The history of Marxism, Political Correctness, and the "Left"

For the upteenth time. Fascism, marxism, etc, etc are all RELATED. Fascism is a means used to impose socialism. You cannot have socialism without some form of Fascism. If you all who try to separate the two into opposite camps would do some research, find the definitions of the terms, and see how they have been applied throughout history, you would see the relationship.

Just because the Nazis', who are called the fascists in your high school history books, did not like the communists does not mean they are polar opposites. It just means idiots and those with agendas write school text books.

They were both socialist, and they were both fascist.

There are different ways to see it. The polar-opposites way is the way its taught in school. So when talking to someone programmed by school, one uses the polar-opposites model in order to be understood.

[edit on 8-10-2009 by Skyfloating]

My reply was NOT directed at you, sorry if you took it that way.

It was for those who continue to use the nonsensical assumptions "Right is Fascism, left is Marxism/Communism/Socialism" when "arguing" their points.

They are all ideas that are used as a means of social control in varying degrees and almost always in conjunction with one another. Marxism, etc are societal ideologies which relies on the political ideology of Fascism for implementation.

No society will ever have full WILLING acceptance of "social justice" programs and laws thus imposition and a central power are needed to create and enforce them .






[edit on 8-10-2009 by I_am_Spartacus]

It didn't and I never claimed it did?



Again I never said it did. My comments were not about the vid but peoples ridiculous desire to cling to left/right labels that do nothing but add another division between people, and give them excuses to hate and feel an illusory superiority to others.



I just made a general comment on the fallacy of left/right labels.



So after all that, we agree then?

[edit on 10/9/2009 by ANOK]

Not true, except for them being political systems, fascism and socialism are polar opposites, and if you can't see that then you don't understand.

Socialism is 'the workers ownership of the means of production', fascism is an authoritative system generally lead by a dictator. Hitler was NOT socialist, read Mein Kampf. The means of production was privately owned, which is capitalism, and they used military to impose authority which is fascism. Socialism supports neither. Government owned is not socialism it's nationalism, which is a part of fascism. When private industry and government work hand in hand that is fascism.

It has nothing to do with what is taught in school, or opinion, but what actually happened in history. It's seems you are MSM educated.

Saying they're the same is like saying a semi-truck is the same as a moped because they both have wheels and are transportation.

Whoever started this Hitler was left crap was seriously misinformed and probably had an agenda to distance the right from such past evils.

[edit on 10/9/2009 by ANOK]

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]

No it's not. Your views are statist. You can't see beyond there being a 'state' system.

Socialism is the 'workers ownership of the means of production', and that is the goal. It is NOT even distribution of wealth, it's just a system that rids the worker of having to work for someone else at the minimum wage that industry is willing to pay. Socialism shares the profits made by ALL the workers involved directly with the workers, instead of through a third party private owner. How the scale of pay will work within that framework will be up to the individuals working in that industry, and the economy. The workers will benefit directly from their labour, increasing the motivation to work harder. Capitalism motivates the hourly wage worker to do the least they can get away with, much like the 'boss' will pay the least they can get away with regardless of profits made.

So no need for a central anything to decide what's 'fair', that is required by capitalism.

Sorry but you're not as smart as you think you are, thanx for the rude comments though.

Well, one could argue that "Never is EVERYONE in a society going to support capitalism" or any other ideology for that matter. So, is fascism needed to get the job done in a capitalist society?
Plus, there's no reason to call Anok ignorant.

I would say a good chunk of human history shows many cultures living in socialist type tribal communities.

And they were "lead" by a few leaders with centralized "dictatorial" power and if you as an individual went against the "group" you were banished, etc.

Utopia does not and has never existed. the closest we have ever come was the true free market system during the early part of the countries existence and sporadically since. And yes the "corporatism" that we have today (which so many think is what capitalism is supposed to be) is as far from a "utopian" ideal as marxism.

That's not true in all cases. You also never answered my first question where I replaced capitalism for socialism.

Not true, except for them being political systems, fascism and socialism are polar opposites, and if you can't see that then you don't understand.



[edit on 10/9/2009 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 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]

That may be your new and enhanced definition of marxs' dream but mine is reality. Yours just solidifys my point that it is a utopian fantasy.

Lazy is as lazy does, the only system where profit is the motivator of hard work is capitalism. You will NEVER get a whole group of people to do the same amount of work per hour, day etc, nor is that measurable. Are you going to have equations that compares feet of ditch dug to amount of screws made to blades of grass cut to get a "fair" wage that millions of "workers" are going to agree on? Laughable!!!

[edit on 14-10-2009 by I_am_Spartacus]

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



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.

You are confusing true "classical" liberalism (which the majority of our founding fathers believed in) with the current warped, bastardized definition.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by I_am_Spartacus]

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.