This was off topic in another thread but thought it might be of interest if framed as a separate thread A socialist can explain about socialisms aims the reply - THIS COUNTRY ISN'T A SOCIALIST REPUBLIC It isn’t, but maybe it would be better off it was? Let us talk about it? ** A socialist can talk of financial reform the reply OUR BANKS AREN'T SOCIALIZED But maybe they would be better if they were. Let us talk about? ** A socialist can explain there ideas on education and employment the reply - EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT??? YOU MEAN INDOCTRINATION AND SLAVERY? Please explain what you mean are you saying all education and employment is indoctrination and all types of work is slavery edited to make clearer
My apologies because I know this is not the direct topic of the thread.--However I find the word "socialism" has been twisted and turned into so many different meanings.In the US some people use the term socialism for anything that HELPS or benefits the middle class and poor(which is a good thing).--While the word capitalism now seems to mean anything that makes the already very rich, richer(a bad thing).
What has the government been able to run without running into the ground? I mean, everything government has put its hands on has been basically ruined. Since the Department of Education was established in 1980, the US education system has went from one of the best to one of the worst. Considering how "incompetant" (which is a misconception... they do what they do by design) the government is, what makes you think the government is able to run people's lives? Why should they? Since when has this become the purpose of government? Do people even ask themselves these simple questions? The presumed need for the government to control every aspect of a person's life is a product of media and educational indoctrination. There would be no presumed need for more socialism if socialism didn't cause most of the problems to begin with, which cause people to become impoverished and need government to "help" them by keeping them at barely subsistence level. The US has been heading in a socialist direction since AT LEAST the 1940s. (I would say since the early 1900s.) The more socialized things become, the worse off people are. Poverty and human suffering only increases, it doesn't decrease. Most people don't know what socialism is, they only believe in the utopic version of socialism where everyone is supposedly "equal." Socialism is simply government managment of people through the economy and other government-based programs (ultimately a militarized police state). But whenever you have manipulation of the economy by central banks that control the flow of liquidity and create artificially low interest rates, you are going to have problems that trigger the reaction in certain people that only the government can help solve the very same problems they created in the first place, which only results in more impoverishment and ultimately the complete erosion of freedom and individuality. Again, this is by design and is classic problem-reaction-solution.
Pressed Rat, socialism should not be pursued through the current government representatives or with the current government structure. In your post you always refer to "the government", while it's really "a government" that can be erased. A government can be a tool of good when it is truly representative of the people. In that case I feel that socialism would be far superior to capitalism. And you're right about most people not knowing what socialism is. What you described would be better referred to as Stalinism, government working for government. edit- and the youth has hardly been indoctrinated towards supporting socialism. It's quite the opposite in fact.
But if you understand the history of socialism and where it came from, you see it was never intended to work as its proponents have lead people to believe. The ideology goes back much further than Marx, too. It might sound good on paper, but it could never work in a way that leads to anything other than immense suffering. Some people will site the so-called "socialist democracies" of Europe as being a successful model. But this also gave birth to the European Union, which is transforming Europe into an Orwellian police state where its laws are written by unelected bureaucracies and rubber stamped into law without people's consent. So really it's just a means to reaching a much darker ends of socialism which is based on control versus "equality" and "eliminating poverty," as the cover story of socialism would lead one to believe. How do you erase "a government?" The elections prove that nothing much changes when a new face takes office. How do you factor in the banks, corporations and military-industrial complex that control the government from behind the scenes? And what makes you think they would allow a government to take power that serves interests other than their own?
Sure they have. You just don't realize it as such. The schools today do not really teach the essentials that were once required for a society to function properly as a world power. (This is why there has been such a progressive decline in American education and a dumbing-down of the people.) The essentials of reading, writing and arithmetic have since largely been replaced with internationalism, behaviorism and multiculturalism -- all tenants of socialism. It's about conditioning students to accept global governance and living in the "global village." It's not about teaching them to think, but what to think. It's based on molding individual personalities into a collectivist mindset. The one world government agenda is based on socialism, which is far different than the average, well-meaning socialist at the bottom of the proverbial pyramid believes. Aaron Russo, who was friends with Nicholas Rockefeller, was told that one of their goals was to convince people that socialism was really capitalism, which is exactly what they have done through the media and public school system. So today most of the problems are blamed on non-existent "capitalism," which is used to bring in even more socialist policies and more centralization of government power to enslave the people (under the guise of solving all the world's problems, of course). What the followers of socialism do not understand is that there is a HUGE difference between what socialists at the bottom believe, and what the controllers at the top implement under the guise of socialism (often sold as liberalism).
I believe we've already had this exact conversation in the past. You said that it was a tool of the elites, and I replied that an idea is not controlled by who created it. When I take an idea, I make it mine, and mold it to my purposes. It doesn't matter who thought it up. And for the record, I don't think the socialism I see will lead to immense suffering as you say. As for the EU. It's not socialism. I don't think that those countries can at all be used to accurately describe the nature or affects of socialism. There has never been a socialist country, with the exception of Russia for the first couple years after the revolution(and even that was far from the ideal). There has never been a communist country either. Another example of the corruption and misuse of these terms. How do we erase a government? Perhaps erase wasn't the best term, but what I was trying to say was that you can change a government however you like, therefore erasing the previous one. How to do it? Well I have no idea, how are you fighting all of this? The best I can hope for is that things will get bad enough that people will actually look for alternate solutions from what is offered in the media/government. And I'm not sure if you can write off elections as being effective measures of change. What would happen if I got elected? What if you got elected? A new face might stimulate a whole lot of change. Of course, this is all wishful thinking.
I don't know much about the history of American education, but could you site me a source that shows that the content of our education is actually less focused on the fundamentals than in the past. I've seen the data that shows that we're losing our status as one of the world's leaders in education, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we're being taught less. As for real education being replaced with multicultural education, that's absolutely ridiculous. There are no "multicultural" classes or anything of that sort in any of the public schools that I've attended, at least until college. I have no idea what made you think that, but it's not true. If anything it's the nature of our media that is creating a standard mindset, but not the public schools. I do understand that socialism is supposed to be spread worldwide, and I support that. That doesn't mean a one world government, but there are reasons that socialism would need to be global for it to prosper. For one, it is impossible for a less efficient socialist state to compete with the brutal efficiency of a capitalist economy on a world stage. That was seen in the USSR(not socialist, but it can be used as an example) as it tried to be a world power. It couldn't maintain production of weapons for the arms race, as well as produce sufficient goods for its own people. In choosing superpower status over its people, the USSR betrayed the whole idea of Socialism. Another reason that socialism should be a global movement is that it would end the destructive nature of competitive nationalism, which is unarguably a bad thing. Nations striving to out do each other has lead to imperialism, oppression, and countless unnecessary wars. Is that right? I wonder what leaders you are referring to, and how you know their thoughts. I think you're making a rather large assumption/generalization.
if the gov. is trying so hard to turn us 'socialist' why do they fight and stamp out every single indigenous socialist or leftist revolution in latin america, east timor and elsewhere? why do republicans consistantly vote to cut off funding to the EPA and FDA and other government organizations that are suppose to keep us safe and instead vote for bailouts/subsidies for profit making corporations. is deregulating saftey standards in slaughterhouses part of their plan to turn us socialist? its seems to me like they are trying to widdle away government control and put it into private hands because the government actually has the power to enforce saftey regulations etc. which make our live better put take profits out of private hands.
To be fair most Republicans did in fact vote against the bailouts, as well as TARP despite it being a Bush proposed program.
i dont like to make generalizations and i know the details matter but i still think my statement holds true. the right and left are not cooperating together to fool the american people into gov control. who doesnt notice all this anti-government rhetoric spewing out of the right? trying to turn important decisions like abortion and intelligent design theory over to the states, calling for the hanging of judges they disagree with etc, etc.
This isn't exactly new, state rights debates have been an issue, since well the constitution went into effect.
im just trying to say that its private interests, not conspiracy that corupts our government, there is no illuminati conspiracy of elites with secret symbols in robes and funny hats that sit around a round table in tall leather chairs instigating 'problems' just so they can 'offer solutions' by increasing gov. control. and not all socialist are fascists as pressed rat claims, socialism was not the beggining of our so called problems. need i go into the condition of the working class back in the days of unregulated capitalism? plus i would argue people are a lot more free nowadays then they were before pressed rats mythical utopia before the 1940's, in my own hometown there was a mass arrest of 400 people protesting ww1 and many of them died from neglect in prison. show me an incident of that happening to protestors of op. iraqi freedom.
People generally do have more freedom today, a lot of people especially on here seem to think not being able to smoke weed in fact nullifies all other freedoms, despite the fact on top of it 1/2 the people viewing this right now probably have weed somewhere in their room.
many different and conflicting private interests for example ford helping contribute to the nazi war machine. general smedley butler crushing indigenous rebellions in third world countries on behalf of united fruit company henry kissinger sabotaging the paris peace talks and extending the vietnam war an extra four years to help nixon get elected. kissingers and IBMs involvement in the overthrow of the democratically elected socialist gov. of chile to "eliminate the threat of a good example" corporations that lobby to remove saftey and enviromental regulations so they can make a better profit. politicians that ban books they dont think to highly of reagan secretly selling weapons to our enemies for the release of hostages to boost his approval ratings the bailouts idk theres alot of them why dont you go do some research
