The economy in the United States is in a collapse.  The Capitalist system does not work anymore; banks have become more powerful than our politicians.  The government now has a policy based around Fear and Greed.  The rich are getting
richer and more powerful, while the great masses of America wallow in poverty.

Must we continue to exist in this passive state, only living to serve the rich and powerful?  Or do we, the great masses, stand up against the policies of Fear, and Greed, and
God?  We must break the bonds that
separate us, we must pull down the centers of Greed and Fear and we must pull
down the houses of God.  

These borders are created to separate us into individuals where we can be controlled easier.

We must stand up, against the tyranny of the centers of Greed, and Fear, and God; quoting John Adams: “People should not fear government, government should fear people.” 
Once we stand up to Fear, to Greed, to God, we will become united!

This being said, I advocate the collapse of the Capitalist system and the foundation of the United Socialist Federal Republic, in which the government will exist to serve the people. 
Capitalism is Dead.  We must put
it out of it’s misery and move on toward Socialism. (to view the 19 pages of discussion)

Tags: Federal, Republic?, Socialist, The, United

Views: 115

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Y oudo understand that capitalism and socialism are not opposites or mutually exclusive, right? Opposite of capitalism is communism, where the government controls the means of production. right now we are a capitalist, socialist republic. maybe what you are aiming for is a socialist democracy, where the means of production is controlled by the people, not business or government? Just a thought
I don't think we are socialist republic. We have certain programs such as welfare and social security but our economy is very much a privatized economy and capitalistic system. The government might have some control over the economy, but it is the corporations that have the most control over it.
you're right, we for the most part would not be characterized as socialist~ I was replying from my phone, and got lazy trying to underline the point that socialism is a minority in the operation of this country.
however, our infrastructure(public road systems, public transportation, etc), social security, medicare, public safety, public sanitation, lower educational system (to include public libraries),and other social welfare systems are of socialist design. I guess the point was that we aren't a strictly capitalist society, because we have many socialist aspects to our lives that we take for granted. good point though.
I'm referring to the corruption by the rich and powerful, they control the government in many aspects... as my father says the 'almighty dollar is more important'.

What I want to establish is more socialistic nation. Less government control and more power to the people, and the people will assist each other.

Though the rich and powerful will never want this to happen, and thus a war will happen... a nasty side effect

What I want to establish is more socialistic nation. Less government control and more power to the people, and the people will assist each other.

My head a splode.

Why? If I may ask...

Less government control and more power to the people is not socialism. That is classic liberalism. Socialism is an economic model and, as an economic model, "less government control and more power to the people" is its antithesis.


Words like socialism and capitalism have strict and established definitions.


What you're talking about it is the marriage between social-libertarianism and socialism. What you've described isn't socialism, it's the first incarnation of Neo-conservatism, or classic neo-conservatism, an anti-Stalinist leftism that supported social programs and advocated for active confrontation with oppressors.

if i'm not mistaken, modern euro socialism is the workers control the means of production, essentially a corporate coop.  you are right though, the rhetoric heard here is essentially the beginning of the communist revolution~ although in this case, communism could be replaced with socialism.. capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive..  europe is experimenting with different combinations.  the thing is, socialism in america is still associated with communism, where the gov't controls the means of production, not the workers.  that is, as far as i understand, the major difference between the two. correct me if i am wrong.


as far as power to the people being the antithesis of socialism, it is... in a sense.  in this country, when they said power to the people, what they meant was "power to corporations, and any non governmental entity that had the funding to influence elections and policy."  our system isn't structured right now to actually give power to individual citizens, because we are a republic; a representative democracy.  that representation bottlenecks interests in government, and combining that with a two party system devoids the system of a check and balance~ with only two major viable options, the ability for corruption is much much greater...  and since politics is now predominantly about affiliation and campaigning, those who wish to run need to have substantial monetary backing.  interestingly enough, that creates a situation where unless you are independently wealthy you have to consign to certain interests to gain support.  this last election we had was interesting in the sense that we had many people running who DID fund their campaigns, into the tens of millions of dollars.  ironically, to avoid the aforementioned consignment and alignment with special interest, you need to be wealthy~ and that sense, your allegiance has already been drawn by whatever means you gained that wealth in the first place!  combine that with the american distrust of wealth, and the hatred for an aristocracy, you get quite the conundrum where either option is invalid.


so, essentially, in this system that we have right now it's impossible to avoid the problems that we have today.  it worked moderately well before the industrial revolution because there wasn't an immense proliferation of wealth to go around; however, after the revolution wealth became more common place, laying the ground work for the problems we face today.


the only way to really up the system would be to start having popular votes on legislation, and starting to phase out the representation in gov't for the people to represent themselves.  thats nearly impossible for many reasons, but its what I would imagine is the future of politics in the modern world over the next 300 years or so.

NO where has it ever been written that socialism requires BIG government. Our BIG governments are products of capitalists' obsession with getting their greedy hands into every pie, skirting all the rules, then forcing government to hire ridiculous numbers of enforcement agents to try and curtail their illegal activities. In a just society, governments would be much smaller. Government would take care of education, health, communication standards, we'd abolish private ownership beyond single person ownership, dismantle corporations completely and encourage small scale free enterprise. We'd remove all corporate representatives from all government infrastructrures and limit electoral spending... Get out of professional armies and return to a system where every citizen is responsible to the defense of the country... and either make all borders open for all people or shut down the ridiculous cheap foreign labour policies forced down people's throats around the world... and stop stealing resources from poorer countries... Yep, that would be a small government socialist society.


Sweden came quite close to this kind of system a few decades ago, but then their PM was murdered and everything went downhill since then as corporations regained their hold on power.

Just going to reply here so the text isn't as clumped.


What you described is classic socialism, Pre-Marx socialism. Socialism as an economic model not a political one. Classic socialism is ownership of the means of production by the workers. It's sort of what's going on in GM now that the UAW owns a sizable portion of the company. This socialism doesn't care about government or who gets to say what to whom, it doesn't say anything about a social safety-net, this just promotes ownership of the means of production by the ones doing the producing. It is that coop you're talking about. If you own your own business, you are, in effect, a kind of micro-socialist.


There's a fusion of socialism and capitalism called market-socialism where coops compete in a market economy.


When you start talking about socialism as a means of balancing power, you're no longer talking about socialism, you're talking about Marxism.


When you start talking about achieving Marxism by instigating violent revolt and establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat, you're talking about Leninism.


When you start talking about imposing Leninism on the rest of the world while crushing dissenters at home, you're talking about Stalinism.


When you start talking about government guarantees of standards of living, you're talking about welfare state.


When you talk about government imposing private morals and insecurities on society, you're talking about a nanny state.


Yes, those are broad summaries, but I feel they are honest. Talking about socialism in terms of political power does a disservice to socialism. I'm not trying to be a stickler for definitions, but if we want to have a discussion on this, the definitions need to be clear. Otherwise we throw around concepts inappropriately and end up with profound words like "socialism" and "theory" losing all meaning.


If we had any kind of serious socialism in this country we would not have jobs going overseas, I guarantee you that. There would still be a distribution of wealth as coops that make computers would almost certainly earn more than coops making bread; the breadth of this distribution just wouldn't be as dramatic as it is now.


As for this new name for the proposed country it honestly looks like four words were chosen that ran sort of alright and were stitched together.


A Federal Republic with more power to the people... how does that even work?

Perhaps I used the term "socialism" in a different sense... please, let me try to explain.


Socialism, as I see it, is the formation of classless society, where the people will help each other and the government only steps in to see the transfer of goods.


You grow potatoes and I make chairs.  You need chairs and I need potatoes.  The Government only steps in to ensure that the transfer is complete.


It's true, that my idea has advanced since I first proposed it.  I have absorbed much information in a short time.  Those that are wealthy are also among those who are powerful.  They now control the government.  American Capitalism has turned into Totalitarian Corporatism.  The Republicans and Democrats are just the lap dogs for the wealthy 1-2% of America.  That is where the real power lies.


We are spoon-fed our entire lives that 'America is a democracy'.  It isn't, well not anymore.

America was founded as a Republic, then we formed into a Democracy, after the industrial age America became Capitalist, and now it is Totalitarian Corporatism.


What I want is for my country to be free, more than anything.  I want the people to live and work and play without having to fear the world.  I want the people to help each other and to live without worrying about whats around the corner or up the hill.  It may sound naive of me, but I want a utopia society, or as close as we can get.\


As I have stated before, if I can get this society without a war, I'll do it in a heartbeat.

But I won't... those with the power won't allow it. It will turn into a war.


I will be there to fight and I will be there to defend and, if need be, I will die to see America truly free.


People have said that I'm an idealist. Perhaps that is true.  I want America free, I want America to choose its own path, without bowing to the Corporate Masters, I want the world to see that America, itself, is not arrogant; but it is the Corporations that have taken it over.


I will continue to support and defend my ideas.  I will not sit by while the flames of freedom get snuffed out over the world.


The day is coming.  There will be a war between the United Socialist Federal Republic and the Totalitarian Corporations, and I will be there to fight and die for what I believe.


Thank you for your time.

I don't think a revolution is any longer feasible in the conventional sense of the term in our modern society.


Our "New and Improved" advanced technological society now enslaves us. Have you tried recently to purchase a plain ticket with cash? We have video surveillance on public ways, we have electronic monitoring of private citizens via RFIDs, all government agencies, both domestic and international, now share their databases, words said on the internet, even tho they are no longer visible to us or in our minds, are kept and/or well logged and accessible to powers that be (think Canadian scientist denied entry into USA this decade for scientific research done on LSD in 60s, without any criminal past, simply due to a publication, think Facebook, whom in their privacy statements state that any words exchanged on Facebook can be used by Facebook anytime in the future, anything 'said' on Facebook 'belongs' to Facebook). We have facial recognition software on our home laptops, this technology has arrived to us peons long after the military/CIA/FBI has compiled it's databases. How many of you turn off your cookies when traveling the internet??? What percentage of society have not been fingerprinted by the law or donated their private fingerprint to corporations for the sake of lazy ID systems... Biometric identifiers are no more secure than a signature, they simple require a little more technology. We're now implanting tracking chips into children who's parents don't have time to be proper parents...


It really makes me sad when people say technology is freeing us... We have never been so enslaved. Our future may include more World Wars, but I do think we'll ever see revolution again, unless the system colapses due to a technological glitch. Big Brother is now, and has been for some time. We have traded freedom for comfort and ease.


© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service