The history of Marxism, Political Correctness, and the "Left", page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 16 times


reply posted on 12-10-2009 @ 02:16 PM by I_am_Spartacus




Oh boy here we go.....I love it when the ignorant get condescending.

Fascism in a nutshell is the central nationalization of means of production and societal engines. Socialisms goal (in its pure utopian form) is to evenly distribute the wealth from production. There is no way (in the real world) to evenly distribute "fairness" unless a central power controls production and distribution.

Historically all countries who incorporate the socialist model have HUGE central governments controlling vast segments of production and society and have very often been led by a dictator type individual (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, chavez, Pol Pot, etc, etc). and why does the fact that the Nazi party was the National Socialist party keep being overlooked by people like you.

Now how does that not sound like a relationship ? Can you not make analogies? Compare and contrast? hmmmmm.....who is MSM educated?

Here is something else I wrote somewhere else. maybe this will help clear it up for you but its not really any different from that what I have already written.

Socialism is the idea of creating "fairness" amongst the haves and have-nots. This state of existence could theoretically be achieved by a well intentioned hippie commune with no central power but its almost complete absence in human society proves it can't. Communism (derived from commune) collectivism, and socialism are all the same basic term for a severely flawed Utopian pie in the sky dream.

While the “experts” have a hard time trying to meticulously define fascism, in basic terms, . Fascism is a consolidation of power and control by the state.

The two "ideas" go hand in hand because in 99.9999999% of cases a fascist state must exist to achieve a socialist state. All forms of socialist governments are fascists to some extent. Fascism can theoretically exist with out socialism, but socialism really cannot exist without some form of fascism.
Never is EVERYONE in a society going to support socialism thus fascism is needed to "get the job done".

Modern fascism would be hard to achieve without popular support thus fascists use socialism to get that support from the "victim" population.

Progressivism is a fascist movement.

Any "differences" you may hear the uninformed mention were manufactured by the Nazi's (National SOCIALISTS!!!! ) to create another enemy that they used to solidify control.

One really needs to research definitions of words and historical facts for themselves instead of just parroting what they hear from pundits. And no wikipedia is NOT a reliable source. This is why the so called "left/right" paradigm exists, why dictators rise up in troubled times, and why people like obama get elected.

[edit on 12-10-2009 by I_am_Spartacus]


reply posted on 13-10-2009 @ 09:52 PM by really




reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 01:03 PM by ANOK
reply to post by Remixtup


What? Caps lock will not help your argument.

Please explain where I'm wrong. I would suggest educating yourself first though.

What you don't understand is that socialism is a system of the people, by the people, not of the government or the corporations, or the rich. What is there to fear by shaking off the shackles of exploitation by the minority wealthy?
The system we have now is the one that exploits you and controls you.
The system of the 'state', the state is the system that allows one class of people to control another, is exploitative and oppressive. Capitalism feeds that unbalanced control. Wealth appears to bring you freedom, but it's an empty freedom. All it really brings is haves and have nots, slaves to wealth, or slaves to poverty. Wealth is a ghetto, poverty a prison.


reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 01:09 PM by I_am_Spartacus
Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by Remixtup


What? Caps lock will not help your argument.

Please explain where I'm wrong. I would suggest educating yourself first though.

What you don't understand is that socialism is a system of the people, by the people, not of the government or the corporations, or the rich. What is there to fear by shaking off the shackles of exploitation by the minority wealthy?
The system we have now is the one that exploits you and controls you.
The system of the 'state', the state is the system that allows one class of people to control another, is exploitative and oppressive. Capitalism feeds that unbalanced control. Wealth appears to bring you freedom, but it's an empty freedom. All it really brings is haves and have nots, slaves to wealth, or slaves to poverty. Wealth is a ghetto, poverty a prison.


Are you one of those guys at the Saturday morning farmers markets passing out "The Workers Press" or whatever they call the local marxist rag with the red stars all over it.?



reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 01:12 PM by Remixtup
reply to post by ANOK


of the people for the people eh?

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
www.merriam-webster.com...

funny I dont see Of the people/for the people miles near this. Is this just your personal definition or???

edit to add: I am exploited and controlled?...damn. I might as well change my entire ideology of self determination and self sustainability and start working for the collective good. Now I have to ask myself before every decision, is this good for me and my family?.....no no no, is this fair for my neighbor and society.

[edit on 10/14/2009 by Remixtup]


reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 01:32 PM by CRB86
Originally posted by Remixtup
reply to post by ANOK


of the people for the people eh?

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
www.merriam-webster.com...

funny I dont see Of the people/for the people miles near this. Is this just your personal definition or???

edit to add: I am exploited and controlled?...damn. I might as well change my entire ideology of self determination and self sustainability and start working for the collective good. Now I have to ask myself before every decision, is this good for me and my family?.....no no no, is this fair for my neighbor and society.

[edit on 10/14/2009 by Remixtup]


Of course if you used a reputable dictionary like the Oxford English Dictionary (for example), you would see a different wording;

OED definition of socialism
socialism (sou.Saliz'm). a. Fr. socialisme (1832), or independently f. social a. + -ism. See also next. The early history of the word is somewhat obscure. The first use of Fr. sociaed in common. to have been in the Globe of 13 Feb. 1832, where it was employed in contrast to personnalito. In its modern sense it is variously claimed for Leroux or Reybaud, writing within three or four years after this. A different account, assigning the priority of this use to England, is given in the Encycl. Brit. (1887) XXII. 205; according to this the word originated in 1835 in the discussions of a society founded by Robert Owen.

1. A theory or policy of social organization which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all.

2. A state of society in which things are held or used in common.


No mention of the state. The workers own the means of production. This is socialism. True socialism. The all-powerful state only appears in bastardisations of the socialist ethic.


reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 01:41 PM by ANOK
reply to post by I_am_Spartacus


LOL have you read anything I said, or do you just make assumptions about everyone based on your uneducated version of politics?

Once again Marx was a charlatan who stole his ideas from socialists and anarchist and created a statist version of 'socialism' that was completely removed from the true original idea of self government.

Your argument is going to be very weak when you're MSM educated.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^



Bruins goalie Tim Thomas takes stand against U.S Government
  Posted 19 days ago with 88 member flags
Romney: "I\'m Not Concerned About the Very Poor"
  Posted 10 days ago with 73 member flags
The Girl Killed by Obama: She "never saw it coming"
  Posted 4 days ago with 62 member flags
Ron Paul In Nevada - The Caucus Is Rigged!! - w/VIDEO
  Posted 6 days ago with 60 member flags