|
|
|
|
|
| | The Zeitgeist MovementPage 3 of 11 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11) | ^^^^^
I really don't have to step too far out on a limb to say the following........ Most of the "green movements" have at their heart a huge red socialist streak. I am willing to bet that when you were asked... "you really are naive, aren't you", she was finally showing her true colors.
Paul K | |
|
| The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/11/2011 3:53:32 PM |
I am willing to bet that when you were asked... "you really are naive, aren't you", she was finally showing her true colors.
Some naive people think humanity can improve itself
Some naive people think humanity can,t improve itself | |
|
| The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/12/2011 3:51:53 AM |
I really don't have to step too far out on a limb to say the following........ Most of the "green movements" have at their heart a huge red socialist streak. I am willing to bet that when you were asked... "you really are naive, aren't you", she was finally showing her true colors.
You are probably right. I think we all know how socialism ended. This whole Zeitgeist babble really reminds me of the 70s and 80s (I think you are old enough to remember that, too). I am from Germany, we had a home-grown terrorist movement, and the left wingers supported them big time. They would have embraced Zeitgeist, I am sure of that.
I think I eventually figured out what they were really after: total power, and that based on the assumption that the masses are stupid, and need to be taught. Well, the masses are NOT stupid, most people are actually pretty smart. That's why the green movements never really get a large percentage of the vote. | |
|
| The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/12/2011 2:03:50 PM | Hey Moon
You wrote:
"I think we all know how socialism ended."
Ended? Since when? The only thing that has ended about socialism is, well, nothing. If you think that socialism is a passing fad, you couldn't be more wrong. I have noticed at my ripe old age that there seems to be a certain personality type that has a necessity to control the lives of others on the premise that "they know better".......... ALL humanity is stupid except for the socialists who will arrange our lives as they should be. But, when you look at THEIR lives, their lives are usually a mess, to put it nicely.
The biggest "home" of the modern socialist movement is the "green movement". This is a rather easy sell, because it combines FEAR of the environment going down the tubes and an easy to sell solution...................... At least it is easy to sell to those with just enough education to be dangerous, usually about 10th grade level.
Fortunately, most people grow up and realize the truth. That usually happens when they have to start supporting themselves and paying taxes. Unfortunately, more and more are living in their parents basements, writing blogs about how their parents "just don't get it", and they are in their late '20's and late '30's, mooching off of their parents.
Don't think that the attempt to make socialism the dominant way of life will ever die, as it won't, it will only get re-packaged slicker.
Paul K | |
|
| The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/13/2011 9:52:32 PM | | Socialism is nothing to fear. What needs to be feared are denials of everything. Apparently these twenty to thirty year olds can get a job easily enough to support the cost of living these days? Hey, Paul are you living on another planet? Technology is cutting into lawyer's income...doctor's can be replaced on certain levels by the Internet and educated enough medical practitioners and this does not take into account those who had no access to higher education which is getting harder to get and even professors do not get easy tenure and well....Long live sensible and equitable solutions whether they be labelled Socialism or Free the flippin people that have to visit this hard nosed and dumb Earth. Hey, sir, some of these twenty and thirty year olds do not have the jobs that generate enough taxes to fill a glass of water. Duh. | |
|
| The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/14/2011 11:49:31 AM | Hey 60.......
You wrote:
"Socialism is nothing to fear. What needs to be feared are denials of everything."
You write that socialism is nothing to fear, then in the next sentence you write about denials? Then you refer to socialism as a
" sensible and equitable solutions"...........................
Again, I don't think I have to go too far out on a limb to say that this was spoken like someone whose total expereince with socialism was from a book.
Then you say that:
"Hey, sir, some of these twenty and thirty year olds do not have the jobs that generate enough taxes to fill a glass of water. Duh.
If you were to actully look at what the 20-30 year olds do, they DO pay a lot in taxes......... Lets say that they buy a car, EVERYBODY buys cars, lets say that they buy a new cell phone, or a lap top, or an I-Pad, or some ripped faded jeans, or a new surfboard, or gas for that car......... need I go on?
Oh, yeah, they pay taxes allright............... AND, they are beginning to see that there is a lot wrong with their current situations. Actually, they aren't the ones whom I feel sorry for, it is the next generation that I really feel sorry for. People my age will be gone, but the current 20 to 30 years are the biggest crop that age ever.......... they will see that they need to slow down the population growth process, and that when they are old, there will be a lot less people to support them.............. THATS when socialism will be realized to be the sham that it is.
Paul K | |
|
| The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/15/2011 9:18:23 PM | | Oh please, when was the last socialist government in the great U.S. of A.??? When and please do not throw Obama at me. He folded. Big time. Nope...it went horribly wrong with this damn notion that we deserve nothing unless we have something. Under these conditions those who had something but not money and toys ended up with nothing. Maybe its Karma or just the flippin stupidity. | |
|
| The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/16/2011 9:08:43 AM | Hey 60
The fact that there are a lot of those out there who see no harm at all in a little bit of re-distributing, in fleecing those who achieve. It is very chic to proclaim that there are a few people at the top, and everybody else is in poverty, that ONLY IF the right people were in charge, it gets old just repeating the same old crap over and over.
There never has been a notion that "we deserve nothing unless we have something"; that is a figment of your imagination. What there is a notion of is that if you work hard, play by the rules, you will have an opportunity to achieve. The problem is that there are those who never did that and they sit and whine about how the game is rigged against them, only the rich get richer, they will never get ahead, etc.
As far as obama goes, yes, he was only the latest who is doing his best to push us down the road to socialism. The analogy of trying to put a frog in hot water where the frong will jump out, and if you put him in cold water and slowly turn up the heat is very appropose here. Those that don't see what direction that howdy doody is trying to take the US are blind to it usually because for some stupid reason they seem to think that it is a good thing.
Don't worry, you have already won. The best that freedom lovers can do is slow down the process, as there are more people in the cart than there are pulling it, and this one will not end up good.
Paul K | |
|
| The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/17/2011 5:23:23 AM | Being from Germany originally, when I said that socialism has ended, I kind of referred to the end of the Soviet Union and its satellites. Of course you are right, the idea behind socialism is still around, prominently. I live in The Netherlands, a tiny country where socialist ideas are alive and well everywhere you go. I can tell you what this does: it destroys the dynamic of a society. You have millions of people whose only goal in life is to fly under the radar, work and contribute as little as possible, and at the same time try and get as much as possible for themselves, from the government and, obviously, others. The few who stick out their neck are crucified on a regular basis. I sometimes get in discussions with these people, and when I tell them that I live on the premise that you are entitled to NOTHING, and have to earn EVERYTHING, they look at me as if I were some alien trying to chop their heads off. They have not the slighest idea what it means to be responsible for themselves. The effect this has on those who really want to achieve something is that frustration sets in, since you are surrounded by jealous masses who surely do not appreciate what you are doing. Because it makes THEM look bad.
I lived in the US for a few years, and I visit as often as I can. Be assured, you are still lightyears away from socialism ! | |
|
| The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/17/2011 12:00:55 PM | ^^^
We are much further along than one would think, but it is very well disguised here. Now we have a president whose mentors where people like Ayeres, Alinsky, and others of their ilk, and if you asked 90% of population who and what Ayers and Alinsky were, or stood for, they would not know. this current president when asked, replied that he thought that re-distribution was a good thing, fully aware that there were network cameras everywhere. As a matter of fact, a poll was taken at Columbia University, which is regarded as the greatest school of journalism in the US.... Students were asked where the following originated from.... "From each person according to their capabilities, to each person according to their needs".... Over 2/3 of these dumbasses said it was from the US Consititution...........
Need I say more?
Paul K | |
|
| The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/17/2011 12:46:38 PM | The fact that there are a lot of those out there who see no harm at all in a little bit of re-distributing, in fleecing those who achieve. It is very chic to proclaim that there are a few people at the top, and everybody else is in poverty, that ONLY IF the right people were in charge, it gets old just repeating the same old crap over and over.
There are also many that see no problems with using their wealth and power to take advantage of the system and lean the playing field to their side, but yes lets all take a moment to pay homage to those poor wealthy few that are so oppressed and are forced to do without.
As far as obama goes, yes, he was only the latest who is doing his best to push us down the road to socialism. The analogy of trying to put a frog in hot water where the frong will jump out, and if you put him in cold water and slowly turn up the heat is very appropose here. Those that don't see what direction that howdy doody is trying to take the US are blind to it usually because for some stupid reason they seem to think that it is a good thing.
Well considering that the top 1% now control more money than they ever have and tax breaks have gotten better for the wealthier, I would contend you do not have a clue what you are talking about, unless of course you can provide examples of this.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit for below
If you think what is happening in the US is a trend towards socialism you really need to educate yourself a bit more.
Corporations now have more power than they ever did and pay little to no taxes.
The wealthiest have gotten wealthier while the poor have gotten poorer.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67046/robert-c-lieberman/why-the-rich-are-getting-richer
By Robert C. Lieberman
January/February 2011
The U.S. economy appears to be coming apart at the seams. Unemployment remains at nearly ten percent, the highest level in almost 30 years; foreclosures have forced millions of Americans out of their homes; and real incomes have fallen faster and further than at any time since the Great Depression. Many of those laid off fear that the jobs they have lost -- the secure, often unionized, industrial jobs that provided wealth, security, and opportunity -- will never return. They are probably right.
And yet a curious thing has happened in the midst of all this misery. The wealthiest Americans, among them presumably the very titans of global finance whose misadventures brought about the financial meltdown, got richer. And not just a little bit richer; a lot richer. In 2009, the average income of the top five percent of earners went up, while on average everyone else's income went down. This was not an anomaly but rather a continuation of a 40-year trend of ballooning incomes at the very top and stagnant incomes in the middle and at the bottom. The share of total income going to the top one percent has increased from roughly eight percent in the 1960s to more than 20 percent today...
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67046/robert-c-lieberman/why-the-rich-are-getting-richer
So if you are unable to refute this claim and 1000's more just like it I will assume you do not know what you are talking about and have other reasons for your dislike of Obama.
| |
|
| The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/17/2011 12:55:03 PM | rib bit
rib bit
rib bit
rib bit
rib bit
You are a perfect example of the frog who has no clue that the water is heating up......... Denying the slow gradual move to the left is easy, as now the water is just getting warm, and really is rather comfortable.
The real problem is that there are way too many who have fallen for your line of nonsense, and have given up before they even started. After all, if the game is rigged, why bother trying, and seeing that you can just sort of scrape along, and, oh yeah, reall soon now we will all get health care for free, and pretty soon, we will all be gauranteed minimum incomes, as they will soon be re-distributing all the money that all of those greedy wealthy **stards have, after all it is NOT FAIR how they got it. Even though they have no clue as to how that money was amassed in the first place...........
Yep, all is well.
Paul K | |
|
| The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/20/2011 1:33:01 PM |
Communism in practice means that citizens have no life and no identity other than as part of the state collective. It also means that the state has complete control over every aspect of everyones' life and everyone's loyalty to the state (and to the demagogue figure who heads the state) is absolute (often on pain of death).
This is an incorrect statement. Dialectical materialism is the study of the stages through which society passes. Communism is a classless society. Dialectical materialism proposes that man's perceived reality is shaped by a material base. Man's origins begin with primitive socialism of ritualized cooperation. The advent of the division of labor with the skilled craft gives rise to an evolving process of concentration of capital, feudalism, nacient mercantilism, primitive capitalism, capitalism, imperialism (with the wretched decline of the conditions of the workers), revolution, socialism controlled by the workers (marked by egalitarian distribution of control over production, and the withering away of the state to a classless society- communism. There is no state or centralized controlled as proposed by the poster above. Citations upon request. Thank you. | |
|
| The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/20/2011 1:35:31 PM | ^^
then (if you are correct) communism has never existed in the history of mankind. | |
|
| The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/20/2011 9:36:00 PM | | There is really only one sensible and just way to live on this Earth. A common good that supports all....not just the sharks ...and sharks are not only the rich. Just read an interesting article on a web site re: workers who produce all those fancy phones committing suicide and feeling the reel of hopelessness, so that all of you with your fancy phones can go on merrily. The man who wrote the article was a tech geek who questioned his conscience on this one. Of course the producers of these fine and silly and ultimately useless phones lived in a third world country. Socialism, captitalism and all of the designations are just flippin terms that ultimately lead to ....ego. Figure it out from there. The web site was arts and literature daily. com, etc. | |
|
| The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/20/2011 9:59:55 PM |
then (if you are correct) communism has never existed in the history of mankind.
It is not that communism has not come into existence. It is that the dynamic tension that gives rise to the progression of history has not yet reached that stage in each nation. Consequently, mankind has not yet reached that stage of development or way of being.
That communism of the post- commercial era, a crude term I use for illustration, occurs after the productive forces of capitalism have spawned the mega concentration of capital in each society. Of note is Marx's insight that the transformative moment from imperialism, through socialism, and finally an egalitarian free association does not occur globally but within each nation at its own pace.
Within dialectical materialism, the state withers away and free association of communism occurs at the end of that march of history. Marx and Engels discuss early socialist society with the equal distribution of resources and simplified social organization, which is swept away by nascient industrialization. An example would be many of the egalitarian, indigenous societies of the Americas or among the most recent to vanish the Dobe! Kung of Africa.
In dialectical materialism mankind is in the process of becoming. | |
|
| The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/20/2011 10:22:10 PM | | We are becoming less rather than more. This talking history has not proved anything other than the fact that people are individuals born into a space and not able to understand anything other than where they were imprinted. Live and let live is not honored or respected. We are the slaves of industralization and we need some big time levelling to understand just a simple principle. You need land in order to grow food. You need wisdom to control the madness. | |
|
| The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/21/2011 5:15:41 AM | Neither true Communism, or completely free capitalism (or any other pure ism, for that matter) has ever held sway over any significant area for any length of time. Plenty of people have CLAIMED to have set up one or another of those systems, and plenty have labeled someone else's system as BEING one of those from time to time, but that's more political semantics than anything else.
That's part of what makes it so difficult to debate these sorts of things in any valid way. For the folks who think Obama is the next coming of Karl Marx, anything he does that ISN'T a move to end taxes and fees for EVERYONE, gets labeled Socialism. People who think of the idea of socialism as more of a biological disease than the complicated and variegated general concept that it is, ALWAYS fear that it is on the rise, even if every person who SAYS the word out loud is imprisoned.
Personally, I have become completely convinced that 1) Communism can't POSSIBLE ever work, because it has no structure by definition (in it's true form), and therefore relies on a NON-EXISTENT version of human nature. Neither humans, nor any other creature I've heard of, guide their lives by seeking the best result for everyone and everything. That's why capitalism has always been more appealing to most, because it IS designed around the natural self-centric approach to life that is common to all.
I have a frustration with the folks who adamantly claim that ALL governmental effort to assist, or care for, or even simply avoid injuring the less fortunate is a form of "wealth redistribution", and that as such it is inherently bad. This is NOT because I support redistribution of wealth, it is because I can clearly see that those who have power always try to rig the game in their favor...to "redistribute wealth" in the OTHER direction. So sometimes it might be necessary to restore balance.
Simple example: ownership of property. As governments came into being in the distant past, the idea that any INDIVIDUAL could truly own any land in a nation, was eliminated as part of the general power-grab that all governments perform. By this, I specifically refer to the fact that there is NO place on earth, nor has there ever been a place with a government of any kind, where people are allowed to do ANYTHING THEY WANT with the ground they live on. Here in the U.S. for example, no one can EVER truly own land. If you stop paying your taxes on it, it will be taken away from you, so that means to me, that you don't own it, really.
Now look at the next level: in a capitalist set up, there are always rules about what constitutes 'buying' and 'selling' and 'earning.' The values assigned to labor, for example , don't actually have anything to do with the REAL value or cost of the work being done at all. If it did, then a given task would ALWAYS have the same cost or value attached to it, regardless of other factors.
The people who HAVE the money will always use the people who have the power, to help them make and keep their money. It can be easily seen in history, that again, human nature will NOT make them choose to do what's best for all, or even for THEMSELVES, in the long run. The mess related to derivatives and bad loans illustrates THAT all too well. Anyway, the people who have power are the ones who make sure that what ever value the moneyed people set for labor, MUST be accepted by those who DO the labor; not in the sense that they are forced to accept a given job for a given amount (though that HAS happened on many occasions), but in the sense that those doing the work aren't allowed to TAKE from those hiring it done, the amount they think the labor is actually worth, or even what it can be legitimately SHOWN to be actually worth.
In this sense, capitalism is rigged in a basic way, in favor of those with capital wealth, and against those without it. This can and does, often get out of balance, again because it isn't human nature to SEEK balance, it's human nature to seek greatest profit. Once the system GETS out of balance, it is bad for everyone in the long run. Therefore we occasionally will need to act against the built-up set of rules, to reset the system to a balanced state, OR allow it to go so far out of whack that it collapses into chaos.
Now, some capitalists (usually the ones who HAVE acquired a fair amount of wealth) actually LIKE the idea of a collapse into chaos, because they will benefit tremendously from that. Classic example: in an economic collapse, the value assigned to many things suddenly falls to near zero. Those who already HAVE a big bunch of money can then buy them up at far below their REAL value, thus becoming even richer from it, while those who DIDN'T have any money stored up before the collapse, will suddenly find themselves with nothing at all. Since the REAL value of the things (such as land) has NOT changed (in the sense that the land can still be used for the same things it always was), and only the artificial PRICE of them has, then wealth is, in such times, REDISTRIBUTED in favor of the rich, with the support of the government.
But those who freak out about "wealth redistribution" being wrong, don't complain about THAT form of it, only about the other form, where those who have suffered from the downturn benefit. | |
|
| The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/22/2011 12:46:38 PM | I have always found this rich vs poor controversy rather bizarre. I am 44 years old, and I have never met a 'rich' person who does not hold an advantage over others, which is the very reason that person is rich. It is either intelligence, courage, risk-taking, or any sort of behaviour that leads to wealth. In that regard, the last thing you want is to be governed or ruled by the poor (masses). Why ? Because, simply said, if you are poor, you are not smart enough to be rich. Any given group selects the smartest, strongest, most fit people as their leaders. You mark yourself for extinction if you artificially try to change that. It is almost comparable to quotas for women, or black people. Bad news for companies if they are forced to take somebody on just because of gender or race...
So, my conclusion is: stop pounding on the rich and wealthy, because those are the very people that move us forward. And there really are not that many that can do that... | |
|
| The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/22/2011 1:22:27 PM | Hey Igor
Geez.. where do I start. The post right after yours really does have it right. First of all, before you go bemoaning how the "rich" rig the game so it is in their favor, what they are actually doing is trying to keep what they earned. As far as not ever really owning a piece of land, yes you can........ go buy your own island, and become a sovereign; nobody is stopping you. Property taxes are mostly used for the benfit of the community. Now before you go crazy, there is a HUGE difference between living in a community and communism or socialism.
As far as your idea of how a person is paid for his labor, I can tell that you have never actually owned a business and hired and fired people. What you write sounds good in theory, but there is a balance between how much is paid and how much the labor is worth.
What happened with recent meltdown of the US economy was a result of two things....... one is that the "modern day money changers" were allowed to gamble with OPM.... Other Peoples Money. If buying stocks on margin were eliminated or held to a minimum, say having to have at least 50% of the cost invested, it would have never happened. What created the object of all of the "modern day money changers" purchases was the political bent to try to even out home ownership, so that everybody could own a home, and the regulations were skewed to force lenders to make loans that they KNEW wouldn't last, but had to make. This was all done in the name of "equity", and "affordable housing", it had nothing to do with the market.
Just one more thing, Capitalism has nothing to do with the meltdown that occured, THAT was a result of the modern day money changers, mostly Wall Street, rigging the game so that hey couldn't lose. I already gave the solution above............
Paul K | |
|
| The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/22/2011 8:58:44 PM | Moonwhatever....the poor are weak, the rich are strong and should be encouraged. Easy edit. Dumb and so much dumber and so very wrong. Dumb. I will always support the poor and take a real measure of caution where the rich are concerned. I take it that your post was just written in some unconcious state that has nothing to do with compassion and justice. Uck. Darwinism is a poor excuse for anything, at all.
Paul K..Capitalism has EVERYTHING to do with the total consensus of those who were never money changers but thought they could ride easy. Please. We are not the dumb and dumber citizens of some illusionary nation where we just pick up our socks and get rich. Puhleeze. | |
|
| The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/22/2011 9:07:28 PM | Hey 60
You wrote:
"Capitalism has EVERYTHING to do with the total consensus of those who were never money changers but thought they could ride easy. Please. We are not the dumb and dumber citizens of some illusionary nation where we just pick up our socks and get rich. Puhleeze."
Huh? Could you please expound, a little bit clearer............. I have no idea what it is that you are trying to say............
Paul K | |
|
| The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/22/2011 10:07:58 PM | | Oh well...why don't you? Its never about you and your little nest egg, its always about what you are creating. We are the inhabitants of a greater world and a greater good...always, forever. | |
|
| |
| The Zeitgeist Movement
Posted: 3/22/2011 10:31:16 PM | Hey 60
I really am trying to understand what you meant when you wrote:
"Oh well...why don't you? Its never about you and your little nest egg, its always about what you are creating. We are the inhabitants of a greater world and a greater good...always, forever."
First off, why don't I what? What is never about me and my little nest egg? How do you know I even have a nest egg to begin with???
OK, we are inhabitants of a world.......... what is the "greater good" about?
Paul K | |
|
|
|
|
Page
3
of
11 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
|
|
Home
login 
