to rule the world."


The Few Banks that Own All
by Anthony Migchels on July 26, 2012
In the autumn of 2011 an already legendary study by a number of Swiss scientists revealed that a small number of banks controlled a decisive stake in the globe’s economy. The idea that the banks are a cartel and that this cartel controls the economy is now a scientifically quantified matter of record.


By Anthony Migchels for Henry Makow and Real Currencies

The study, called ‘the Network of Global Corporate Control’ was done by Stefania Vitali, James B. Glattfelder, and Stefano Battiston, in Zurich, Switzerland. The method was datamining the Orbis Marketing Database 2007, with data on more than 30 million economic actors (companies and investors) worldwide, including asset positions.

The study was published in the New Scientist, a highly respected outlet of mainstream science.

The results were interesting, although basically predictable.

Massive centralization
It transpires that there are about 43,000 companies that are Transnational according to the OECD definition.

There is a top 1,318 of them that seem to be at the center of it all. This core group has three important characteristics.

1. Between them, they generated 20% of the world’s income.

2. They own each other.
The Orbis database clearly showed that most shares of these corporations were owned by other members of the group of 1,318. This means that the biggest, most profitable and influential corporations in the world all own each other and are basically one massive cartel, or even monopoly. They are competing only nominally. Competition is sin.

3. The core owns all the other biggest 43,000 Transnational corporations.
These companies generate another 60% of the entire world’s income. So not only is the top of the business world one major cartel, it controls or outright owns all of its lesser brethren, confirming the idea of one incredible monopoly owning the entire world.

Besides these three issues with the core of 1,318, there are two more shocking observations:

4. 80% of the total control was in the hands of an even smaller group of 737 corporations.
5. And last but not least: at the very top, only 147 corporations directly control 40% of the total wealth.


Conclusion
See the top 50 of this list below the article.

As you can see from that list, they are all banks or other financial institutions.

So no, it’s not a hyperbole to say the Banking System is One. We’re not overstating the case when we say it’s just one massive cartel. That the banks own everything, including all the major industries. Oil, Weapons, Pharmaceuticals, Food, Telecom and IT, etc. It’s all one massive monopoly. Controlled from the top down.

The Money Power is real and these Swiss gentlemen have done us a favor by crunching the numbers.

Questions remain. How do the CAFR’s of US Governmental pension funds and the like fit in this picture? How are the companies controlled if they all own each other?

However, the last few years we have seen conspiracy theory getting validated more and more everyday. People are still surprised, but that is only because they don’t understand human nature. People conspire to do just about everything. It would have been really surprising had there not been a conspiracy to rule the world.


Related:
Understand the Banking System is One
Liebor, the Biggest Scam in History?
Take your money out of the bank NOW! (with video)

For this article I am indebted to David Wilcock.
1 BARCLAYS PLC GB 6512 SCC 4.05
2 CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES INC, THE US 6713 IN 6.66
3 FMR CORP US 6713 IN 8.94
4 AXA FR 6712 SCC 11.21
5 STATE STREET CORPORATION US 6713 SCC 13.02
6 JP MORGAN CHASE & CO. US 6512 SCC 14.55
7 LEGAL & GENERAL GROUP PLC GB 6603 SCC 16.02
8 VANGUARD GROUP, INC., THE US 7415 IN 17.25

reference : realcurrencies.wordpress.com...

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by LightOrange

 

Letting people trample others freely is not a solution to the problem; we didn't start making unions and lobbyist groups because we felt like it, we did it because there were overwhelming flaws with the system that you seem to want to revert back to.

That's really interesting you should say that because public unions and govt workers in the US are getting paid higher than the private sector and with my tax dollars out of my paycheck. They are stealing from me.

Not to mention that in order to be represented by unions, which are run by LEADERS, you have to be democrat/progressive, or socialist, or even communist, and you have to vote how the unions want you to vote... You can't vote Republican/conservative and be in an union, at least they don't allow you to and as part of their conditions you MUST vote leftwing to be represented by them...

But hey, unions are about "the good of the people right"?... As long as you agree with them that is, if you disagree with them you are not "part of the people"...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


The public schools really are socialist in the sense that everyone has to pay taxes toward their functioning regardless of whether they have children or put their children in the public school. Put your kid in prviate secular schools or parish, you still pay into the public school system. Senior citizens also have to pay long after their kids are grown and left the house.
But you are right, the Progressives have even further controlled the curriculum, installing all sorts of awful brainwashing and values clarification.

But i suppose under a fully Socialist or Communist system, one would not have the choice even.

"The richest people in the world own their own businesses. Massive wealth comes from massive leverage – of other people's time and other people's money." - anonymous

i.imgur.com...