socialism
i shit and i stink
Posts: 1,122
I'm European, so I always wonder why so many of the Americans here think socialism is such a heinous word - it's most often written on this forum in block capitals and the idea of anyone being a socialist is deplorable.
Surely it's better than anti-socialism, isn't it?
Surely it's better than anti-socialism, isn't it?
we're all going to the same place...
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Europeans are just a better adopted culture for socialism. Most Europeans live modestly compaired to Americans, and it would be hard for the average slob to give up his large house, gas guzzling SUV, and half their pay to taxes. I like the way Europe does things, but that works for Europe, not here. There would be a fundimental change in the way we live here....and I don't ever see that coming....sadly.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Thanks, I didn't expect a straight answer to my question but that is one of the simplist and most eloquent replies I've seen more. You've cleared the matter up, great post!
No.....thank you. One more thing I forgot to add....
Around half of American population would say that they are conservitive or "right wing" or some what center right in their political views. Socialism to them strikes a memory of Communist Russia, which scares them to think that we would go to that (which is not anywhere near the truth). The bottom line is that most Americans don't want the government to control more of their money then they already do. Money = "freedom" so to speak, the freedom to buy the things Americans want. Americans for the most part don't look at whats good for America, they look at whats good for them as individuals. Not all Americans are like this, but there is a large group who do want that lifestyle, and they vote. You may not have to agree with it, but thats what makes this country unique, is the ability to have a financial "freedom" to do what you want. Sometimes it works and sometimes it hurts this country. Call it what you want but I don't see it changing.
Where in Europe are you from?
Aaron Russo: Reflections and Warning, this was Aaron's last on camera interview before he died of cancer. Alex Jones has since re-released it with lots of updated commentary tagged in to help you see the big picture.
Aaron touches on "socialism" somewhere in this vast rambling information session.
I think the take away point on the subject is simply that "socialism" is little more than a buzzword for centrally controlled and planned (via central banking at the command of privately owned elitist wealth) government that uses a bunch of small worthless carrots to get the people to do what the billy club can't do.
Whatever is "offered" to you under the guise of "socialism" will be plundered back from you a thousand fold over through not only taxes, but loss of local sovereignty & autonomy, as well as loss of personal liberty \ individual freedom.
By way of elitist planned and controlled central banking collusion, the men and women at the very itty bitty top of the pyramid (the top 1%, essentially) have restricted (and continue to restrict) your personal liberties by simply denying you the right to live in a "free world" where will and ambition determine your fortune, and turning that world in to one where only those with the "right" political connections get the money, where the system is tilted wholly in favor of those at the top, and where the actual INITIAL FLOW OF CAPITAL is doled out in corporatist fashion only to the institutions with deep connections to "the establishment".
THAT is why "most" Americans are opposed to "socialism", because even though 100 years of social programming, disinformation, and ever tightening media ownership and official propaganda have weakened the American mind to an alarming level -- even though all of the "old timers" are now long gone -- even so, most Americans STILL retain a small ever-dimming collective memory of their countries true and rightful heritage of personal liberty and individual economic freedom.
"Socialism", by taking absolute control (albeit, in fashion most are too incompetent to understand) of the economy, deprives the individual of the freedom, not just to live their life as they please, but to simply even live in a WORLD where such a choice exists. If your entire social system is controlled from the top down, no one needs to put a gun to your head or exert brute militaristic force, you are already controlled and "enslaved", since the very fabric of the world you live in does not, by default, grant you "freedom", as it is being "engineered" right around you. THIS is what the creators of the Matrix were after. The machines were simply an analogue for corporatism itself. The Agents were simply the constructs of the system, the FBI, the IRS, the ATF, any authority which takes its orders on behalf of the corporatist institution itself is manifest in that movie as "agents".
Anyhow.
GO WATCH THAT INTERVIEW WITH AARON, ALL OF YOU.
His words ring so true, it is a shame he never got to complete "his plans" (mentioned in the 8th video above), which (as i gleamed from asking AJ on air) were to actually make a Hollywood movie about the Federal Reserve.
Unfortunately for humanity, Aaron never did recover from his cancer, and he never even got past early pre-production (ie. no script). Sigh.
RIP aaron.
Fuck "socialism".
If I opened it now would you not understand?
There are just so many Americans who seem to equate 'socialism' with, as you said yourself, "taking absolute control". Do you really think that Europeans are under that yoke?
I don't think that socialism, in the extreme form most Americans refer to it, exists outside of very few countries and there is no fear that it could ever occur again in Europe or North America. I feel, from the things I read on here, that it is just a word Americans use to scare each other and when they want to make lazy and startling objections to things they don't agree with, such as the updating and reform of your health system. They want to make it better for society and everyone starts screaming socialism, the debate seems to become very polarised, either you are a capitalist (and therefore an evil money grabber) or a socialist (and therefore should be dragged up in from on MaCarthy). Of course, that view I see is represented in the media and on web forums like this, I accpet that there is much more reasoned debate going on elsewhere.
However, living in a country which was behind the iron curtain, I have to say that the shit that happened after WW2 was appauling and should never be repeated. Socialism, in that extreme, is evil and people are right to fear its consequences. But then most extremes should be feared...
I think that there is room for socialist thinking within central and right wing governments when we are talking about things that genuinely do good, such as NHS care, free kindergartens and creches for all, etc.
Well look, i don't have time for a super in depth response, and i don't want to speak for "most Americans", but i CAN speak as AN American, and this is what I, personally, am opposed to when i hear of ANYthing being kicked around in the media\government under the moniker of "socialism":
Look around at the heaping pile of shit that the US Government has brought upon its citizens, in the name of reform, welfare, and public good. LOOK HOW WELL THEY HAVE FUCKED THIS COUNTRY UP!
Welfare is a breeding ground for unskilled, unmotivated, broken homes -- broken by design, i may add, checks given out under the restriction that a man not be present in the house.
Social Security is ANYTHING BUT. Its broken. WE HAVE PAID BILLIONS AND TRILLIONS IN TO IT, YET IT REMAINS 100% UN FUNDED. Go figure.
The very fucking banking system itself is the epitome of "socialized". ANY time a major bank is in trouble, with VERY few exceptions, it is bailed out and we are told to shut up and like our socialism. YET THE BANKS REMAIN FUCKED.
Public schools are another "stunning" example of the greatness that arguably well intended (i argue NOT) programs gone to shit under the beneficent hand of government.
In fact, JUST ABOUT EVERY "SOCIALIST" PROGRAM IN AMERICA THAT I CAN THINK OF SUCKS A BIG FAT ONE, WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT. Am i saying NO ONE is benefiting from them? HELL NO. Of COURSE SOMEone benefits, you have to throw a few hand outs to the masses to keep them quiet.
But, ON THE WHOLE, the inherent inequity of these programs, the debt they create, the wealth transfers necessary to sustain them, and the government manipulation required to make them "work" IS BLATANTLY HARMFUL TO THE OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE IN AMERICA.
When you start trying to talk to an American about INCREASING the amount of "socialism" in their country, they are quite likely to think about all the things that the government here ALREADY FUCKS UP on a routine and astronomically profound basis.
And don't tell me it is just because the programs are "poorly funded". What a hog wash. If there is one thing Obama HAS done good for this country, it should be that he has shown America how truly absurd our "budgets" are, and that they are used ONLY as a measure of social engineering \ control system for putting in to place ELITE APPROVED regimes for the United States. What THEY want funded, they fund. If it is unfunded, you can bet your ass it is likely INTENTIONAL. Why do i say Obama has proved that to us? Because he just doubled the fucking deficit and debt in a matter of months. You had all these bloody liberals screaming that Bush was running the country broke (AND HE WAS!) and yet their "Savior" comes along and DOUBLES DOWN!
If that doesn't show you that there is ALWAYS MONEY for what THEY WANT ... and what they want is a broken USA that must beg for funds and forgiveness, and a super wealthy elite owned banking system that is just happy to give the US that money, AT A PRICE (oh and how)!
So. Before anyone starts asking to heap more bullshit on the pile, saying "we just need to fix our priorities, and it will all work out", ask our self: why does Social Security remain completely unfunded and in jeopardy of bankrupting the entire country? Why are ALL the social programs largely fucked? Because all the government is EVER going to give you is a half rotted carrot dangling just out of reach. Their promises aren't meant to be fulfilled (hasn't Obama shown you all THAT yet !??!) they are just meant to get you to say "okay, sounds like a deal", only for you to find out some time later (or never, as some of this board proves repeatedly) that you have been utterly conned.
And again,
one of THE primary aims of all of this "socialist" chatter has NOTHING to do with these stupid health care "reforms", it is just yet another pretext to move farther and farther away from our LEGITIMATE sovereign Constitutional Republic and in to a Neo-Feudalistic Plutocratic Corporatist World "Socialist" Government that is run exclusively by the elite of the elite, vis a vis their self-owned globalized central banking system.
I realize that you all in Europe may be too busy eating your peanuts off the ground, peanuts that they toss down at your dirty streets from their mansions above, to realize that it is a sick sham, but i assure you it is. Just because your masters give you pretty little uniforms, with nice little accoutrement etc., and even call you by your first name, does NOT mean you aren't still a servant.
I am starting to realize the difference between Europe and America (and i suspect this is largely to do with Europe simply being thankful for being alive after WWII) is that Europe is already in the state of "the final revolution" that Aldous Huxley talked about in Gravity of Light. While Europe, through circumstance, and a healthy deal of manipulation (ya'll were attacked first, the plan for the EU was made first, a LONG time ago) has ALREADY GROWN TO NOT MIND (IN DEED, TO ENJOY) ITS NEW FORM OF SLAVERY, while many in the USA (thanks to a once celebrated heritage of liberty attained through violence at heavy price) ARE STILL QUITE SKEPTICAL and are able to see the correlation between new plans by the establishment increasing in number as proportionally related to their liberties and quality of life decreasing in inverse.
Its not too hard for Americans to see that for every new deal we have been cut, our country has been slowly sinking further and further in to a shit hole, all but yet sacrificed to the alter of world government. Perhaps Europeans -- having LONG had their world fucked up and turned to shit during "those wars" -- simply do not have the "luxury" of this perspective -- that is to say, the ability to see the United States slipping further and further down an irrecoverable hole, and left grasping for the TRUE reasons why this is happening.
I think many Americans ARE starting to piece together those reasons, and THAT is probably why ya'll in Europe are so confused about our animosity towards "socialism", which many here probably RIGHTLY view as just the next big "ism" to be beaten relentlessly over our head, in order to bash out any remaining patriotic sentimentality we may have had to our once glorious American heritage. I bet if you grew up as an American, you probably wouldn't like it either.
damn, i said i didn't have time for an involved response.
lol.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
LOL, never a truer statement.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by the electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US department of energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the national weather service of the national oceanographic and atmospheric administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built and launched by the national aeronautics and space administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US department of agriculture inspected food and taking drugs which had been determined as safe by the food and drug administration.
At the appropriate time as regulated by the US congress and kept accurate by the national institute of standards and technology and the US naval observatory, I get into my national highway traffic safety administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by local, state and federal departments of transportation, stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the environmental protection agency, using legal tender issued by the federal reserve bank. On the way out the door, I deposited mail I had to be send out via the US postal service, and drop the kids off at the public school.
After work, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to a house that has not burned down in my absence because the state and local building codes and fire marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all it's valuables thanks to the local police department.
Meanwhile, it sounds like the US government is systematically using social projects to oppress, deceive and get rich. Also nice.
Personally, I've lived in 4 different European countries and Poland is by far the worst as people don't realise how much better things could be. A lot of stuff that should be private and should be better is just accepted as being bad because, maybe you are right Drifting, there is an acceptance of such things because people are glad just to be here and have any freedom at all, even if it is restricted.
England is in a bad state socially but has great health care and so on. The Czech Rep was a nice little place.
Denmark, indeed all of Scandinavia, has a great standard of living, very few lower classes, wonderful education and extremely high taxes.
But in direct response to the OP, "socialism" is simply not legal here in America, for one-- at least, not at a federal level. We are a constitutional republic which is supposed to support individual liberty and self-determination, where we are best governed at state, and even better, local levels.
I posted this topic because I wanted to learn a little about why the mention of the very word 'socialism' stirs up such emotions with Americans and some of the responses have really opened my mind up to a lot of stuff I wasn't aware of or didn't really understand. Thanks, it's good to understand how you all think about this stuff.
I like the non-competitive idea, it's aimed at getting more 'underachieving' (ie- dangerously inactive/ obese) children into sports. In England the government has made swimming free for all under 16s and my little brother and his friends are not doing much more sport of the back of it. He has also joined a government scheme which gets him playign badminton for free.
The problem with private sports clubs in the UK is the subs kids have to pay each week. Football costs kids about 3 quid a week, plus a little here and there out of mum's pocket for drinks and stuff. So, call it a fiver a week and that is a lot of money to some people (regardless or not of what they would otherwise spend/ waste it on).
Also, some kids start, realise they are not the best and soon give up to goa dn sit on the sofa. National schemes giving kids free sport thrive upon the fact that all kids are involved and that they are not competitive and exclusive.
Good point, that is kind of the feeling I got from the longer mail from Drifting, it sounded like the US gov't just wasn't following through on some stuff that was all solid in theory. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Sports aren't for everyone. I don't think anyone should be forced to COMPETE in field day. Kids have phys. ed class all year round, to decide whether or not they like sports as well. If kids don't want to run on Field Day and be part of a team that competes to win, they shouldn't have to. But for the kids that do want to do it, let them. My point is, let everyone have their choice. In the end, that's my biggest beef with large, centralized government. It completely eliminates choice in EVERYTHING, and therefore creates monopoly and breeds inefficiency. It's authoritarian, the complete opposite of personal, individual liberty.
If people want the government to provide all of their services for them, that's fine by me. Do it in your own communities, not at a national level-- that way, everyone gets to have their cake, AND YES, EVEN EAT IT TOO! Man, I hate that expression.
Agreed. I think it could work for people who were determined to make it work. Therefore, communities COULD implement socialism as they see fit.
This is the United States. We are the most diverse, multi-cultural country in the world, and we're in our early childhood as far as our culture as a whole is concerned. Whether we DIE in our early childhood remains to be seen. What's going to keep us alive is putting the power to decide what's best for us back in our hands, and not decided at the behest of a corporate controlled conglomerate of a country! How's that for alliteration
We are the biggest MARKET in the world, and therefore are the most targeted by special interests? You want to beat them? Keep it gangsta. Take power away from the Federal Government and let our communities determine EXACTLY who they are.
They don't put a gun to my brother's head an make him go swimming, if he didn't want to he could go and eat frogs or play Xbox or watever it is 12 year olds do. There is choice, but if he decides to be sporty, it is free for him and for all, that is a great social scheme that is nationwide and government run at a national level.
As for school sports day, you are right, it's stupid and even cruel to make all kids participate.
Just because you don't believe the government can adequately provide for the masses doesn't mean that people shouldn't be taken care of. As a matter of fact, most of us believe that taking care of each other through the private sector IS building a better mouse trap. Charitable organizations, churches, synagogues, etc... are all examples of institutions that are put in place to serve the community, and are supported 100% by choice. Those that do a better job serving their immediate towns and cities will receive more membership and larger donations. If taxes weren't consuming enough of our income, there would be more time and effort to put into these groups that are at ground zero in trying to fix our communities, rather than some government officials who are nowhere near the situation deciding how much money gets shifted from one spot to another. I would go so far as to say that it's borderline unethical to allow government to provide an inefficient, ineffective "safety net" that allows people to take advantage of the system at the cost of those who are working hard to provide it. Our wages are our private property, and are forcefully taken from us to provide for many who refuse to do anything to earn their money-- and worse yet, fund wars, subsidize failure, etc... It gives the very FALSE idea that prosperity can be handed out, and only creates a larger pool for your hard work to translate into a policy that can cripple you, or a war that can kill you, or an agency that gives you false security about taking certain drugs, or a retirement that you will NEVER see, etc...
It's a point I keep making over and over again... There's just so many places for your money to get "lost" the farther up it goes in bureaucracy-- And if money was free, or it grew on trees, who cares? But since it doesn't, and you have to work for it, big government does not work. Not in this country. It wasn't written that way in the Constitution, and we're simply not Scandanavian just yet, as they have an identity, while our identity is an undefinable identity.
I didn't say someone forces your brother to go swimming. I can swim for free too! In 5 minutes I can go jump in the Hudson River, and that won't cost me or anyone else anything. "Free" public pools for 16 year olds aren't costing THEM a dime, but someone somewhere is paying for it-- probably your parents, or you. That's fine, that's England-- I don't know exactly how the government works over there, and you guys have a long history and culture to back it, and maybe it works for you there. If it was what you determined for yourselves, and you're happy with it, who am I to judge? The point of this thread was to discuss why some people freak out at the prospect of "socialism" in America.
Admittedly, on top of all the reasons I've discussed already, there are also a certain percentage of MORONS here who will be scared of any word simply because Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, or Keith Olbermann will condemn it with their bullshit. Again, that goes back to more people doing stuff for you that you should be doing yourself: THINKING.
ha ha ha...I love it...
In case those who hate gov't didn't know, Somalia has absolutely no Gov't...and that place is a wonderful paradise...
Sorry, I didn't intend to be rude. Of course, we pay for initiatives like that, I know that nothing in this whole world works on good will alone. I guess that the point you are making, as I understand it, is that socialism for the masses in America is a worrying thought for people, but collective social action and proactive members of society collaborating is a big plus - that's the hockey mums, little leagues, etc, etc that you all seem so proud of. I think that there is a great deal of community spirit in America, as I see from afar, with people getting together for voting drives at election time and so on (much more so than in the UK, I think). It seems you all like social activism but not the thought of any kind of ownership of public resources above a certain level.
Everything in England was stated owned in the good / bad (delete as applicable) old days, now it has mostly been privatised but regulated by watchdogs and other things. It is probably just state ownership without state ownership, although I can't be sure...
Just because you wish a lot of things to be different from the way they are doesn't mean bupkiss.
The point is we are given what they want us to have.
Just because you have some fanciful idea of how it COULD be,
that doesn't mean shit.
Just because a million people in the street think they are getting one thing,
that doesn't mean shit.
The elite in control of our system will continue to run it how THEY see fit.
I'm pretty sure that means you will NEVER be getting the brand of "socialism" that you think "could work".
Do you not see the blatantly obvious comparison to all the followers of the Bolshevik revolution in the Soviet Union? You think they were trying to have a revolution for mass political purges, an iron fist, starvation, and massive loss of rights?
For those who DON'T get the comparison between current wishful thinking, and history, here it is:
Some of the Consequences of The Bolshevik Revolution, known in Russia as The Great October Socialist Revolution.
People need to stop living in a dream world where they think the fanciful ideas in their head have one lick to do with the political reality that surrounds them.
You DO NOT hand over MORE POWER to someone based on A PERSONAL DREAM about how it COULD BE.
MY POINT REMAINS THAT IF A GOVERNMENT HAS PROVEN ITSELF TO NOT BE TRUSTWORTHY WITH THE CURRENT (& SIMILAR) POWERS IT ALREADY HAS, THERE IS NO REASON TO ASSUME IT WILL WIELD MORE POWER ANY BETTER!
At the stage where a government is KNOWN TO BE, AND OBVIOUSLY CORRUPT, you start TAKING POWER BACK, not handing over more under the wishful (and frankly asinine) notion that just giving it a little more discretion will some how help that government work more effectively (or honestly)!
Some folks around here are like the wife that gets beaten everyday, but swears to herself, if she just acts better, and goes and buys him a gift, he won't beat her tomorrow.
Learn to cut your losses, folks.
Not double down!
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Nah man, I didn't take it as rude. It's all good.
I think you pretty much understand what I'm getting at-- this statement that you made is the one that different people will give you different answers on:
Basically, anyone who cares about this place does like social activism-- in the end, it's really the only agent that we can all use to change things. As far as not wanting ownership of public resources above a certain level, this certainly holds true for people who believe in limited, Constitutional government here in America. There are certainly people who favor the opposite-- to me, it's as clear as day that it shouldn't be that way here in this country, but if groups of like-minded people want to organize themselves on local levels to manage their lives through government, how can I argue with that? So long as my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness isn't negatively affected, I really can't, and wouldn't want to argue with that. However, people who want more government never object to it at the federal level, where all the damage is done. This is where I become affected, and then it starts to screw ME, and other people who feel the way that I do.
I'm simply pushing for a system where everyone gets to rule, or be ruled as they choose. This is why the Constitution reserved most of the powers to the states. You can't have this autonomy without limiting the federal government's role to providing national defense, and little else.
BINGO!
Great point and well made, you can't chase rainbows or attempt a change based only on assumption. Personally, I think there are worthwhile parts of socialist government that could be implemented into other systems but the will to do so must be absolute and the implementation needs to not infringe upon civil liberties.
On your other point, I struggle to see any way that in a country as large as America people could possibly begin to 'take power back', where does that even begin? Things like the patriot act seem to make any form of political disagreement more and more difficult. In fact, it reads like an early form of carte blanche that the worst socialist governments in history gave themselves to keep things moving in the direction they wanted.