This is What Socialism Looks Like!

[rasobasi420]

http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/06/what_socialism_looks_like.php

http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/socialism%20chart.png

So shut the fuck up you god damn whiners.

[Kacen]

Too true.

[mojo]

and?

i must miss all the mudslingin' over here. who is accusin the US of being socialist?
imo the worse thing that happened here in the last 15 years was our govt selling off all our utilities to private enterprise.
water rates have gone through the roof, electricity outages have increased, health care is fucked, roads are shit, and drug prices have gone through the roof....ohh yeah..they didn't sell off that shit.

[boycotteverything]

america could use a good dose of norman thomas-ism right about now.

http://faithandsocialism.org/images/normanthomas.jpg

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under
the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist
program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without
knowing how it happened." Norman Thomas

[Cogburn]

How many GM cars have you purchased in your lifetime?

Would you purchase another?

I've owned 2 Hondas, 1 Nissan, 1 Chevy, and 2 Fords.

The Chevy was a Lumina and I'd buy another one... except they haven't made them since 1997.

Fuck GM.

The Fed should come in like Gordon Gekko and liquidate that shit.

[skunk]

Tell that pill popper limbaugh and the pole smokers in washington ras.

[torbjon]

anybody find current info on how much LAND the fed owns? I'm finding charts like these:

http://www.pmcl.com/nedprototype/Images/US%20Land%20Use%20-%20R.gif

http://img.allvoices.com/thumbs/event/900/570/14239879-who-owns.jpg

etc.

if they really do possess / control / own that much of the Land, (40%) I don't see how that could translate into less than .25% of the "assets", ya know?

just being stupid... help a bozo out.

[boycotteverything]

i've probably owned about 30 GM cars and trucks- currently around 6 or 7. i've always liked them.

[Kacen]

Also one thing people should know is nationalizing doesn't equal socialism in all cases.

Third positionist economics, like that seen in Fascism, National Syndicalism, Peronism, and others involve Nationalization but are not Socialist. They thrive for Meritocracy not strict equality. The American "definition" of Socialism seems to be anything other than 100% free market private ownership libertarianism (which, for the record, we haven't been since the 1800's ffs).

[boycotteverything]

nah. in america liberalism is the gateway to socialism. it's not just about nationalization. read the party principles.

[Kacen]

Fascism is against liberalism, in it's modern (leftist/socialist), and classical (libertarianism/free market) definitions. Since we Fascists/Third Positionists oppose both systems, capitalism and socialism, when we use the term liberalism we generally mean both the left and the right, for the record.

[boycotteverything]

OK. I understand your distinction. I see the political continuum less as a line than a circle- and that makes sense.

[Kacen]

When you throw third positionist economics in, there isn't really any shape you can put a political compass in. Categories are needed, not compasses. And graphs for individual categories. Third position is not the same as Centrism; the latter being just a fair mix of socialism/capitalism, while third position being a whole different idea and philosophy.

[GeneralStriker]

third position

http://www.anns-dance.com/positions_feet_third.gif

[Bitchkoma]

You saying Third Postionists are faggy and effeminate?

[torbjon]

So, no one has figured out how much Property / Land / Assets the fed really "owns"? (is in possession / control of)

I'm not finding that info in a usable form, and so far, the fed is telling me that that is "classified" type information... which seems odd to me in a way...

I ask because the graph that Ras posted seems very misleading and biased to me... it only lists "corporate and business assets RECENTLY nationalized", and ya, sure, RECENTLY that ain't been alla that much... However, as far as the chart goes, that means that the rest of the pie is the remainder of the assets that have not been RECENTLY seized...

sooo...

what about stuff that was, um, "nationalized" or seized or absorbed (or whatever), say, last century, or the one before that....

The fed has a LOT more than just 80 billion bucks in physical assets... right? What am I missing here? Help a bozo out...

[pack3tg0st]

well torb...

Anyone with better math skills and more patience than I have could go through and find what percent each state is of U.S. landmass... and since we know the percentage of each state owned by the Fed gov...

It just sounds way more complicated than I'm willing to do lol

I'm a lazy bastard today...

[torbjon]

basically what I'm getting at is IF the fed (gov, the man, "them" whatever) is in control of the Bulk (51% or more) of the physical assets of a country, and then takes the responsibility to Redistribute that wealth to its citizens, isn't that "socialism"?? So, without the actual "real" numbers of who is in control / possession of what, it's kinda hard to say for certain if we're heading (or already at or surpassed) the "socialism" mark or not.... right? wrong? I am so thc free I can't even think straight anymore *sighs*

Pack:

ya, funny how that info isn't already tallied and easy to find, and kept up to date, huh? the pics I posted are Old ones from a few years ago... and the "official" dot gov sites that are responsible for maintaining that information are open only to those with a "need to know", and that ain't me.... odd that, yes? not very transparent...

[Cogburn]

Here ya go, big man.

From the BLM. www.blm.gov (http://www.blm.gov)

[offsite:cfk93i6f]The Bureau of Land Management
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) might best be described as a small agency with a big
mission and a lot of ground to cover. As the Nation’s largest land manager, the BLM is responsible for more than 260 million acres of public land—nearly one-eighth of all land in the United States—and 700 million acres of Federal subsurface mineral estate nationwide.
Where are the public lands?
Most of the BLM’s land is located in the American West and Alaska—its holdings comprise about one of every five acres in the West—although the agency does manage significant tracts east of the Mississippi River. Land under the BLM’s jurisdiction is the legacy of territory originally claimed by the Federal government early in the Nation’s history. Much of the 1.8 billion acres of public land was either claimed for homesteads, railroads, and other private purposes or reserved as parks, wildlife refuges, national forests, military bases, or for other public uses. The BLM manages what remains—once-disregarded lands that today are prized for the array of values they contain.[/offsite:cfk93i6f]

BLM + non-BLM = 960,000,000 acres or 1,500,000 square miles

Size of United States = 3,537,438.44 square miles

Percentage of U.S. land mass under federal administration: 42.4%

[pack3tg0st]

Hrm... wonder if it's considered socialism if big business controls the government...

That makes government and corporations kind of one and the same in a way...

I still think our "government" is powerless...

Corporate greed rules the land... the government has to comply with the CEO's...

[torbjon]

I'm aware of the blm stats, but tha's just Land, and land on US soil... doesn't include Foreign land, and does not include Other "physical" assets... like, say, nukes and stealth bombers and art and buildings and etc.... ya know? Controlling 40% of the Land in the states is also hard to calculate actual value... some of it is Prime real estate, with timber and mineral and oil wealth associated with it, while other chunks are only good for toxic waste....

and Pack has a good point... the line between private sector and government sector is really blurry...

I'm curious about alla this (and folks thoughts on it) 'cause I feel I've lived in a "sorta socialist" state my entire life... Like the rest of the idiots here in the states, I had the "american dream" bs spoon fed to me in school... "free enterprise" kinda crap... and I've never really bought into that... oh, there's the Occasional story of the nobody who makes it big, but winning the lottery seems more likely.... try doing the Tesla or Edison or Goodyear thing in your basement / garage and see how far you get... You can't really invent / experiment / innovate anymore, not like in days of yore, anyway....

[Ducky]

Inquiry?

What are the bad aspects of SOCIALISM?

[Ducky]

Do you guys think CANADA is socialistic or otherwise?

Just curious.

[pack3tg0st]

To tell ya the truth ducks... I don't know enough about canada to be able to have any sort of informed opinion...

kind of a shame... since I only live a couple of hours from Windsor...

[Ducky]

To tell ya the truth ducks... I don't know enough about canada to be able to have any sort of informed opinion...

kind of a shame... since I only live a couple of hours from Windsor...

Wanker! lololol

I'm kidding babes. Honestly.

Probably the same for me and you yanks that are just a couple of hours from me too!

There's no definitive EXACT (Tactile) BOUNDRY to divide our countries except the so-called 'borders'. Nobody has actually (physically traced) a dividing line between our countries. Someone/somewhere/sometime decided where to draw a line.

When you think of this...and look at the actual size, shape,contour, etc of our continent; looking at it as a 'whole', if you were to try to map out where each state/province/territory was, there is NO BORDERS on the map.

Only people.

Only differently speaking people.

Only different land areas.

That's all. That's all she wrote folks.

The so-called physical labels of our countries are actually in our minds. From what we read in the textbooks. From the areas of the newscasters.

It really IS AMAZING when you think about it in the way that I just stated.
If we look at any map, the only thing that divides us are RULES AND RESPECT.

[Cogburn]

I'm aware of the blm stats, but tha's just Land, and land on US soil... doesn't include Foreign land, and does not include Other "physical" assets... like, say, nukes and stealth bombers and art and buildings and etc.... ya know? Controlling 40% of the Land in the states is also hard to calculate actual value... some of it is Prime real estate, with timber and mineral and oil wealth associated with it, while other chunks are only good for toxic waste....
It's not that easy to calculate. You'll need to lookup the BLM land usage stats for each state and establish an average price per acre based on state averages, current commodity values, etc.

The rest of the physical assets of the federal government are nearly impossible to calculate. You could lookup the GAO budget line items and use all maintenance costs to establish a list of assets. One could then drill down into each individual asset and calculate all ancillary properties. An example would be the federal complex at 440 Main Street in Cincinnati, Ohio. This building holds FBI, U.S. Marshals, BATF, a federal Circuit Court, and a host of other federal agencies. The value of the building would be one amount, and then the assets owned by each attendant organization housed within that building could be calculated.

There is always government owned surplus equipment left to rot. If added together there would be a raw material value even in that.

Any number you could come up with would be too low.

However, this might point a little further towards what you're looking for... Here's an excerpt from "None Dare Call It Conspiracy"... Fantastic book, by the way.

[offsite=http://www.scribd.com/doc/4368440/None-Dare-call-it-conspiracy:1hrh9bia]"Fabian Socialism," and "Communism." But it was the international bankers of whom Professor Quigley was speaking when we quoted him earlier as stating that their aim was nothing less than control of the world through finance. Where do governments get the enormous amounts of money they need? Most, of course, comes from taxation; but governments often spend more than they are willing to tax from their citizens and so are forced to borrow. Our national debt is now $455 billion-every cent of it borrowed at interest from somewhere. The public is led to believe that our government borrows from "the people" through savings bonds. Actually, only the smallest percentage of the national debt is held by individuals in this form. Most government bonds, except those owned by the government itself through its trust funds, are held by vast banking firms known as international banks. For centuries there has been big money to be made by international bankers in the financing of governments and kings. Such operators are faced, however, with certain thorny problems. We know that smaller banking operations protect themselves by taking collateral, but what kind of collateral can you get from a government or a king? What if the banker comes to collect and the king says, "Off with his head"? The process through which one collects a debt from a government or a monarch is not a subject taught in the business schools of our universities, and most of us-never having been in the business of financing kings-have not given the problem much thought. But there is a king-financing business and to those who can ensure collection it is lucrative indeed.

Economics Professor Stuart Crane notes that there are two means used to collateralize loans to governments and kings. Whenever a business firm borrows big money its creditor obtains a voice in management to protect his investment. Like a business, no government can borrow big money unless willing to surrender to the creditor some measure of sovereignty as collateral. Certainly international bankers who have loaned hundreds of billions of dollars to governments around the world command considerable influence in the policies of such governments. But the ultimate advantage the creditor has over the king or president is that if the ruler gets out of line the banker can finance his enemy or rival. Therefore, if you want to stay in the lucrative king-financing business, it is wise to have an enemy or rival waiting in the wings to unseat every king or president to whom you lend. If the king doesn't have an enemy, you must create one. Preeminent in playing this game was the famous House of Rothschild. Its founder, Meyer Amschel Rothschild (1743-1812) of Frankfurt, Germany, kept one of his five sons at home to run the Frankfurt bank and sent the others to London, Paris, Vienna and Naples. The Rothschilds became incredibly wealthy during the nineteenth century by financing governments to fight each other. According to Professor Stuart Crane: "If you will look back at every war in Europe during the Nineteenth Century, you will see that they always ended with the establishment of a 'balance of power.' With every re-shuffling there was a balance of power in a new grouping around the House of Rothschild in England, France, or Austria. They grouped nations so that if any king got out of line a war would break out and the war would be decided by which way the financing went. Researching the debt positions of the warring nations will usually indicate who was to be punished."

In describing the characteristics of the Rothschilds and other major international bankers, Dr. Quigley tells us that they remained different from ordinary bankers in several ways: they were cosmopolitan and international; they were close to governments and were particularly concerned with government debts, including foreign government debts; these bankers came to be called "international bankers." (Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, p. 52) One major reason for the historical blackout on the role of the international bankers in political history is that the Rothschilds were Jewish. Anti-Semites have played into the hands of the conspiracy by trying to portray the entire conspiracy as Jewish. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The traditionally Anglo-Saxon J. P. Morgan and Rockefeller international banking institutions have played a key role in the conspiracy. But there is no denying the importance of the Rothschilds and their satellites. However, it is just as unreasonable and immoral to blame all Jews for the crimes of the Rothschilds as it is to hold all Baptists accountable for the crimes of the Rockefellers. The Jewish members of the conspiracy have used an organization called the AntiDefamation League as an instrument to try to convince everyone that any mention of the Rothschilds or their allies is an attack on all Jews. In this way they have stifled almost all honest scholarship on international bankers and made the subject taboo within universities. Any individual or book exploring this subject is immediately attacked by hundreds of A.D.L. committees all over the country.

The A.D.L. has never let truth or logic interfere with its highly professional smear jobs. When no evidence is apparent, the A.D.L., which staunchly opposed so-called "McCarthyism," accuses people of being "latent anti-Semites." Can you imagine how they would yowl and scream if someone accused them of being "latent" Communists? Actually, nobody has a right to be more angry at the Rothschild clique than their fellow Jews. The Warburgs, part of the Rothschild empire, helped finance Adolph Hitler. There were few if any Rothschilds or Warburgs in the Nazi prison camps! They sat out the war in luxurious hotels in Paris or emigrated to the United States or England. As a group, Jews have suffered most at the hands of these power seekers. A Rothschild has much more in common with a Rockefeller than he does with a tailor from Budapest or the Bronx. Since the keystone of the international banking empires has been government bonds, it has been in the interest of these international bankers to encourage government debt. The higher the debt the more the interest. Nothing drives government deeply into debt like a war; and it has not been an uncommon practice among international bankers to finance both sides of the bloodiest military conflicts. For example, during our Civil War the North was financed by the Rothschilds through their American agent, August Belmont, and the American South through the Erlangers, Rothschild relatives.[/offsite:1hrh9bia]

[pack3tg0st]

A text/html version of the book: http://www.whale.to/b/allen_b1.html

for those with slow connections or crappy browsers :P

[WarlordZeroOne]

Slow Browser fast browser Socialism,conservatism,what you need in the U.S.of A. is what we have here in the U.K. thats really taking off and i quote " The British National Party" Google it and see what they stand for you will be intoxicated its the Englishmans dream and they have taken council seats from last Thursdays elections, check them out, you will like the BNP manifesto. they also EXPECT to have won a couple of seats for the European Parliament in Brussels,the Results to be revealed Monday.

[Kacen]

The BNP is better than it used to be.

It used be mostly Neo-nazi and full of holocaust deniers, now it's leaning towards primarily anti-Islam and just straight up Nationalism, in fact it has some Jewish members nowadays.

However the BNP is not Fascist, in fact it's one of the most syncretic parties I've ever seen. It mixes British/White Nationalism with Socialism/Communism. They're upper-left on a political compass, believe it or not.

[WarlordZeroOne]

Yes thats right Kacen but they are going places because they are saying what the real British want to hear, and yes they used to have a BAD overcoat now thats gone things are loking GREAT. thanks for the reply.

[WarlordZeroOne]

and?

i must miss all the mudslingin' over here. who is accusin the US of being socialist?
imo the worse thing that happened here in the last 15 years was our govt selling off all our utilities to private enterprise.
water rates have gone through the roof, electricity outages have increased, health care is fucked, roads are shit, and drug prices have gone through the roof....ohh yeah..they didn't sell off that shit.
Yes Mojo we have had all that over here and look at the Fucking Mess we are in,worst railways in Europe gas ,electricity,coal industry this country of mine is well and Truly FUCKED in every direction. :bom:

[Kacen]

The Muslim immigrants are causing a serious problem in Britain, and in many European countries...the way I see it, compared to the scum labor party the BNP is better. However:

http://www.integralistparty.org/ This group would be hypothetically much better for Britain, sadly they are very weak at the moment, and relatively unknown, however I have the vice leader of this party on my MSN list and have spoken to him, even helped design his personal standard. The group is anti-racist but recognizes the Islamic issue.

[WarlordZeroOne]

Thanks for that Kacen had a look at the web and its so damn near impossiible in the U.K. getting a new political party going and you are right, the Muslims near me and all over the country do not integrate and the islamic religion is so shitty when looked into we all have big problems,this muslim problem will become bigger than HITLER was u wait and see.

[Kacen]

It already is for many countries, the Netherlands so far has it the worst. The Netherlands is so liberal their brains are falling out, they're just letting everyone in and next thing you now it will be an Islamic country.

[pack3tg0st]

Socialism isn't "evil" like the spin tells us...

I'm not a fan of Socialism... but not of capitalism either for that matter

http://www.caebuttons.com/images/capitalism%20kills.jpg

[Kacen]

Both Capitalism and Socialism/Communism are flawed...the former causes class conflict and the latter exploits class conflict.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Position

Capitalism stomps on people who show merit, and people who do not. The latter belong in the gutter but not the former. Socialism/Communism keeps people who belong in the gutter equal.

Corporatist Meritocracy fixes the flaws of both systems.

[pack3tg0st]

There are other options too:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/95/BlackFlagSymbol.svg/190px-BlackFlagSymbol.svg.png

[Bitchkoma]

Against a black background that just looks like a slashie \

[Kacen]

Anarchism is overrated.

[pack3tg0st]

Anarchism is overrated.

How so?

Its better than having a Republic Inc. LLC and calling it a meaningless buzzword like Democracy...

Its not even a republic anymore.... The people don't appoint the candidates... corporations do through public donations...

Its a Kleptocracy.

[skunk]

Its a Kleptocracy.

Amen.

[Kacen]

I don't advocate that, ether.

[GeneralStriker]

all coercive regimes suck bigtime. you can dismiss anarchism but the fact remains that in any saloon it exists.

[WarlordZeroOne]

Well,well,well, The B.N.P. have taken 2 seats in the European Elections this will stir up some SHIT.

[century]

w]R6WstddMJZQw]

[century]

h]DKPa8m07txgh]

[century]

n]Q3cJ5IsCt5Qn]

[century]

b]mPRJjP7h4Q4b]

[century]

7]wNF3NSHDzYM7]

[Stukov]

Also one thing people should know is nationalizing doesn't equal socialism in all cases.

Third positionist economics, like that seen in Fascism, National Syndicalism, Peronism, and others involve Nationalization but are not Socialist. They thrive for Meritocracy not strict equality. The American "definition" of Socialism seems to be anything other than 100% free market private ownership libertarianism (which, for the record, we haven't been since the 1800's ffs).

Now that I am on Amkon, I must say it is nice to see someone who knows what they are talking about :salut: I was saying the same thing on GLP before I got ban hammered.

After reading through the thread, I must say I am not necessarily agreeing with your choice of politics, but just that you know the what ideologies are called what and where they are placed.